Kiev 30mm Fisheye Lens for use on Hasselblad Focal Plane Bodies!
Photo Courtesy of Yen Hsu ([email protected]) Thanks!
Related Links:
Hasselblad extension tube calculator (B&H)
Hasselblad Lubricants Source (posting)
Hasselblad Mounting Plate [5/2002]
Hasselblad Related Posts on Medium Format Digest
Hasselblad User Group Archives
How to Buy a Hasselblad by Lance Karp, Mr500CM
Kiev TTL Metering Prisms for Hasselblads
Shriro (Hong Kong) Buys Hasselblad (5/2003)
Index:
12 back with 220 film tips
12 exposures in 220 backs
120mm Macro Lenses
150mm vs. 180mm Choice
16S to 16 back easy conversion
16S to 16 back conversion notes
24mm Zeiss Fisheye for Hasselblad
200/200x series cameras
202FE vs. 203FE
202FA
203 Models
203 vs. 503 models
203 vs. 205 models
203FE prices drop 40% in USA
205TCC model
250mm APO vs 250mm Lenses
2000 series models
2001 Catalogs - none in USA
2002 catalog changes
40mm Lens Versions
40mm lens filter ideas
500 El/ELM battery replacements
500C - to buy, or not to buy?
503C models
503Cx models
500/x - which 500 model to pick?
500mm lens discontinued
501CM vs 500CM
70mm Unperf Film Mod
905 production (glass?)
Acumatte Screens
Adapting lenses to Hasselblads (30mm Kiev..)
Ansel Adams and Hasselblad
APO Lenses require Great Technique to get Benefits?
Astro Photos Using Hasselblad
Bay 50/60 Lens Shade Tips
Bay 50 is Bay 57 too
Bellows - Non-Auto Bellows use
C lens repair support dropped
C lenses all coated..
C lens information
C versus CF.. lenses for 200/x series
C versus CF lenses
CB lenses
CB 120mm (not sold worldwide)
CB 160mm
CF Lenses Better than C Lenses
Converted Lenses Used on Hasselblads
Coverage of Ground Glass, Prism (91%)
Darkslides - keep them straight!
E series Backs
Extension Tubes (8mm steps..)
Extenstion Tube Field of View..
Eyecups for hassy Prisms ($6..)
Fake Hasselblad T* lens
Flare on C vs CF Lenses
Gliding Mirror System
Grand Tour of Hasselblad's Swedish Factory
Hasselblad Historical Society
Hasselblad Ps and Cs and /M meanings..
Hasselblad's Secret Vees
Hasselblad Sold to Shriro
Ilford Spool Spacing Issues
Kiev Backs on Hasselblads
Kiev Lenses in Hasselblad Mounts (kiev/usa)
Kiev NT Backs for Hasselblad Bodies
Kiev prisms for Hasselblad (see Kiev TTL Prisms)
Kiev stuff for Hasselblad(w. low prices!)
Lee vs. Proshade
Lens dating
Lens Designs Often Unchanged
Lens Names Explained
Lens Serial Numbers
Lens Stamps Meanings
Lenses Sold - C lens sales
Lunar Hasselblad Models (For sale!)
Macro Closeup Calculator (cheap!)
Macro Lens Usage Tips
Magazine storage tips (darkslide out)
Metering Prism Models
Mirror Pads Age, Focus Shifts...
MTBF on Hasselblads
Neck Strap Tips
Nikita Kruschev - A Hasselblad Fan
Panoramic format using 35mm film Back
Philosophy of Hasselblad (marketing..)
Planar Zeiss Lenses - Hasselblad vs. Rollei
Plungercam - Toilet Plunger plus Loupe Lens
Polarizers for Hasselblad (linear)
Polaroid Back Loading Tips
Polaroid Back Cleaning Tips
Portrait Telephotos and Tubes
Reliability of Hasselblads
Repair Prices (Massachusetts)
Replacement Glass Elements for C Lenses
Replacing Light Traps Tips
Sales of Medium Format Off 50% (USA in 2001)
Selenium Metering Knob Handy
Serial Number Tips
Shock of Seeing the First Hasselblad in America (Art Kramer)
Should Magazines and Insert S/N Match?
Sigma makes Hasselblad zooms
Strap for Hassy (Optec)
Telephotos with tubes
Tripod Socket Replacement/Conversion
Underwater Housings
Unjamming Hasselblads Tips
Unjamming Hasselblads Tips (S.K. Grimes)
Using 220 film in 12 Backs (Hasselblad instructions)
Using 220 film in old backs
Using 220 film - plug sources
Vees - Hasselblad Backs..
