tariq_gibran

Thats just not true, particulary at fast shutter speeds of 1/250 or 1/500 sec with normal to

wide angle lenses. Also keep in mind that the 500 series does not have an instant return

mirror, you return the mirror after the exposure when you wind on to the next frame. Now if

your shooting handheld at 1/60 sec or slower your not going to get critically sharp photos

with either system handheld but the Mamiya would most likely would have the edge. If your

at all concerned about sharpness, then you would shoot at a very high shutter speed and or

be using a tripod to begin with.

As far as build quality goes, I'll just add that I was impressed by the construction of the

Mamiya 6 lenses but not by the body itself. One thing which really irked me was the lack

of attention to detail as far as the film rail finishing was concerned. I like to print full

frame with clean edges and my Mamiya 6 never gave clean edges like a Rollei or

Hasselblad. The winding mechanism also felt flimsy and it is one of the well known

achelis heels of the Mamiya 6 and 7. The V system Hasselblad bodies are much better

made, no question. Choice with these two systems is more about the pluses and cons of

Rangefinder vs. SLR and which you prefer to work with. If you know what your doing, you

can easily change films(Chrome or color neg.) or process B&W neg. differently to get

whatever color renditon and contrast you want from either systems lenses.

The C blade edges are slightly curved, not straight like CF aperture blades. Thus, at say F4,

5.6 you will get a more rounded than octagonal shape. As you stop down, things become

more octogonal with the C. Compare and you will see this.

The SW Biogon is legendary and, of course will give you a much wider angle of view than the

50 G on the Mamiya. So, your choice really comes down to Angle of view in that case as

there is a HUGE difference between a 38mm and a 50mm lens. Performance wise, the

Mamiya 50 G, like the Biogon, is not an inverted telephoto wide angle but a true wide angle

lens and performs incredibly.

I have tested threee 80 Planars in the past year, one CF and the other two later C but not

T*. What did amaze me about the three was that on a light table with Velvia, I could not

see the T* advantage and the color rendition was the same with all three. That impressed

me. I'm sure if I had done a Flare test, I might have seen the T* advantage. My CF was

one stop sharper than the older C lenses, both of which were optically perfect with no

dust, ect. Interestingly, focused at infinity, I might have seen a slight difference of objects

at infinity sharpness wise between the older C and CF lenses in that while objects say a

100 yards or so where clearly sharper with the CF, objects at the furtherest distances may

have had a slight edge with the C. That makes me wonder if its possible that Zeiss

somehow optimized the later CF for distances slightly less than infinity and that the older

lenses might be optimized at infinity. I had previously thought that all 80 Planars were

optimized for Infinity. Anyway, thats my experience. I think the CF 80mm Planars are the

best deal going right now personally.

My testing distance was infinity for the Planars and about 50 feet for the Distagons both shot

on a nice sunny florida day. Depth of field was not a variable with the distances I tested at. I

have yet to own the 100mm(and I understand it is supposed to be phonemenal sharpness

wise) but did own the 110 FE which was not special sharpness wise but had a great look wide

open nonetheless.

I test a lens by shooting Velvia and scanning at 4000 dpi on a Polaroid 120 scanner. On a

light table, all these lenses I mentin look tack sharp but scanning at this resolution with a

glass holder and scrutinizing the image at 100% on screen, differences can be seen with

almost every lens sample to sample. My recent test was with the Planars last week. I shot

both at every F stop on a Tripod with Velvia under the exact same conditions. On the light

table, side by side, exposures were identical except for some variation between the two

lenses at 1/500 sec. which was at F2.8. Only at F8 did the older C Planar(later 7 element

ver.) equel the CF at 5.6. The rest no contest. The CF was just sharper at every F stop and

at F8 when it reached optimal sharpness, the C just could not compare. Yes, I know how

to set the secondary focus ring on a FLE and all my tests with that lens were shot beyond 4

meters so that ring was always left at infinity. The 60mm CB was far inferior to the better

of the two 50mm FLE lenses I tested so perhaps it was just a bad sample as the 60 has a

great reputation. My only point is that yes, even with Zeiss, there are Good sample lenses

and then there are GREAT sample lenses. On a light table or smaller b&w prints, all will

look great. But if you are scanning at a super high resolution and printing at 3feet or

larger, then you will see these differences.

