jrsmith

<p>Chris</p>

<p>Most of your worries are needless. If you get (as I would suggest) a Hasselblad CFV-39 or CFV-50 digital back you will have absolutely seamless integration with your 500 C/M and whatever lenses you might have. With the CFV backs no wires or cables are required, they are self powered and do not need to be tethered, and the battery lasts a long time.</p>

<p>I have been using a CFV-39 exclusively for the past two years and it has been terrific. I have a total of four Hass bodies (a 1959 500C, two 1970s 500C/M and a SWC) and it works perfectly with all of them. You do not need any modifications to the bodies. All the old 'Blads were very well made and are accurate enough for digital. Your worries about the lenses are also needless. All my glass is the old 'C' Zeiss lenses (I collect the silver lenses) and they are great. Just the same as with film, I have far more problem with user error than any weakness of the glass! The CF and CFE wide versions might be a little better, but you will not see any improvement on the 'C' 80mm Planar or the 150mm Sonnar, so save your money.</p>

<p>You certainly do have to be a lot more careful about deciding exactly where the plane of focus should be than we ever did with film, but that is not a weakness of the lenses or the back, but rather indicates just how good they are. If you can afford it, and you are embracing the philosophy of digital image processing and printing, you will be amazed and delighted by the results.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>The crop factor is indeed the biggest issue with the CFV-16. You are still shooting square format, but using just the centre of the image circle. In some ways that is OK - the best part of image quality is in the centre - but there are several snags. Most importantly, your wide angles are no longer wide. Your 50mm is your new "standard" lens. Another real concern is that the screen area used for composition is now much smaller, which is a real pain if you use the WLF a lot, perhaps not so bad with a prism.</p>

<p>I was never tempted by the CFV-16 for those reasons. If you wait around for a bit, you might well get a CFV-39 at a nice price, now they have been discontinued.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>It's too late now, but the one thing I would have done in that situation would have been to swap out the battery. And the CF card, too, but one at a time. My CFV is very sensitive to battery condition, and unfortunately starts doing weird things well before you get a low battery warning. And you need to try a clean CF card, re-formatted in the camera.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>I have the CFV-39, which is pretty much the same except for the sensor. I use it quite often for still-life work indoors on a tripod with an ancient silver 120mm S-Planar, with shutter speeds from 1/4 sec to 4-6 secs on 'B'. I don't use a sync able at all, I just let the 500 C/M body wake the back up with the little magazine tab. I set the back to a longer exposure time than the longest one I will be using. I've never had a problem, ever. So I really can't think what on earth is going on with your CFV.</p>

<p>The only time recently I have had a problem with the CFV-39 (not on long exposures) the cause turned out to be a low battery.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Hmmmm. What I would say is that the cost of shutter servicing on these old 'C' lenses seems a lot more reasonable once you have had a go at doing it yourself - and I have, on a lens which was a "junker" anyway. Dismantling the thing down to the level where you can actually get at the shutter is an exercise where you need very good eyesight, enormous patience with very tiny screws, and enough spare bits to replace the tiny little pin or spring which you are bound to drop. It is scary stuff. I can lube the helicoids, take the glass out to clean the inside elements, and change bayonet rings and barrels. But servicing a Compur shutter is something I leave to the experts.</p>

<p>Others may do it a lot cheaper than Hasselblad UK. But perhaps the question you should ask is just how <em>well </em>do they do it?</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>I just got my 120mm S-Planar back from Hasselblad UK at Elstree. The shutter is running as smooth as silk! The cost was £201.60 for the shutter CLA including VAT and return carriage. If you want the helicoids servicing as well you will have to add a bit more on for that.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Thanks for the link. The problem I have seen in my lenses does not look like any of those illustrations, unfortunately. And QG, well I could get a photo of this but it would take ages to set up because the glass has to be lit in a specific fashion to see it clearly.</p>

<p>If you can imagine that you have the circle which is the lens element, and then draw a series of random, very thin, white straight lines across the disc, completely covering it from one side to the other. The lines criss-cross and tend to be thicker and closer at the rim of the lens element, as you would expect. The lines are only visible when strongly backlit or side-lit.</p>

