Hasselblad 100mm lens- W/Makro bellows, good?

[john_rogers3]

I am thinking of buying the 100mm CT* lens for general use, full-body

and waist-up kind of shots, aerial work, archetectural detail, etc.

I understand the lens to be very good for these things, but my

pressing question is, how does it do using a hassey makro bellows

(mine has dual cable release) I am told it was designed to be best not

focusing extrremely close up, that it was designed to shoot from

space at infinity, yet it is virtually distortion free, edge to edge.

anyone use the 100 with bellows for makro work, not serious serrious

makro work, but for clients that are not expecting ad agency quality

necessarily. real world general makro work. thanks for sharing your

experience! I have read threads, but have not come across one that

addresses my question exactly. joh

[michael_heal]

<p>Hasselblad has published many macro pictures taken with the normal 80 mm C and CF lenses. Take a look at those. Hasselblad has said that the 100 is a little better than the 80 when pressed into macro service. Still, it is not a macro lens, so the results will certainly not compare to those a lens such as the 120 CFi Makro could supply. See also <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000PxL&topic_id=35&topic=">this thread</a>.</p>

<p>BTW, how big are these products? If they are more than about 3 inches tall, you won't get the entire object in the picture with this setup.</p>

[john_rogers3]

Mike,

 

thanks for your reply. Products I shoot range from tiny , but are

generally about 2-3" tall, as tall as 6" maybe, small enough that a

regular hassey lens is basically worhless, due to minumum focusing

distance being too far away. what is your experience with the 100mm

lens in the non-macro work i desc above? it seems like i could really

get a lot of goood use out of 100mm, and was wondering if it could be

decent, beter than 80mm with bellows. If i cant shoot anlthing talleer

than 3", I can see where the 120 would be an awesome lens, but a bit

spendy. I corresponded with kornelius several times. He recommended

the CFI with a newer body. the newer body accounts for 50% of the

anti-flaring due to dark, velvety interior VS greyish, more shiny

body interior on 500cm for example. I also spoke with ernst weegan,

my repairman, and he said the flaring problems with non-cfi 120 lenses

is grossly exagerated, adn not even an issue in his mind. so on one

hand kornelius is suggesting to add a late model hassey body to my

arsenal with a CFi 120 makro, and ernst is saying to even get a C 120

makro. that is why I was wondering about the 100mm because it could

be useful in other arenas theat the 120 would be, but not in the field

makro work. I wish I could see first hand before spending all this

money. Maybe i can shoot some with my 80mm or 150mm on bellows and

see what that looks like. I know that a macro lens is engineered for

close-up. part of the equation is that i have a really nice nikon

makro 105mm lens, so i do use that, but want to get into med format

macro with my hassey. I like the fact that the 120 Makro is so

useful in the field without any bellows, as well as being a tack-sharp

portrait lens, and great for larger product shooting at closer

distances (5-20' shooting distance) thanks Mike. j

[mike_daly]

Hi John,

This sounds to me like the perfect job for the 135 makro-planar. It can only be used with the bellows. It's designed for makro but can be used from ratio 1:1 to infinity - all on the bellows. My understanding of the 100mm is that it's the perfect lens for architectural type photography but not ideal for close-up work. See if you can hire the 135 f/5.6 CF lens to try it. I have found it supurb. It does require stopping down to about f/8 for distant shots however. Regards,