VHB sold to Investors
Wildi's Hasselblad Book
Winders for 50x series
Xpan Cheaper in Japan
Xpan User Review
Year codes - deciphering camera age
Zone System with Hasselblads
For other topics, use keyword search in browser's FIND box (control-f on PCs or command-f on Macs)...
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
Subject: Re: Machinist / Repairman Recommendation needed
There is a machinist in Toronto Canada by the name of Reinhold Mueller. He
does these conversions. Unfortuneately I have no phone number handy. Check
Directory assistance, The 30MM conversion I remember at $300 plus the lens.
Frank
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999
From: Gary Todoroff [email protected]
Subject: Re: Machinist / Repairman Recommendation needed
The info that you want is: Reinhold Mueller 150 Laird Dr. Suite 304 Toronto
M4G 3V7 Canada 416-467-6992.
I have met Reinhold at a couple of Leica Historical Society conventions - a
great guy and from everyone I have talked to, a fine camera mechanic.
Gary Todoroff
LHSA board member
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev 30mm
Frank Filippone wrote:
> The problem is not how, but Who?.... There is enough documentation on the > process and engineering drawings, and proof in the work that has already > been done. > > What we all need is a mechanic/machinist to actually mill the collar > required and mount the Hassy lensmount ring.........and to do a few more > collars for the next group of Hassy users that want to try this..... > > Any Takers?
Stan Nycz International Camera Repair 816 The Queensway Etobicoke, Ontario Canada M8Z 1N5 Phone: (800) 340-5937, (416) 255-3072 Fax: (416) 255-6236
Reinhold Mueller, 150 Laird Dr. Suite 304 Toronto M4G 3V7 Canada
416-467-6992.
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
From: Cesare [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:Zodiac 30mm (Arsat 30mm same lens)
Hi, Yes I have done this to an Arsat 30mm lens (same as the Zodiac,
more or less) only four or five weeks ago, and it works just fine (
photos taken with it look good too). You HAVE to USE it on the 200x
cameras only (its one of the reasons I want to get my 2000fc/m fixed ( it
went belly-up the other day) if you're handy with milling or know an
enginerring firm that could mill the new collar for you (its what I did,
the cost to me was only 60.00 UKP, plus the new bayonet that's needed)
the rest is plain sailing, well it was for me anyway.
I got some, if notall, my info from a man called Tsun he is a *great
guy* and has all the info one needs to do the job, as its his info not
mine, I don't think its for me to pas this out without his say-so.
(please don't ask me too) a list member "Robert " has a site with
termendous info on most things MF, and info on lens adaptations that
you'll need to Know, his web-site is at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/hongkong.html
What I do have is an EPS file that Harold from germany sent me, he too
has had this done on a 30mm Arsat lens (Kiev), that I could send to you,
I found the info from the EPS file just a little too tight and I would
make one or two slight alterations to what it say's on the EPS file. I
also have a few PDF files showing photos of my finished project. If
anyone wants to see the finished project I could send them.
total cost of project: 169.00 UKP for the lens, 60.00 UKP for the new
collar (you might be able to get theis doen cheaper localy) and the cost
of a bayonet, I used one frome an old Vivitar 2X converter so did not
need one, so for me total cost lens + conversion was 227.00 UKP, around
$358.00 USD. So I just don't understand where KIEV USA (who bulk buy)
justify their $1050.00 USD from, unles they use a collar made of Gold or
something like that.
hope this is of help
cesare
>Has anyone had any experience with the Zodiac 30mm lens adapted to a 'Blad >mount? >Art
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad?
Frank,
The guy I know doing the conversions is Stan Nycz (pronounced Neech) at
International Camera Repair in Toronto. As I remember he was charging
US$300 + the mount. He travels to the US regularly so he can usually
arrange shipping to and from a US address.
Good Luck, Leo.
International Camera Repair
(800) 340-5937
(416) 255-3072
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: LEO WOLK [email protected]
Date: Monday, April 03, 2000
Subject: RE: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad?
