cameron_ertman

My vote would be to go with the 1.4XE since you will only lose one stop of light as opposed to two (making the lens a 100mmf4.5 as opposed to an f5.5). Something else to consider is that Hasselblad's 1.4X can only be used with lenses with a focal length of 100mm or greater, while the 2X can be used with pretty well all Hasselblad lenses (a limitation if you want to use the converter with the standard 80mm lens). As far as sharpness goes, both converters are capable of producing great results. I find that when I am using the 1.4X, I hardly notice it is even on the lens (a nice bright image), while the 2X makes the image slightly darker and thus a bit harder to focus.

I guess "perspective" may be the wrong word; however, what I mean is that, given the same distance from a subject, a wide angle lens will make distant objects (e.g. distant mountains) appear much farther away than forground objects. With a telephoto lens, the distant background objects will appear larger(compressed effect). Hasselblad's 100mm lens has close to zero distortion, and when I use that lens and look out on a landscape with definite forground and background objects, the relationship between the forground and background in the viewfinder seems to be exactly how I see the scene without the use of a lens. If I want the background to be less prominent, I will use the wide angle, if I want the background to "come forward" I'll go for a longer telephoto. It is kind of hard to explain, but the 100mm seems to render a scene in a very "natural" way.

I guess if you already had it checked by Hasselblad and they said it is "normal", they should know; however, it sure doesn't sound normal. My 50mm CF/FLE has as smooth and easy a focus as any of my other CF Hassy lenses. The only time I find more focussing resistance is when I'm out in minas 20 degree weather! While the focus ring on the CFi/CFE lenses is easier to turn, I actually prefer a bit more resistance as found on the CF lenses.

The 100mm does focus closer (without tubes) than the 80mm. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the repro. ratio for the 100 is definately greater. One thing that I really like about the 100mm lens is its ability to accurately represent the relative dimensions in a scene (i.e. when I look out on scene, what I see with regards to perspective is very close to what I see in the viewfinder).

I agree with Daniel. While there are third party tubes out there (I have mostly seen them on E-Bay), you cannot expect the linkage to be of the same quality. If you use only one tube, this may or may not be a problem; however, if you do any stacking with the tubes (Wildi only suggests stacking 3 Hassy tubes at the most), you could find that your camera will end up jammed. Hasselblad tubes are not cheep, but, as mentioned, they can routinely be found on E-Bay for around $100.00.

Audun, length choice for tubes really depends on what you intend to photograph. Personally, I like the 32 and 56 tubes since together (with the 100mm), you are getting fairly close to a 1:1 reproduction ratio. I have also used the converters along with tubes on my 180mm. My vote would be for the 1.4X converter since you only lose one stop of light (hardly noticeable with the 100mm/3.5 lens. It is nice to use the converter next to the lens, and then the tubes behind that (next to the camera), so that you can get a bit more distance between the front of the lens, and the subject (the 1.4 converter, in effect, makes the lens a 140mm optic).

I use the 100CFi as well as the 180CF with up to 88mm of extension. IMHO both lenses are exceptional for this application. I also noticed a noteable improvement when I used the tubes with the 100mm compared to the 80mm (could be due to a flatter field of view because of the slightly longer focal length). It is easy to become obsessed with using ONLY macro lenses for macro work; however, as stated elsewhere in this forum, most high quality non-macro lenses will have similar image quality compared to a macro lens, when looking at the center of the image. Macros have the advantage at the edges. I find that unless I am photographing something completely flat (e.g. a 2D piece of art work), the macro lens would be wasted on me. Most of my close-ups are details in nature that are rarely flat, and I can always use a small aperature for greater depth of field to create the illusion of sharpness. That said, the 120mmCfi or Cfe version is reputed to be excellent for close-up details. I just wish it would have a greater reproduction ratio on its own, and without the use of tubes. It would also be great if it was better at infinity (Hasselblad doesn't even recommend using that lens with the 2X converter at infinity...I assume it has to do with the quality of the image that can be obtained).

I think that the split screen is definately the way to go (I purchased one a couple of years ago and it took all of the guesswork out of focusing). Making sure you have a viewfinder that has an adjustable diopter is another step towards good focusing. Could camera movement or mechanical issues be another source of problems since it sounds like you are already going "the extra mile" with regards to focusing?

George, the reputation of the 250SA is outstanding; however, one reason I went with the 180mm was that it focuses MUCH closer (I don't have my lens notes in front of me but the 180 and the 250SA have a respective repro. of something like 1:6 compared with 1:9, and the 250cfi also focuses closer than the 250SA). I suppose you could put a tube on the SA and still get excellent results. If fairly close focusing capability is not an issue, the SA can't be beat.