Both are great. The Mamiya 50 G is an incredible lens. The 75 just so so. At least that

was the case with the two example I once owned. I could shoot the 50 G right into the sun

with almost no flare whatsoever... and it was super sharp. I ended up selling the Mamiya

just because I prefer a SLR to a Rangefinder as I really like seeing exactly what the lens

sees, depth of field and all. I also prefer the interchangeable backs of the Blad. My feeling

on lenses are that each and every lens is unique and some of the same brand, vintage,

focal length will be sharper than others. I have shot with so so Hasselblad lenses,

particularly a poor 50mm FLE CF and 60mm CB, yet I also owned the same vintage 50mm

FLE CF which was tack sharp and the equel of the Mamiya 50mm G. Most 80mm Planars

are great but I have seen a one stop variation between samples as far as sharpness goes

(with an older C Planar being one stop behind i sharpness to a newer CF example). In fact,

the CF Planar was outstanding even at F4 and was the sharpest lens I have ever seen at F8.

So, each lens is unique. In general, I find my Zeiss lenses contrastier than almost anything

else yet they still somehow maintain good micor detail. Most of the lenses from Japan

(Bronica, Mamiya, Pentax) seem to have a lower contrast but smoother look. The Mamiya

6 lenses may be an exception to this stereotype though as its lenses are pretty contrasty.

I tend to agree with Michael Axel and stick with purchasing from individuals with

impeccable feedback and not dealers or people who tend to buy and sell the same stuff. I

will say that I had a great buying experience from Jacks Camera though and recommend

them. Sometimes the Shutterblade descriptios seem overly optimistic given the actual

photos of the items they are selling so I would buy from them only with a big grain of salt.

Prices fluctuate dramatically on Hasselblad gear. Its a fairly small market and both the

supply and demand of gear at any one time on ebay can change drastically which is

reflected in the see sawing prices. Patience is required ....and spending a lot of time

browsing newly listed possible Great deals offered as "Buy it Now". The better deals on

500 series cameras are almost always as a complete back, body and lens and finder. I saw

a kit go for under $400 a few days back. For that, you could sell the lens and end up with

a body for under $100 investment!

Yes Oscar, that is the interior coating cracking and in your photo, notice how it is a light grey

color. It originally had a deep black felt appearence. If you compare the balckness of your

interior to an early Hasselblad, you will see that the earlier one now is blacker. Thats why I

say this manufacturing flaw(using a bad material which would deteriate quickly over time)

ironically probably causes more light reflection(Flare) in the body than those cameras without

it.

I can just say that my experience with a perfect shuttered 2000FC body(no wrinkles) in great

physical shape was that the shutter curtains were out of adjustment and even after

adjustement by Hasselblad, I could still see that each frame shot was not consistant in

exposure with unevenness accross the frame. I would avoid the 2000 series unless you can

pick one up cheaper than a 500CM body. Then if the shutter does go south, just use it as

you would a 500 with CF lenses.

I would be suspect of buying a used 503CX with the Palpas internal coating not just due to

the fact that it tends to crack, but worse the coating actually develops a white appearence

and dust as it desintergrates and ages. This acutally could lead to MORE FLARE than the

earlier models without this Palpas coating. Thats what I noticed on one I once owned. The

real question then becomes when was this coating improved or can we expect all later Blads

to eventually develop an issue such as this. If it was improved as I expect, then how does

one know what years are affected. I would be suspicious of any late 80's, early 90's bodies

which have Palpas coating at a minimum.

What is missing which is not so apparent(or is it?) is the very spirit and soul which Victor

Hasselblad created. The slow, painful death of the V system and the evolution of the H

system into a closed sytem in which even the recent H1 and H2 bodies will not be

compatible with any newer lenses made going forward(nor will those multi thousand dollar

3rd party digital backs for the H1/2 be compatible with the H3D!). As a long time

Hasselblad user, its really sad and pathetic that I can use my 500C/M body with lenses,

backs, ect. from over about a 50 year period but one of the poor H system users who

invested in Hasselblad is being left out in the cold. Boy would I be pissed if I had bought

into that system. I certainly would NEVER buy a new Hasselblad after this move and by

snubbing their nose at their own user base, I bet they have just signed their own death

certificate.

You definately will want to check it stopped down using the depth of field preview which will

work with the lens off the body. It is not too uncommon to come by a 110 which will not

close down and that would require a $200 CLA by Hasselblad to fix. Thats exactly what

happened to me with this lens...and I discovered many others.

There was a version 1 of the fixed lens cameras prior to the Version 11 so I would guess

thats what they mean. For some reason though, I thougt it was not readily exported to the

US.