>Leo... I think you gave me some info early on... I called them ( now I >forget who) and foumnd out about the rear filter removal, but I thought that >was part of the optical system? > >I have the Arsat Fisheye ( doesn't everyone?) that I wanted converted for >use on a 201 body. And to have the lens mounted in front of a shutter for >use on a 4x5 camera ( need to have the lenshood removed as well) > >Can you please put me in touch with the repair person you know about? > >Thanks > >Frank Filippone >[email protected] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LEO WOLK [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad? >> The conversion I have seen involves machining the mount and replacing it >> with a Hasselblad mount, and doesn't affect the optics in any >> way. The rear >> filters must be removed and not used, to clear the longer mirror on Blad. >> >> Good Luck, Leo.
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: RE: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad?
This is the info as of my conversation with Stan Nych in Toronto.....
If I supply the Arsat Lens, + $450, he will do the following:
Buy a Hassy Lensmount flange from Hasselblad... ( cost is $100 USD, and if
I had the mount flange, he would accept that and reduce the price by
$100.)
Take the Kiev 88 lensmount off the lens.
Fabricate a new lensmount and attach it to the lens.
Re-work the auto aperture to be a manual aperture.
Time to do the repair is 3 weeks.
The lens will have the rear filter removed.... if noit, it will bang into
the mirror.
It is not cheap but a used Hasselblad lens is $4K, so for roughly 15% of
the price of a used lens, I will own a Russian imitation.....
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Kiev 30mm Adaptation
It's unfortunate that the modification of the Kiev lens to fit the 2000
series Hasselblad require the removal of the rear filter setup. I have
decided to go with a Kiev 88 body and 2 film backs along with the 30mm
Arsat for approximately $450. That way I can use the filters when using
120 Konica infrared film or the accent contrast on regular black and white
film. If a user is intending to use only color film, than I suppose the
lack of filters on the 30mm Arsat would make no real difference. For me,
the filters are important. I wish there were a way to adapt to the
Hasselblad system without removal of the back filter. Does anyone know if
the modified 30mm Arsat would also work on the 200 series camera?
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000
From: Cesare [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:kiev lens on hasselblad
>Several months ago someone posted some pictures of a modification to a 30mm >Kiev for use on the 2000 series Hasselblad. If anybody has any more info I >would love to see it. I'm thinking of doing the same. > >thanks! > >Dirk
Hi Dirk,
I've done this modification to my kiev 30mm lens only three or four
months ago, and can show one or two photos of it, the hardest part is to
get an engineer to mill you the new collar to the right size, the rest,
if you're a handy man can be done with no big problem.
Info that will be of help to you is :
Kiev lens register is 82.1mm
Hasselblad register is 74.9mm
you have 7 to 8mm to play with.
cost to me? well here in the UK I got hold of a new kiev88 30mm lens for
�169.00 for the bayonet I got one off an old vivitar 2X,
(hasselblad here in the UK sell it for �47.00) the milling by an
engineer cost me �60.00 (I knew the engineer otherwise �100.00) for the
new collar.
total cost to me was �239.00 I've took photos with it and they look
good, how good? well lets say I had to put in a special order to get
hold of a rare kiev 500mm f5.6 lens on special order, they are rare, how
rare? my 500mm lens has a serial number of 00047 . It came last week
and I'm on my way to modifying that too , well it was the only reason for
me to get it in the first place. the 500mm lens cost me �565.00 new, the
new hasselblad mount will cost me around �45.00 to �65.00. And when I've
finished doing this, I'll start on one of the kiev shift lens.
These modified lens will fit any hasselblad camera BUT as only the 200x
cameras have in built shutters they are the ones you'll need to use the
modified lens with, and on stop down aperture, Notice, Kiev88 lens DO
NOT HAVE LEAF SHUTTERS in the lens. And another thing if you are going to
get any of the Kiev lens to adapt to hasselblad they must be lens made to
fit the Kiev88 or equivalent, NOT the ones made to fit the pentcon. Kiev
offer identical focal length lens for both cameras Kiev88 and Pentacon,
as the pentacon has a register of 74mm. it'll be no good ( I believe).
All the usual disclaimer apply, use this info at your own risk
cesare
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
Subject: RE: Arsat 30mm fish eye lens
Ben.. It was NOT a shop.. the guy is an amateur machinist... he did all
the calculations, engineering diagrams and fabrication himself.
In a nutshell, the rear mount of the lens is removed, the auto aperture
feature ius disabled, a new rear mount is created, and the OEM Hassy
lensmount was attached. Then this new rear assembly is fit over the lens,
and 3 small screws hold it in place.....
