carstenw wrote:
Chrome or black? I think you should move to Germany before I buy it, so I don't have to pay 25.7% upon import and take a half a day off work to pick it up at the customs office
Tis chrome, I didn't want the paint wearing off so I went with shiny.
I'll come visit Germany next year for Photokina perhaps!
Grenache wrote:
Love me some 503CW. I just wish there was a cost effective untethered digital back. I don't have the time to process film these days.
Jim
The 16MP Hasselblad back can be found for not too much money, but it is of course 36x36mm. There is the Kodak back, and maybe Sinar e54 LV, also for just a few thousand (2000-4000).
Yes, the newer ones are expensive, but you don't need a 50MP back to get something out of these cameras. In fact, the tolerances are probably problematic for the higher resolutions. I you don't need to shoot wide, then the CFV16 and a 60/3.5 or 50/4 might be a good deal. I think Lloyd Chambers has a review of one somewhere.
Wow, this thread is turning into a great hands-on on which Hasseblad to buy and why. I am not there yet but it looks as a classic 500CM:ish would be the thing if I take the step. And preferably a 50 or 60mm lens. Havent figured out yet how to do the mm-conversion square MF vs 2x3 FF. But I figure the 50 would be around 28mm.
wfrank wrote:
Havent figured out yet how to do the mm-conversion square MF vs 2x3 FF. But I figure the 50 would be around 28mm.
It's really no reason to "convert" the focal lenghts. The square aspect ratio makes more difference than the angle of view itself, in my opinion. I find 50 mm on 24x36 very narrow because I almost always want to cover more on the short side. 80 mm on 56x56 is almost exactly the same AOV horisontally, but since you get the same vertically, it feels much wider.
The 80/2.8 lenses are cheap as well, so a nice combo could be 50 + 80.
wfrank wrote:
Yes, the 80 seem common goods. Indeed a 50+80 or 60+80 would be nice. Or if found perhaps just the 60. Better so if it ends up on the shelf :-)
The 80 can be found for 300-500 or so, depending on the model and condition. The 50 is more like 500, and the 60 is higher, maybe 700-800. You can of course get lucky with any of these.
For me, the divider feels larger than 1.6. Maybe 1.75 or so. The 80 is kinda like a normal lens, but feels a little wider. The 50 is wide but not that wide. The 60 is more in between, maybe something like a 35 or a bit narrower. I would recommend to start with the 80 and go from there. Make sure you get a good price so you don't lose money if you sell again, but the focal lengths don't have the same feel as on 135 format, so you need to try them out. Are you a 35 or 50 fan?
The Hasselblad 80mm at f2.8 is more or less identical to shooting a 35mm at 1.2 on FF (or a 22mm at f0.8 on aps-c) and cropping your image to square, if that helps anyone visualize it.
carstenw wrote:
For me, the divider feels larger than 1.6. Maybe 1.75 or so. The 80 is kinda like a normal lens, but feels a little wider. The 50 is wide but not that wide. The 60 is more in between, maybe something like a 35 or a bit narrower. I would recommend to start with the 80 and go from there. Make sure you get a good price so you don't lose money if you sell again, but the focal lengths don't have the same feel as on 135 format, so you need to try them out. Are you a 35 or 50 fan?...Show more →
Thanks. I thought I was a 35mm person but now it's more like 28. I have trouble finding use for 21. 50 is great but not what's on my cams most times. In the other end I think you know I am pretty fond of a certain CY 100/2.
In all it sounds like I should go for MF 50 but need to see how it looks real life.
wfrank wrote:
Thanks. I thought I was a 35mm person but now it's more like 28. I have trouble finding use for 21. 50 is great but not what's on my cams most times. In the other end I think you know I am pretty fond of a certain CY 100/2.
In all it sounds like I should go for 50 but need to see how it looks real life.
Maybe this will help you visualize it with your current gear:
If you shoot at 17mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 40mm lens on a Hasselblad.
If you shoot at 21mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad.
If you shoot at 25mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 60mm lens on a Hasselblad.
If you shoot at 35mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 80mm lens on a Hasselblad.
If you shoot at 50mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 120mm lens on a Hasselblad.
If you shoot at 75mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 180mm lens on a Hasselblad.
p.s. in terms of DOF, the Hasselblad image will be about 2.5 stops shallower at the same aperture as your square cropped FF image.
douglasf13 wrote:
The Hasselblad 80mm at f2.8 is more or less identical to shooting a 35mm at 1.2 on FF (or a 22mm at f0.8 on aps-c) and cropping your image to square, if that helps anyone visualize it.
That might well be true, but I think this way of thinking about it only helps if you actually go into your library and try it on your photos. The thing is that we compose with the available width strongly in mind, and the square format tends to give you more "air" than you are used to, for a given width. This is what makes the Hasselblad lenses feel wider than one would expect by examining the math.
Wilhelm, the lenses tend to feel wider than you expect, so I wouldn't necessarily go quite as wide as you think. The 50 might be a good bet, but then, 60 might feel more right in the end. Maybe go to a second-hand store and play around with the lenses a bit. Any decent rental centre should have some Hasselblads.
Or meet up with Martin to see his 80 and what it feels like. The 80 is a really nice lens.
carstenw wrote:
That might well be true, but I think this way of thinking about it only helps if you actually go into your library and try it on your photos. The thing is that we compose with the available width strongly in mind, and the square format tends to give you more "air" than you are used to, for a given width. This is what makes the Hasselblad lenses feel wider than one would expect by examining the math.
Wilhelm, the lenses tend to feel wider than you expect, so I wouldn't necessarily go quite as wide as you think. The 50 might be a good bet, but then, 60 might feel more right in the end. Maybe go to a second-hand store and play around with the lenses a bit. Any decent rental centre should have some Hasselblads.
Or meet up with Martin to see his 80 and what it feels like. The 80 is a really nice lens....Show more →
If you have a gridded screen or something, it's easy to take out your current setup and estimate how you'd shoot Hasselblad. Heck, I used to have a custom screen for my A900 that I'd put in the camera to shoot square that had the square format masked off. Worked pretty well with center weighted metering.
Or, if you have a live view camera, you can try the lenses that I recommended and just mask the LCD screen to square to simulate the same field of view.
douglasf13 wrote:
If you shoot at 35mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 80mm lens on a Hasselblad.
If you shoot at 50mm on a FF camera, and then crop the image square, that'll give you the approximate view of a 120mm lens on a Hasselblad.
100mm Planar... underrated sweet spot. Also one of the more difficult lenses to find at a decent price.
wfrank wrote:
What do you do for metering Martin, or are you so comfortable so you feel the light? :o)
I use the very small Gossen Digiflash (Digisix is the same but without flash metering), which unfortunately is quite expensive. I chose it only because it's so small (smaller than a Solstickan matchbox!).
wfrank wrote:
Thanks. I thought I was a 35mm person but now it's more like 28.
Then I'd go for 50 or 60 mm. I was offered a Distagon 60/3.5 in good condition for 3.000 SEK a while ago, so prices can be reasonable.
Edit: But hey, if you want to try MF you could borrow my Pentax 67II with 55/4 if you want to. Or the 'Blad. Send me a PM and we'll arrange something.
Now is not the time, but maybe for Martin: a 50/4 T* is locally available for 300€, looks like it's in good shape. Another one charges the double.
Me on the other hand will focus on a kitchen/hall/floor/wall condo renovation in the range of 10.000€.
Martin, wouldnt it look darn good on your black beauty and didnt you mention the 50+80 as a killer kit? Coffe and biscuits of your choice is on me when I later have a FOV look, you pick the café ok?
