Hasselblad portrait kit
Martin Francis
left me deciding that for all it's pluses I still can't get by with a camera
that heavy. So now considering a Hasselblad 500CM.
So, questions:
I could do with a telephoto lens; preferably something good for headshots
etc. without reverting to extension tubes and so on. I have access to an
older chrome 150mm via the shop I work at but haven't actually handled it
yet. I know the older lenses are supposedly inferior, but i'm poor. Will it
focus close enough?
A favourite photographer of mine used Hasselblad gear (since switched to
Pentax 67, but best not go into that). His lenses of choice were 60mm and
120mm. Given that many of his shots are celebrity headshots, i'll assume the
120 in question is a CF macro, which would take up most of my budget even at
used prices. How does the 135mm macro compare?
Finally, what are the pros and cons (aside from the obvious) in using the
110mm f2.0 against the 80mm f2.8?
--
Martin
Staring at C:\ prompts since 1993
John Halliwell
<removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> writes
>OK, still considering replacing my ETRSi, a few minutes with a Mamiya RB
>left me deciding that for all it's pluses I still can't get by with a camera
>that heavy. So now considering a Hasselblad 500CM.
Hi Martin, have you considered a Bronica SQ-Ai or SQ-B?. Some good deals
out there new and relatively cheap used, might help if on a budget.
Although the PS 150mm may not focus close enough (the 135 & 180 seem
better in this regard).
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Randall Ainsworth
> I could do with a telephoto lens; preferably something good for headshots
> etc. without reverting to extension tubes and so on. I have access to an
> older chrome 150mm via the shop I work at but haven't actually handled it
> yet. I know the older lenses are supposedly inferior, but i'm poor. Will it
> focus close enough?
There is no Hasselblad lens that's inferior. The 150mm works just
fine for portraits. I used it in my studio for many years for
head-and-shoulders to full length...inside and outside. It's a bit
sharp for portraiture, even wide open so you'll need some sort of
diffusion to cut the imperfections in your subjects.
Q.G. de Bakker
> So, questions:
> I could do with a telephoto lens; preferably something good for headshots
> etc. without reverting to extension tubes and so on. I have access to an
> older chrome 150mm via the shop I work at but haven't actually handled it
> yet. I know the older lenses are supposedly inferior, but i'm poor. Will
it
> focus close enough?
The minimum field of view without resorting to tubes is 39 cm square.
But do grab that opportunity and try the lens! The old lenses are not
inferior to the new lenses. Some of them do not have T* multicoating but
have a single layer coating, which in the "wrong" circumstances (strong
backlight) would produce a bit lower contrast. But that's it. Apart from
that they're every bit as good as the new ones.
> A favourite photographer of mine used Hasselblad gear (since switched to
> Pentax 67, but best not go into that). His lenses of choice were 60mm and
> 120mm. Given that many of his shots are celebrity headshots, i'll assume
the
> 120 in question is a CF macro, which would take up most of my budget even
at
> used prices. How does the 135mm macro compare?
Very well, but you do need a bellows or the (discontinued) variable
extension tube to be able to use the lens at all!
The f/4 120 mm Makro-Planar is an excellent lens too. It is a very common
lens, and can be found in its previous guise, the f/5.6 120 mm S-Planar
"C"-version for not too much.
> Finally, what are the pros and cons (aside from the obvious) in using the
> 110mm f2.0 against the 80mm f2.8?
The obvious being that you need a 2000 series camera to be able to use the
110 mm? And that good 2000-series cameras are getting hard to find (compared
to 500 series cameras)?
For headshots they both are just too short. Unless you like that perspective
of course.
As a general purpose lens the 110 mm is sometimes a bit too long already.
But then, you could also say that the 80 mm sometimes is a bit short. Again,
it all depends on your likes and dislikes. A 60 mm lens combined with a 110
or 120 mm lens would make a good combo. The 120 mm lens would be my choice
over the 110 when you need a lens to do headshots.
I do prefer the 250 mm lens over both 120 and 110 mm lenses for (tight)
headshots.
Martin Francis
news:9obfyJACTZb$Ew...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> Hi Martin, have you considered a Bronica SQ-Ai or SQ-B?. Some good deals
> out there new and relatively cheap used, might help if on a budget.
> Although the PS 150mm may not focus close enough (the 135 & 180 seem
> better in this regard).
Thanks John, but i'm sort of hoping to leave Bronica behind. My loaned
Contax 139 has turned me into a Zeiss fan.
Martin Francis
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:210920030515043582%r...@nospam.techline.com...
> There is no Hasselblad lens that's inferior. The 150mm works just
> fine for portraits. I used it in my studio for many years for
> head-and-shoulders to full length...inside and outside.
I'd guessed I wasn't going to find any lemons in the CZ lineup, and I even
like the older lenses' default EV lock in some ways. However, i've done a
little more research since I started the thread and i'm thinking a moderate
wide and a macro might be more my style; the 120mm f5.6 C looks like a top
notch lens, and I bet I can get a good deal on one.
A couple of things I hadn't noticed before;
a) the 135mm is a bellows lens.
b) the 110mm is for focal plane bodies as opposed to having the ol' in-lens
shutter.
c) the 120mm f4 (very expensive) isn't the only macro lens in the lineup.