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: AW: [HUG] Arsat 30mm Fisheye modified for Hassy 2000 Modification was done by Roskam Optics http://www.roskamoptics.nl/ for 165 Euro incl. VAT and shipping. I had to supply a rear mount (trash extension tube). That is cheaper than a Kiev body and back. (Apart from that my 2000 FC is a better camera than a Kiev, it is reliable and all exposure times are within specifications, ...). Regards Ulrik
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] Arsat 30mm Fisheye modified for Hassy 2000 Dr. Ulrik Neupert wrote: > Frank, good suggestion, I will do some shots with and without filter (give > me some time). I doubt that the filter is really important on this lens. > This maybe different with the Zeiss 30 mm lens where the filters are not > fitted at the rear end of the lens but right into the middle of the optical > system. Ulrik, Hans Roskam's technician, Jaap de Zee, told me that the rear filter definitely had to go. The mirror in the 2000 camera would hit the thing on its way up, causing all kinds of nasty things. He told me that even with the filter removed, he sometimes had to file fractions of milimeters off the filter mount to prevent this happening. Strange though, since Hans Roskam himself was absoluetely adamant that the filter must be used, lest the image quality would suffer. This conflict of opinion was one thing that made me decide to return my 30 mm to Roskam and not consider adapting it to modern Hasselblad mount when i found out it wouldn't fit my fake-Kiev. The filter itself is a planparallel piece of glas, and apart from filtering, all it can do is move the focus back a bit (approx. 1/3 its thickness). De Zee saw no problem in removing it, none of the quality problems Roskam feared, as long as the remounting was done such that infinity focus was maintained. I'm not sure he actually does compensate for the image shift the now absent filter would/should have induced, or that he just goes by the figures (seeing that the mirror is too close for comfort too), adjusting the new mount according to the nominal difference between Kiev 88 and modern Hasselblad back focus distances, and let DOF take care of any imprecisions.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected] To: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected], [email protected] Subject: AW: [HUG] Arsat 30mm Fisheye modified for Hassy 2000 Q.G., what I observed on my modified lens is that when I focus at an object very far away as precise as I can (acute matte D, split image, microprisms) the distance scale on the lens has not entirely reached the infinity mark. I did not make a comparison with the filter on yet. When I sent the lens for conversion I asked Mr. Roskam to retain the possibility to use rear filters because I might need a yellow filter for BlackandWhite. So I think that the technician did not compensate for focus shift. BTW I sent them also the camera which had been serviced at Hasselblad before as reference for optical and physical alignment. Of course I have to be careful not to damage the mirror. The 2000 FC allows me to lock the mirror in the upper position. Ulrik
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] Arsat 30mm Fisheye modified for Hassy 2000 Stuart Phillips asked: > So how close does the mirror traverse to the back of the lens? If Jaap de Zee wasn't telling me things that are not true, close enough to touch (depending on tolerances), even with the filter removed. That's why, so he says, he sometimes has to file off a bit of the Arsat rear filter mount too.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998
From: Tony Chang [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Third party Hassy lens mount
Hi,
Today a friend told me that he knows someone in Macu and Japan who can
modify Canon or Olympus tele lenses into Hassy mount. The best lens to be
modified is Canon 200f1.8 or Olympus 250f2. The quality is extremely good.
Does anyone have experience with this modification?
Regards,
Tony Chang
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998
From: Danny Gonzalez [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Third party Hassy lens mount
Andy Peters wrote:
Today a friend told me that he knows someone in Macu and Japan who can modify Canon or Olympus tele lenses into Hassy mountTony Chang replies:
Kinda useless for those of us with 500-series cameras.
>The cost includes modification may be cheaper than to buy a Hassy tele lens >and not mentioning at larger apeature.
Considering that the theorhetical price H'blad would charge for a CFi250/2
has got to be above $50,000USD, it would be a truly expensive modification
that isnt 'cheaper'. I've owned the Olympus 250/2 in Mam645 mount for many
years now; use it and love. Believe you me, it's not useless.
Danny Gonzalez
From: Harald Finster [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Should I buy a fisheye lens???
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999
Ken wrote:
> Should I buy a fisheye lens??? > ------------------------------------ > > I'm considering getting a 30mm fisheye lens for my Kiev camera. > My question is, "Is it worth it?"
I adapted the Kiev 30mm Fisheye to my Hasselblad and I like
the results.
Though the Zeiss lenses are superior in quality (and in price!!),
the fisheye is sufficient for the rare cases I use it.
> Can anyone tell me what they use it for and how often?
I use it for industrial architecture and landscapes.