Lens to lens sample variation is a very real issue even with Zeiss lenses. Not sure if that

explains the distortion discrepency between Pop Photo and Zeiss but, as I recall, Zeiss

actually tests production lenses for their data. I don't know if the published tests represent

just one sample or some sort of statistical average. It would be interesting to hear from

someone who knew the answear. Could it be that Pop Photo simply ended up with an

extemely fine example of this lens?

Larry, keep in mind you are only using the central part of the lens if our using a digital

back. From what others have said, the slight differences in quality show up towards the

edges of a 6x6 frame which would account for your expereince.

Simon, just to be clear on the pluses and minuses, the 80mm CB lens is not optically the

same as the other contemporary 80 planars mentioned and might be considered inferior

optically to those. Same with the 150mm CB. It's the 60mm CB which is choice in this

range.

I think this really comes down to what you shoot, how you prefer to work and what size

prints you wish to make. Taking these one by one:

1)Digital excels in studio situations and with things which are closer rather than further

away, film excels with distant landscapes which might contain things such as foliage,

grass and intricate high frequency detail such as tree limbs and branches. This is due to

the problem inherent with the interpolated colors and anti aliasing of current CCD's. That

problem also shows up in fine close high frequency detail such as hair. The only solution

is extremely high resolutions such as the current 22MP+ Digital backs and even those are

just now coming close to the best medium format film can give in the above situations at

extremely high cost. I also personally believe that Digital B&W pales in comparison to B&W

film.

2)Do you like to shoot fast or slower with more contemplation per shot? Do you prefer

immidiate feedback or not? Do you shoot a lot of wide angle work(another failing of

Digital) or normal to long? Do you prefer an immidiate hard copy archive of your

work(FILM) and or processing your own film traditionally or do you like to sit in front of a

computer editing/processing your work for hours and burning multiple backups now and

for every 5-10yrs that the backup technology changes?

3)Do you print smaller sizes or do you print extremely large. Capabilities of Digital vs.

Film as regards print size will be determined by film choice, scanning ability and the

subject matter in no. 1 above. I can easily print 36"x36" prints from scanned Velvia or

B&W(Acros for no grain, Tri-x for grain) from medium format film. To get the same

quality from digital would require at least a 33MP digital back in my opinion and

considering the above 2 points. For smaller color prints up to say 12"x18" or so from a

10MP DSLR, Digital works nicely.

Thats my take anyway after shooting both for many years. I do my own scanning on a

Polaroid Sprintscan 120 and print with an Epson 9600.

I recently purchased a Domke F804 knock off bag made by Safrotto for about $45

including padded insert. This is one great bag and extemely well made. Its taller than

wider and suits My Hasselblad equipment perfectly with three compartments - one for

body,lens back, the other two for lenses, meters, etc. There are also two very large

pockets on the front which will easily hold plenty of film, filters and additional backs.

Whats very nice about this design is that its extemely compact AND, unlike most other

heavily padded bags, is very comfortable to carry as it is flexible enough to conform to

your body somewhat. I'm a bag-a-holic, and have accumulated and used many bags

looking for that perfect one. This is the one I use all the time now - and it was the

cheapest! Here's the guy I bought mine from:

http://photography.search.ebay.com/_Bags-Cases-

Straps_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsacatZ107894QQsassZphoto18

18

I shoot both Digital in the form of a Fuji S2 and have shot and scanned medium format

film from everything from a Mamiya 6, Fuji GSW690 11 and my Hasselblad with various

lenses. I scan on a Polaroid 120(Microtek 120) scanner at 4000 dpi and output to an

epson 9600 wide format printer. The S2 is great for mostly commercial work which will

not be critically printed larger than 12"x18" or so with the best technique used.

Resolution is equivilent to roughly the current 8-10MP DSLR's. To double the resolution,

one would need to quadruple the megapixle count all else being equal. Thus, 32MP

minium to get the quality I'm used to seeing at the sizes I'm used to printing from my

Medium Format equipment which is 24"x36". Thats using a very good lens carefully

used with either Velvia or Fuji Acros. This is for tack sharp landscape prints and that is

exactly where the interpolated colors of digital sensors are the worst. Most of the

comparisons one reads about or sees are of defined lines such as in buildings OR are of

close up studio work. Digital excels in both cases. Throw some grass, foliage, distant

tree limbs and branches at a digital sensor and it will never beat medium format film in

any current DSLR. I think it would take the 33+MP digital backs to equel the best medium

format film can offer.

Not practical experience but from what I have read, there is no sync cable required as

Hasselblad is somehow using the metal pin on the back of the camera which detects if a back

is attached to somehow trigger the digital back.