So if I go 'blad, i'll go with a 120mm and either a 50mm or 60mm.
> It's a bit
> sharp for portraiture, even wide open so you'll need some sort of
> diffusion to cut the imperfections in your subjects.
Softening ain't my style...
Randall Ainsworth
It may not be your "style" but if you're selling to people the whole
point is to make them look better than they do. Tough to do that when
the images are tack sharp with zits and wrinkles intact. You don't
need an Imagon, but you do need to cut it a little bit.
You'll find a 120mm on square format gets you too close for a good
portrait perspective. But at least you're dumping those crappy
Bronicas.
Steve Gombosi
Martin Francis <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>OK, still considering replacing my ETRSi, a few minutes with a Mamiya RB
>left me deciding that for all it's pluses I still can't get by with a camera
>that heavy. So now considering a Hasselblad 500CM.
>
>So, questions:
>I could do with a telephoto lens; preferably something good for headshots
>etc. without reverting to extension tubes and so on. I have access to an
>older chrome 150mm via the shop I work at but haven't actually handled it
>yet. I know the older lenses are supposedly inferior, but i'm poor. Will it
>focus close enough?
The 150 C is optically identical to the CF (and more recent CFE). The only
difference between the C and the CF is:
1) Multicoating. The older lens is single-coated and therefore slightly
more prone to flare in backlit situations.
2) The CF has a Prontor shutter, the C lens has a Synchro-Compur.
The CFE has an electronic databus to connect to the metering system in
the 203 and 205. You don't care about that. It has improved baffling
to cut down on internal reflections and further reduce flare. Having
owned a 150C, I can assure you that it's not "inferior". It would be
impossible to distinguish a photograph taken with a 40 year-old 150C
and a brand new 150 CFE under most circumstances.
The 150 will not focus *quite* close enough to do a really tight headshot.
You'll need a 16mm or a 21mm extension tube for that. Having said
that, you should realize that the 150 was the "gold standard" for
medium format portrait lenses for decades.
Since you have access to a 150, why don't you test it and see if you're
happy with it? There's no substitute for hands-on evaluation of a piece
of equipment on the kind of photography you actually do.
>A favourite photographer of mine used Hasselblad gear (since switched to
>Pentax 67, but best not go into that). His lenses of choice were 60mm and
>120mm. Given that many of his shots are celebrity headshots, i'll assume the
>120 in question is a CF macro, which would take up most of my budget even at
>used prices.
The 120 is a wonderful lens. I use a 120 CF quite frequently for portraits,
although many people prefer a slightly longer lens. I actually traded
my 150 for it, but that's because I was doing a lot of macro work at the
time. If I were primarily a portrait photographer, I'd probably opt
for either the 150 or the 180.
>How does the 135mm macro compare?
It is intended as a bellows lens - it has no focusing helicoid. You'd
have to get either a bellows or the variable extension tube to use it.
>Finally, what are the pros and cons (aside from the obvious) in using the
>110mm f2.0 against the 80mm f2.8?
The 110 can only be used with the focal plane shutter bodies. You can't
use it with a 500-series body. It's not an option for you.
A better comparison would be the 100 f/3.5 vs. the 80. Many people
consider the 100 to be sharper, particularly wide open.
Steve
John Halliwell
<s...@niwot.scd.ucar.edu> writes
>The 150 C is optically identical to the CF (and more recent CFE). The only
>difference between the C and the CF is:
>
>1) Multicoating. The older lens is single-coated and therefore slightly
> more prone to flare in backlit situations.
>
>2) The CF has a Prontor shutter, the C lens has a Synchro-Compur.
Does this have any issues with parts availability and repair? I seem to
remember Hasselblad UK saying some time ago that some early lenses could
no longer be repaired, but they would give the original purchase RRP
back against the purchase of the new version.
I can't remember the details exactly though, and my H'blad history is
not good enough to know where the C lenses sit historically.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Does this have any issues with parts availability and repair? I seem to
> remember Hasselblad UK saying some time ago that some early lenses could
> no longer be repaired, but they would give the original purchase RRP
> back against the purchase of the new version.
>
> I can't remember the details exactly though, and my H'blad history is
> not good enough to know where the C lenses sit historically.
The availability of spare parts rumour is true. However, there are many old
C lenses that can be slaughtered to get spare parts in still usable
condition. Though i doubt Hasselblad will go that route. Independent repair
shops may.
C lenses, introduced in 1957, were discontinued and replaced by the CF
version 21 years ago.
Steve Gombosi
John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bkr7lo$q4b$1...@niwot.scd.ucar.edu>, Steve Gombosi
><s...@niwot.scd.ucar.edu> writes
>>The 150 C is optically identical to the CF (and more recent CFE). The only
>>difference between the C and the CF is:
>>
>>1) Multicoating. The older lens is single-coated and therefore slightly
>> more prone to flare in backlit situations.
>>
>>2) The CF has a Prontor shutter, the C lens has a Synchro-Compur.
>
>Does this have any issues with parts availability and repair? I seem to
It may. Some parts for some of the C lenses are no longer available.
>I can't remember the details exactly though, and my H'blad history is
>not good enough to know where the C lenses sit historically.
They're the oldest lenses for the 500 series bodies.
Steve