dave_jenkins

Speaking of heavy and bulky, by the way, you don't know heavy and bulky until you handle a 40mm Hasselblad Distagon-C.

I have both Hasselblad and Pentax and use them both for different reasons. As a commercial photographer, having a body that will take a Polaroid back easily and conveniently is a necessity. Yes, I can put a Polaroid back on a P-67, but using Polaroid with the Pentax is neither easy or convenient.

 

Most of my work is done with the Hasselblad, but, going against my own advice on ease and convenience of use, I do wide-angle work with a Pentax 6x7 and 45mm lens for two reasons: (1) the combination costs about the same as an old chrome 40mm C non-T* Distagon, and (2) the Pentax 45 is a far better lens than the Distagon 40. It may not be better than the latest Distagons, and is probably not better than the SuperWide's 38mm Biogon. But those lenses cost two or three times as much as I paid for the Pentax & 45mm lens. I can put up with some inconvenience if the price is right. Besides, I really like the 6x7 format for architecture, which is what I mostly use the Pentax 45 for.

 

In my opinion, Hasselblad is the best all 'round medium format system, but the Pentax 6x7 has no peer as a field camera.

David, it's my impression that the KL lenses are not better, but rather that their quality control is more consistent. In past years, Mamiya had a reputation for producing some pretty inconsistent quality, although their best lenses were quite good. Personally, I owned two 50mm wide angles for my RB, and both of them were dogs. I was so disgusted I got rid of the whole system. I miss the 6x7 format, but not the weight of the RB system. (I went back to Hasselblad.)

 

If you could personally test the lenses you are considering, you might very well find that a 127mm C lens is fine. I had a 127 that was a beauty, even though it was so old that it was not even a C. But the next lens that came off the assembly line after it might have been a dog.

 

So the moral of this story is: test! Buy from a local dealer with the understanding that you will return the lens if it isn't up to par. If you buy from an out-of-town dealer, be sure there is a return privilege. Then test, test, test. Take pictures of a sheet of classified ads taped to the wall. Shoot a brick wall. And shoot lots of pix of the things you normally shoot. Use a sharp slide film such as Velvia or Provia, a good tripod, and examine the transparencies carefully with a quality magnifier. Return any lens that doesn't measure up and try again until you find a good one.

 

Or pay more money for a KL with better quality control. (Then test anyway, just in case!)

I'm a commercial photographer and a very satisfied user of Maxwell screens (in Hasselblads). You truly can't do better. Bill will custom-make a screen to fit your requirements and his prices are very reasonable. A word of advice if you call him on the phone: Bill is extremely knowledgeable and interesting to talk to. But he does love to talk.

I ditched the AcuteMatte screens in my 500CMs in favor of Maxwell screens, and I'm very pleased. The AcuteMattes are excellent; the Maxwell screens are even better and cost a little less.

 

The Brightscreen and Beattie screen are bright, but lack contrast to my eye. I used one for a while in a Mamiya RB-67, but went back to the original RB screen. It wasn't as bright, but it had more contrast and so was easier to focus.

 

The best screens available are the AcuteMatte and the Maxwell, but the Maxwell is better.

I love the 6x7 format; in fact, I prefer it to 6x6. So if you will shoot 6x7, by all means keep the GS-1. On the other hand, I'm in love with the size, weight, and handling of my Hasselblad. And Hasselblad lenses are "sweet spot" from corner to corner.

If I could have only one medium format lens to use for the rest of my life, it would be the 60. If I could have two, I would choose the 60 and the 150. Those two lenses would handle probably 90--95% of the photos I want to make. My camera happens to be a Hasselblad, but I think the 60mm Zeiss Distagon is pretty much the same lens in the Rollei mount.

 

I've owned a 50 in the past, but for me it was neither fish nor fowl -- it was always too wide or too long.

 

A great working set of lenses in 6x6 format, if you can afford them, is 40, 60, 100, and 150. But as I said, I can do most of what I want to do with the 60 and 150.

I'm 62. I can focus quickly or I can focus precisely, but I can't do both at the same time. I have Maxwell Precision Optics -- the finest screens made -- in both my CM bodies, but I would go for autofocus in a New York minute.

If you got a really good price on it, you could have a competent machinist enlarge the opening to 645 size.

The only difference I can tell is that the D is a little brighter. I

have two AcuteMatte screens to sell; a D with grid lines and

split-image focusing aid for $225 and an AccuteMatte standard for

$100. Both are in excellent condition, in the original plastic cases.

E-mail me at ljenkins@vol.com or djphoto@vol.com if interested.

Carsten, I just got one of my 500CM bodies back from Bill Maxwell, but

haven't had a chance to check it out thoroughly yet. He installed one

of his screens and fine-tuned the whole focusing system. I'll post

more information after I've made a few tests.

Mike, if you're comfortable with the regular folding finder, there's

no reason why you shouldn't use it. It certainly makes the camera

more compact. My own preference is for the 45-degree prism because I

find the camera more comfortable to hold that way than at eye level.

You really need to handle all three and see what feels best to you.

David, I also favor longer lenses for landscapes. A good all'round

compromise focal length for your Mamiya would be either the 150. which

is equal to a 100 on 35mm, or the 210, which is equal to 140mm on 35.