<p>At present I have prepared for the worst and assumed that this is fungus, and the lenses have been quarantined away from my other glass.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>I've got a 120mm S-Planar in for CLA with Elstree at the moment. I'll let you know that damage when I get it back, probably sometime next week.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>The team at Elstree are really nice guys, but they are understandably very wary of taking on the old 'C' lenses. This is because many of the crucial parts needed for the shutters in particular are no longer available to them. So they tend to quote a rather high price, which includes a notional £100 for parts plus VAT, when in fact no parts may be needed. This I think is just to put you off - because of course the process of dismantling and cleaning an old shutter may show up all sorts of faults, or even break something which was already very fragile, which they may not have the parts to fix.</p>

<p>Other folks may well have plenty of NOS shutter main springs and the like, and because they are not official Hasselblad repairers they are free to obtain and use them. John Delera at J D Camtech has tons of this stuff. I've never used him, but he has the gear. I just had a SWC overhauled at Elstree, and it was not cheap, but they did a superb job. It feels like new.</p>

<p>John</p>

Twice this year I have encountered old Hasselblad Zeiss ‘C’ lenses (silver ones, a 60mm and a 50mm) with serious problems in the glass. Has anyone else come across this?

The problem appears as a network or series of very fine, straight lines, which seem to have spread across the glass element. They only show up when a strong light is shone against them from the rear, or when a light is shone across the glass at a very steep angle. Along with the lines there is also a cloudy, milky appearance. I have seen this twice now, as I say, and both times it has been in the middle of a front or rear group, not on the element at front or rear of the cell which could be cleaned. As it is in the middle of a closed cell it is hard to understand how this has happened. Is this some sort of fungus, or if not, what is it?

Both times the lens has had to be retired from service.

John

<p>Mervyn<br>

It's actually not that difficult to clean and lubricate the helicoids on a Hasselblad 'C' lens, so an honest repairer shouldn't charge you much more than an hour's labour for that. Which is what Hasselblad UK do quote for the work - one hour at £80 plus VAT and carriage.<br>

I do my own helicoids, which is fiddly but satisfying.<br>

John</p>

<p>Well, I think Hasselblad were being just a teensy bit cautious here. So far I have seen no sign of the magenta to cyan colour casts that others have reported. Even if I did get them, I work solely in B/W anyhow, so it would not be a problem. There is certainly a degree of softness in the corners of the image which would not do if you were using this lens for copy or repro work. Again, it doesn't bother me because my stuff is pictorial anyway, not technical. And in any case the results are nothing like as soft as the Distagons are close-in. For architectural work at average distances of around thirty to fifty feet, the results I am getting are easily the equal of working with a 500 and the 50mm Distagon. And the SWC is so much lighter!</p>

<p>In fact, I am amazed how well it does work, considering how close the exit pupil is to the sensor and the angle that the light rays must be subtending at the edge of the frame.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Here's another Zeiss question. There are eight set-screws holding the bayonet plate to the rear of the lens assembly. On the early 'C' lenses, there is always a <em>green</em>-painted screw on the immediate right hand side of the red alignment triangle. Why?</p>

<p>By the way, recalling an earlier post - I did get an SWC in the end, and it works just fine with my CFV-39 digital back. I'm having a lot of fun with it.</p>

<p>John</p><div></div>

<p>Q. G. -<br>

Unfortunately I don't have a handy little digi-cam to take a pic of the stamps. Assuming the lens was made (and stamped) in March '67, then what would cause it to go back twice to the Zeiss factory, I wonder? It would have to be something that the local Hasselblad service facility could not fix - more than just a simple CLA or other adjustment.<br>

Now I'm a bit suspicious - this lens is pristine, virtually museum grade, as if it has never been used. Maybe there is a very good reason for that . . .<br>

John</p>

<p>Folks<br>

I have just added a very nice silver 50mm Distagon 'C' lens to my collection. The serial number is 4708515. At the rear of the lens, there is not just the usual one, but <em>three </em>date codes - 903, 912, and 1006. There are also two other unusual marks - a red 'U' which seems to be stamped, and a green 'U' which looks hand-written.<br>

