ben_attb

Sony A7Riii has a full frame sensor. My question was more pertaining to crop sensors such as APS-C. Does anyone on the forum have experience with MF lenses on crop sensors?

Has anyone tried Hasselblads on a crop sensor?

What are the disadvantages in using a medium format lens on a APS-C or smaller sensor? We know that medium format lenses tend to have less resolution than their FF or APS-C counter parts. Some claim that lenses with much larger image circles cause light to bounce internally and therefore a medium format lens on a much smaller sensor is prone to more flares. Is this true? Are there any other things you can think of?

Those lenses are unfortunately too slow and not as wide as I'd like. If speed was not a concern, I would go with a Zeiss Contax 645 35mm f3.5. Perhaps there are fast FF Nikkor's with larger image circles?

Hi I am looking for a fast wide lens (35mm or wider) with an image circle that covers a piece of film that is 6 cm x 3 cm. The mount is not important. I looked into the Pentax and Mamiyas but they are f3.5 which is too slow for my use. Any leads in the right direction?

I really appreciate all your comments. I'm going to buy both lenses and put them to the test at f/4.

If anyone has one for sale, please send me a DM. Broken or defect copy is also ok.

tom_chow Thank you clarifying. Do you know if the 180mm @ F4 performs significantly better than the 150mm FE @ F4? From the MTF curve, it looks like the 180mm performs better even at F5.6, but again, that's judging from a theoretical curve. The key word to me is contrast, not sharpness. Since I don't have both lenses, I'm not able to compare them side by side.

I am looking at the following lenses: Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5 Mamiya 645 35mm f/3.5 N Contax 645 35mm f/3.5 Which one would give the best contrast and sharpness? Is there a difference between how wide they are? The lenses are being adapted to another lens mount so that's why I'm asking. I am not able to find any MTF curves on the internet. I read the Pentax is the sharpest out of the bunch but no way to confirm this.

Thank you orsetto for the very detailed answer. I really do appreciate it. You're a mind reader: speed and character are my top priorities. I've read many things about the 180mm F4 and that's it not that different from the 150 f/2.8 or f/4. However the MTF curves tell a different story, especially contrast, which makes me wonder. For me absolute sharpness is not as important but I think good contrast and flare control in a lens makes a difference because it affects the colors as well. Does anybody on this forum have a different experience with both these lenses?

Hello I'm selling a custom rehoused version of the Hasselblad Sonnar CF 4/180 for both still and cinema use. Unlike the original lens, it has 300 focus rotation so focus pulling can be extremely precise. It also comes in PL mount for cinema use. For Hasselblad users, it works on all Hasselblad 2000 and 200 series cameras. The lens is brand new, it's never been used. It costs thousands to rebuild, but I'm selling it for only 2000. Send me a DM if you're interested.

Thank you orsetto. Leaf shutter doesn't matter to me as I only use focal plane cameras. My three criterias are speed, sharpness and contrast. I guess my real question is, does the performance of the 180mm FE justify the extra stop of light that you loose? According to the MTF curve, the 180mm CF performs better at F4 than the 150mm FE at F5.6, but I have zero experience with neither of them.

Hello About these following two lenses: Hasselblad 150mm 2.8 FE Hasselblad 180mm CF 4 I have a Hasselblad 2000 series camera. MTF curve says the 180mm is a better performer at F4. Other than the difference is speed, does anyone know if there is a noticeable difference in contrast and sharpness between these lenses?

Problem solved. They glued a small piece of wood to the shutter pin. Had a lens technician open up the lens and remove it. It was probably installed to prevent the shutter rom ever being accidentally. They used wood since it doesn't scratch or damage the lens. I tried it on my Hasselblad and it's now working.

Thank you for all the replies. I didn't expect so much useful information and insight. To answer some of your questions, the current sets of IMAX lenses are rehoused Hasselblad H glass. ARRI's Prime 65 lenses are also rehoused Hasselblad H glass while the 765 vintage lenses are rehoused Hasselblad V glass. The Prime DNA lenses are custom made. I can tell you that's definite because I know some folks at ARRI in Munich. My Hasselblad lenses are not rehoused and they were only slightly modified for large format documentary use. The aperture is working but it is not declicked. It looks like they inserted something into the pin which is probably why I can't mount these lenses on my Hasselblad 2000. I will talk to a lens technician and see if I can have it removed. I will keep you posted.

Thank you orsetto for the very detailed reply. My Hasselblad lenses were specially modified for IMAX cameras and originally came in a different lens mount that sat on top of the Hasselblad V mount. I unscrewed the lens mount and only left the Hasselblad V mount. They simply don't want to mount on my Hasselblad 2000. I noticed that the "cocking pin" (or whatever is called) was altered. I've never seen a cocking pin that looks like that on a normal Hasselblad lens, even the F or CF models. I'll try to attach the lenses on another Hasselblad body to test, but for now, it does seem to be the lenses that are causing the issue.

Hello All of my Hasselblad lenses have thing next to the cocking : None of the lenses will mount on my Hasselblad 2000. The lens lock release button simply won't release or "click". Is that the reason? If so, what can I do? Can you buy a new Hasselblad mount as a part?

Thanks for your advice. I have started to read some advice on this forum regarding slide projection. Some say there is no difference between 6x7 and 6x6 when projected, then other say there is no difference between 6x6 and 6x45, then some claim there is not much difference between 6x4.5 and 35mm when projected. It's a slippery slope and I don't know what to believe anymore. Anyway I will try to project 6x6 and 6x45 to see if which one I prefer. Cheers.

Chauncey. I am totally confused. Most people say there is no noticeable difference projecting between 6x6 and 645, except for the aspect ratio. If you don't have a square photography projection screen, you will be projecting it on your wall or a normal movie screen. So is then 645 not a better format to fill in the wider-than-tall aspect ratio?

Peter: Do you notice a difference between 645 and 6x6 when projected? Gary: That's true but as I am not doing any vertical shots, trying to stick to horizontal, that will be not be relevant for me.

Thanks AjG and dennis brown. Now, would it actually not make sense to shoot and project 645 over 6x6 since most projection screens are actually wider than they are tall? Like the projection screens made for movie projectors or presentation are 16:9 or wider. They are not square. Same with white walls. A landscape shot in 645 would fit that screen better than 6x6 no?

Nobody wants to chip in?

Hi Has anybody seen 6x6 slides and 645 slides projected side by side? I am looking to get a 645 camera, shoot slides and project them. I like the 645 format better than 6x6, however I am going for the "WOW" factor of the 6x6 projected slides. Assuming a very sharp projection system and a midsize wall, will there be a significant difference in the image quality between filling a wall with a 645 slide and then with a 6x6 slide?