Joe Zeltsman was a well-known portrait photographer and teacher of the

same a generation ago, but I had never heard he had a set of lights

named after him. Who made them?

Oops! Missed your last name in my previous post. You should never

use anything but Xenars and Xenotars!

The f2.8 Tessar was probably the worst lens ever put on a Rolleiflex.

The Tessar design is great down to about f3.5, but can't handle f2.8.

I have just put together a Hasselblad outfit with 500CM bodies and

black C T* lenses (40, 60, and 150), and cannot imagine that you would

not be pleased with them. If you were happy with the Xenar on your

Rolleicord, you should be very happy with the Zeiss lenses for

Hasselblad and the modern Mamiya and Bronica lenses. Lens for lens,

though, the Rollei TLR will always be a tiny bit sharper because of

the film path. H'blads, Mamiyas, and Bronicas all put reverse curves

in the film path, so the film never lays quite as flat as in a Rollei.

Bob, there used to be a mail-order place called Spiratone which had

many pages in all the photo mags. They carried TLR accessories right

up to the end, but went out of business several years ago. I

understand they are back in business, and may have a small ad in

Shutterbug (I have the Sept., '98 issue at hand and found an ad on

page 38 with an e-mail address: spiratone@juno.com). Also try

Porter's. I have had best results for this kind of thing by looking

in the junk boxes at photo swap-meets.

Scott, I tried a Beattie or Brightscreen in my RB (can't remember

which--it was some months ago) and found that although it was brighter

it was actually harder to focus because of lower contrast.

 

<p>

 

I'm now using Hasselblads with AcuteMatte screens and feel they are

much better than whatever I used in the RB. The AcuteMatte is bright,

but also has good contrast. For me, the Hasselblad is nearly

impossible to focus with the old-type screens, and these 61-year-old

eyes are even having some trouble with the AcuteMattes. It may be

time for me to look seriously at Pentax or Contax autofocus.

 

<p>

 

I had never heard of the Maxwell screens until I read about them on

this thread just now, even though Bill Maxwell only lives about a

hundred miles from me. I think I'll check him and his screens out.

A shift will not help depth of field. For that, you need tilts. The

only MF cameras I can think of which offer this feature are the Rollei

SL66 and the Fuji 680.

 

<p>

 

In practice, the movements of a view camera are seldom needed badly

enough in landscape work to make up for the slow operation and general

nuisance of using one. That's how I feel about it, but it is a very

personal thing and many photographers prefer the slower, more

contemplative approach of the view camera.

That's good advice, Gene, but I think he would be a lot better off

with an incident meter.

If this outfit really exists and you decide not to buy it, please let

me know where it is! The 50 and 150mm lenses together are worth

almost as much as they are asking for the entire outfit. A realistic

price for all this equipment would be in the neighborhood of $5000US.

I don't think you'll regret getting the 1800 if you can afford it, but

it's more light than you need for your stated purpose. You'll

probably be making most portraits at f8 or f11. As for which

device gives the softest light, it depends on the size of the light

source and its distance from the subject. A 30-inch soft box and and

a 30-inch umbrella will give about equal softness if used at the same

distance from the subject. The important differences between soft

boxes and umbrellas have more to do with the controllability of the

light, such as spill, feathering, etc.

I'll have to confess to being a lens junkie, but when I first began in

photography I had a Yashica TLR and a Nikon F with two lenses. I

learned that whenever I picked up the Nikon, it always had the wrong

lens mounted. But whenever I picked up the Yashica, it always had the

right lens.

The standard method of comparing coverage of different formats is by

the diagonal of the frame. This method gives inaccurate information,

because most medium format frames have a different height to width

ratio than 35mm. Only 6x9cm has the same ratio.

 

<p>

 

What you really need to know to make an accurate comparison is the

side-to-side coverage: that is, the horizontal coverage from one side

of the frame to the other. This makes comparison easy. Going from

6x6 and 6x4.5 to 35mm or vice-versa, the ratio is 2:3. That is, a

lens for 35mm would need to be 2/3 the focal length of a lens for 6x6

or 6x4.5 to give approximately the same side-to-side coverage. A 50mm

lens on 35mm will cover about the same as a 75mm lens on 6x6 or 645; a

100mm lens for 35 will cover about the same as a 150 on 6x6/645. The

60mm lens on my Hasselblad covers about the same side-to side as a

40mm lens on a 35mm camera. (The 60 is a great lens for formal

wedding groups.) My 40mm Hasselblad lens is just slightly wider than a

28mm for 35. The very popular 50mm lens, considered by many to be the

standard MF wide angle, is actually only slightly wider than a 35mm on

35(about 33mm).

 

<p>

 

For 6x7, the ratio is 1:2. The 180mm lens on the RB67 I used to own

is equal to a 90 for 35mm and is a great portrait lens. The 50mm lens

for the RB gives about the same side-to-side coverage as a 25mm lens

on 35mm.

I tried a Beattie or Brightscreen (can't remember which) some months

ago in my RB67. It was brighter but had less contrast and was

actually harder to focus. Since returning to Hasselblad I have

installed an AcuteMatte screen in a 500CM body and it is wonderful!

It is both bright and contrasty. The difference between it and the

old-style Hasselblad screen is truly incredible.