Does any expert here have an idea why this lens should have such an unusual set of marks?<br>

John</p>

<p>Leigh<br>

I am not encouraging anyone else to get a CFV back for their SWC. Nor am I saying that the advice given by Hasselblad is incorrect. I don't know whether it is or not, that's what I want to find out.<br>

I was asking for guidance for my own purposes only. I didn't get any guidance, so I did some more research and came up with some answers. Just in case anyone else was interested, I posted the results back on this thread. That's all. No agenda, no ulterior motive.<br>

John</p>

<p>In case anyone is interested, by 1969 and the black 'C' lenses the backplate will take a CFV back. And I have found a silver lens example from 1966 which is also compatible. So it looks as if all SWC cameras from 1967 at least onwards have the later style backplate.<br>

John</p>

<p>Folks<br>

I recently tried out an early (1959) silver lens SWC, the idea being to use it with my CFV-39 digital back. However, the back will not fit the camera because on the backplate of the SWC (the part that has the serial number engraved on it) there are the usual two raised light baffle ridges - however, the inner one is much thicker and wider than on the 500 series cameras and the CFV will not fit over it. I see that the later black lens SWCs from about 1970 onwards do not have this thick inner baffle ridge. Does anyone know when this change took place, or do all the silver lens SWCs have this problem?<br>

John</p>

<p>Edward is giving the impression that the CFV backs are unreliable on 500 series cameras unless you use a sync cable. I can assure you that this is not the case. I use a CFV-39 with two 500 C/M bodies, and have now shot over 700 frames. The back has never missed a shot, at any shutter speed, without ever using a sync cable.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Glenn<br>

If you are new to all of this (or probably have previously done some photography but with a camera which set the exposure and auto-focused for you), then you do have a steep learning curve ahead. But an enjoyable one, because it puts control back in your hands. And a good old Hasselblad 503 is a great companion and will teach you a great deal as you get to know its little ways. But please, take some advice and do not try to run before you can walk. Never mind flickr and all sorts of clever stuff about intentional over-exposure. Load up some Portra or T-max, set your trusty light meter to the box ISO, and just go out in some good light to shoot some <strong>correctly</strong> exposed frames. Once you can manage that (and I guarantee you will be surprised how hard that is to to do, consistently) you can think about pushing the envelope and getting a bit more clever.<br>

John</p>

<p>Well Glenn<br>

If we are talking about a Hasselblad V-series camera here, then -<br>

All the Zeiss lenses can be set directly in EV from a meter which gives you EV readings. And you can set all the lenses in half-stop increments. So for a reading of EV 12.3, you can set 12.5 on the camera. Having said that, as mentioned by the colleagues above, for B/W or C41 film the nearest whole stop will be fine - I did that for years with perfectly good results. Now I've gone digital, I have to be rather more careful, and use half stops.<br>

John</p>

<p>Never try to take a Hasselblad focusing screen apart. Especially if it is an Acute Matt - that could be a very expensive mistake. Never use solvents to clean them either. The upper surface of the screen can be cleaned in just the same way as a lens, with equal care. The underside is very delicate, and should only ever be lightly brushed with a camel hair brush or similar to remove dust.<br>

John</p>

Yes, Q.G. I couldn't test that out. I think the thread probably is the same, but the eyepiece was really tight and my soft tools wouldn't shift it. You can understand that I didn't want to resort to a hard vice or Mole grips to get it out and damage it in the process. By the way, my NC2 has a date stamp inside, on the prism glass itself - September 1974. Anyhow, I can now use the prism wearing my computer/reading glasses, which was the object of the exercise.

John

QG

you were absolutely right. The lens I had bought replaces the original eyepiece, and is not added to it. I had to dimantle the prism to get at the rear of the eyepiece, when I could unscrew the lockring and remove the lens. There are two screws on the rear casing below the eyepiece, and two more hidden under the leather cover. The actual glass lens in the Hasselblad -1 dioptre ring was exactly the right diameter, and then was a straight swap. Job done!

John

Aha, mystery solved - wrong correction lens. Well, I suppose if the threads are the same, we might be able to do something. Otherwise it's one for the spares box. Bother. Thanks again, QG.

John