If the "scratches" are internal, they could be lens fungus (very thin lines that could look like scratches). Fungus could etch the glass eventually; however, if the fungus is old, the damage is probably already done. The advise about leaving it probably still holds true.

I use the 180mm with the "newer" version of the 2X and the 1.4X. Both converters produce exceptional sharpness and clarity when combined with the 180mm (with only a one stop light loss with the 1.4X, the viewfinder image is still nice and bright; also, I highly doubt that the older 2X mutar is any better than the new 2X...at least mine works great). Also remember that Zeiss (not Hasselblad) recommends this lens for close-up work as an alternative to the 120mm and the 135mm when you need to work farther away from the subject, or when you want a narrower angle of view in the background area. All in all, the 180mm is exceptional.

Godfrey, I really enjoyed your (very comprehensive) web site. The SWC B&W work is also excellent (you have a great "eye" for composition and tone). As an answer to Robert's question about the Hasselblad 40mm lens distortion etc. compared to the 38mm SWC, I have the following observations:

1. I find that when I am using the 40mm lens, the image I see in the viewfinder and on film looks a lot more like a typical WIDE angle view (i.e. there is a very pronounced curvature of the field of view as the image approches the edges of the frame). The SWC manages to include approximately the same viewing angle, and yet there is far less curvature in the field of view. Basically, if I want items in the background to look much smaller than items in the forground, I will reach for the 40mm.

2. I use the groundglass/reflex viewfinder most of the time with my SWC, and what I find really interesting is that the SWC's image in the viewfinder is significantly brighter than the 40mm's image of the same scene (the SWC lens is a f4.5 while the 40mm is a f4.0, you would think the opposite would be true if you looked through the reflex finders).

3. I use both lenses and systems. They both have their speciallized uses; however, I think that the SWC is a camera I will never sell!

I picked up an old German made meter designed to be used for cameras in the 1950's or so. The meter is only about 1.5 inches by 1 inch, and has a shoe mount on the bottom. The meter also does not require a battery. Since I use the focus screen for my SWC and not the viewfinder, I simply slide this small meter into the shoe mount on top of the camera. The meter is quite accurate after I calibrated it using the sunnny 16 rule, it is very light weight, and it only cost about $5.00. It works great for me, although if I was working with color transparency film, with its short latitude, I would want to bracket exposures.

The CF180mm is a super sharp lens which I use not only for hand-held portraits (with fill flash), but also for close-up work 1:2 and even approaching 1:1 with tubes where I want more distance between the subject and myself (Zeiss actually recommends this lens and set-up in their write-up about the 180mm). The 180mm is also an outstanding performer at infinity, and it works great with the 2X converter which was actually optimized for this lens. An extremely universal lens...what more can I say.

Since you can simply "move in" and meter with the 203 to take a spot like reading, or use a longer focal length lens to effectively narrow the meter's reading area for longer distances, I really do not see the big advantage of the 205 over the 203 for that reason alone. However, the 205 does have the Zone System mode for taking multiple spot readings within the scene and may be worth it to you for that reason. When I am doing critical zone work, I find it easier to simply use a hand held spot meter to take multiple readings and leave the camera on the tripod.

We are getting a bit off topic with regards to Battery Life; however, I am obviously not suggesting getting out the hammer and screwdriver and opening up the 203. The project described is quite straight forward...especially since Hasselblad actually made the first version that you can still see a picture of in your manual. When asked, Hasselblad said there was no in-line resistor or anything that complex in the design. It is just a straight electrical wire going from a 203 battery holder plug to a four AA battery holder. Just be sure to attach the +,- side of the AA holder to the +,- side of the 203 holder(not too difficult to figure out if you look at how the regular 6V 203 battery sits in the holder). Funny that the lawnmower should be mentioned, since my next project will be converting my lawnmover engine to a portable 6V generater for my 203 (for extended use in sub zero temperatures at the South Pole)!!

I actually had input from Hasselblad on the external battery project, and they made one version for me (similar to my previous description) that I later adapted to better suit my needs. I was also told by Hasselblad that the 203 does have a protection circuit in case polarity is reversed (i.e. you put its regular battery in backwards); however, I would not want to put that to the test with the current that comes from the 4AA batteries. I would also STRONGLY suggest using a long (one meter) very thin wire (slightly larger than telephone wire) for the project as that wire will restrict the amount of current flowing to the 203. I think that if Hasselblad had not originally offered an external battery pack, I would not have attempted my own version for this expensive piece of equipment. Daniel is correct though, BE CAREFUL, and I might add, get advise from the very helpful people at Hasselblad(Sweden)if you need to. I should also add that I have used a fresh (regular) battery in the 203 in minas 25-30 degree temperatures for up to an hour at a time with no problem, and if you keep a spare battery warm, and replace the one in the camera once in a while, you may not need the external pack for cold weather. In my case, I wanted to have an axillary source of power for my 203.

Make sure all of the contacts for the battery holder are clean. You can use the eraser from a pencil to rub the pos. and neg. contacts to ensure they are spotless. I'm not sure if that is the problem, but I do know if electrical equipment sits for some time(especially with batteries in place), the contacts can get some oxidation on them that you may or may not be able to see...if it is contacts, an eraser will do the trick.

I did some experiments with my 203 and found that when the shutter ring is set on B and the meter function ring is set on M the meter will not be activated even if the AE lock switch is accidentally pressed. I found that any other combination (e.g. shutter on C and function on M or anywhere else)could cause the meter to be turned on by the AE button. It is nice if you do not have to remove the battery since you loose any programing (A.S.A.etc.)each time the battery is removed. BTW, the external battery pack was discontinued a while back, and is not available at this time; however, you can make your own battery pack by connecting a wire from a spare 203 battery holder to an external battery holder (Radio Shack has these)that holds four AA batteries(6Volts). IF YOU CHOOSE TO TRY THIS, BE SURE TO ATTACH THE WIRES CORRECTLY IN ORDER TO GET THE POLARITY RIGHT (+,-)OR YOU MAY DAMAGE YOUR CAMERA!!!I have had the 203 in minas 25 degree weather both with its regular battery, and the home-made battery pack...no problems with either set up.

The zoom is tempting; however, it may be a bit slow (4.8) for quick focusing on children. My personal favorite for children is the

180mm(CF). It is a full one pound lighter than the zoom, it allows you to move back a bit from the subject, and yet blurs the background nicely (great for head and shoulders). While the CF lenses do not register on the 203's digital screen like the FE lenses do(not a big problem BTW), you have the option of using the lens shutter for higher flash sync. speeds (very useful for fill flash outside). If you want to stay with FE lenses, the 110mm, or better still for portraits, the 150mm will be far superior to the 80mm (better separation of forground and background). Perhaps go with the zoom for now because of the price (it may also be a good general choice for landscapes...depending on your style), and then purchase a second (faster) lens later on if you find the zoom is too slow or heavy. BTW I think you're really going to enjoy your 203FE...it is extremely well designed, and very intuitive to use.

Benny, I know that one of the Hong Kong sellers on E-Bay states that their new equipment comes with a blank International Warrantee card which means that Warrantee work will be honored anywhere does it not?(when I buy Hasselblad from Cayman Camera (the Cayman Islands) or from a source in Canada, I get the same International Warrantee card). I have no direct experience actually getting warrantee work done however, so you could check with Hasselblad to see if International Warrantee cards are honored in the US.

If you use the polarizer in combination with the Hasselblad Pro Shade, or even the regular Hasselblad lens hood, there is no problem. The polarizer uses the inner bayonnett mount while the Pro Shade or lens hood uses the outer bayonnett mount on the lens(the shade sticks out the same amount no matter how many filters you have stacked; however, the stacked filters do keep getting longer so to speak, so they could cause a problem as was already mentioned.

As a point of interest, I could never really tell by just looking through the viewfinder if my 50mm FLE's ring was correctly set; however, the other day, I was focusing on some distant trees with the 40mm FLE and the trees seemed slightly out of focus. At that point I realized that I still had the FLE ring set at its closest distance. As soon as I set that ring to infinity, the trees were crisply defined. Probably the 50mm FLE would show similar results...I guess that ring does do something after all. The moral of the story: If you get the FLE version, don't forget to set BOTH rings.

So...let me get this straight, Blad is still making these Millenium editions that have a very limited market, but real equipment like the 500mm APO that is actually used is being discontinued...someone at Hasselblad needs to give his or her head a shake. Perhaps we need some special Millenium lenses that have been discontinued...at least then they would still be producing them!

Richard, having said all of that, I think I forgot to answer your question. Yes, the 203 is an excellent tool that would speed up the metering process; however, I read an article not too long ago where the author went back to his hand held meter because he began taking the in-camera exposure recommendation too much for granted. He found that he was far more accurate with his hand held unit because he was forced to slow down a bit and really think about what he was metering. There could be some truth to that. If you can swing it, you can't go wrong getting both cameras as you stated earlier. On another note, last night it went down to about minas twenty where I live. I was glad I had my mechanical (non battery dependent) 501cm with me.