Harald
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena (?) f/5.6 250 mm lens on Kiev
Kevin,
I have in my hands , a converted Pentacon 180m SOnnar (Zebra) for the Hasselblad. Once I have tested it, I will give you my feedback on the performance of this adapted lens. BTW, I am using it on my Hasselblad 2000FCM. I use Hasselbads and the Exakta 66. I bought from Mike Fourman, a converted Hartblei 65mm PCS for the Hasselblad 200/2000 series bodies.
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 28 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: stats on Kiev Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment
Hey Bob and Ralf,
I have a Hartblei 65mmF3.5 PCS in HASSELBLAD 2000 mount. This was
manufactured by Hartblei and is an option for Hasselblad users.
As for Hasselblad lens, I myself have the 50mmFLE, 60mm Distagon, 80mm, 150mm
and 180mm.
I do not have any Kiev camera bodies, but however I use the CZJ 50mm, 65mm,
80mm, 120mm, 180mm & 300mm on my Exakta 66. I also use the Kiev 30mm (a
fantasticly priced lens) and Pentacon 500mm also.
Evan
From: [email protected] (David L. Glos)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Adapting Kiev Fisheye to a Pentax 645
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999
Has anyone on this group looked into this idea. I am reasonable proficient
with a mill and lathe, and would be interested in proceeding if there is any
chance the mount on the Kiev could be shaved down enough to fit within the
confines of the 645 mount. There would also be the possibility of
stuffing it
into a 67 to 65 adaptor ($130). Yeah, I know, if wanted easy I should just
jump for the 67 fisheye and put it in the adaptor. Its just that my pockets
aren't that deep at the moment.
David Glos
Univ. of Cincinnati
513.558.6930
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad?
The conversion I have seen involves machining the mount and replacing it
with a Hasselblad mount, and doesn't affect the optics in any way. The
rear filters must be removed and not used, to clear the longer mirror on
Blad.
Good Luck, Leo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
Date: Sunday, April 02, 2000 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad?
>Dirk.... Please share any info you get with me. I was told that the mod >requires machining off part of the rear lens element holding thingie..... so >that the rear filter is permanently attached. This allows the rear element >to just barely clear the rear mirror. >I am not enthusiastic about that idea...... > >Frank Filippone >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 9:00 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad? >> >> >> Several months ago someone posted some pictures of a modification >> to a 30mm >> Kiev for use on the 2000 series Hasselblad. If anybody has any >> more info I >> would love to see it. I'm thinking of doing the same. >> >> thanks! >> >> Dirk
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Third party Hassy lens mount
see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/hassy.html top posting re:
modifications and cost (circa $300) for conversions etc. from one source...
in the past, hassy microscope mounts with integral leaf shutters were
popular for such telelens modifications. If you had a bad glass 80mm
planar etc., you could scavange a very similar mounting. Some repair techs
built up such a mounting from hassy parts. I presume you can also mount a
leaf shutter (copal etc) from view camera work into hassy extension tube
(for the mounting) and create a similar mount for use with various barrel
and tele lenses with sufficient rear air-gap to permit such mountings.
if anyone has done more of such lens hacking, let us know - I do most of
mine on Bronica S2a (and lately nikon) - see homebrew lens hacking page at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronhb.html grins - regards bobm
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182
[email protected] *
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Harald Finster [email protected]
[1] Re: Should I buy a fisheye lens???
Date: Thu Apr 01 1999
DougIam wrote:
> Harald, > > I'm interested how you converted this lens to Hasselblad... > Please post this information...
I made an adaptor by myself. It's not too tricky,
if you have access to the right tools.
Anybody interested in a postscript-drawing may send me
a short message, and I will return the drawing.
> Also, what is the current price of the Kiev 30 mm lens?
I got mine from a flea market here in Germany.
The price was about 350DM ~ 180 EUR ~ 180$.
The Zeiss costs about 20 times more !!
Harald
--
Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. The answer is LINUX!
Harald Finster
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Russian Fisheye, Hasselblad camera...the answers
Frank Filippone at [email protected] wrote:
> I am still interested in finding someone that will change over the Arsat
> Fisheye lens to fit a Hasselblad 500 or 200 series body....
The lens is wonderful. however it lacks a shutter and a coupling to the
cocking mechanism. While I suppose, with some considerable effort and
expense these could be salvaged from a Hasselblad lens and added, it would
probably cost a fortune. Therefore the lens is in real world terms not a
candidate for 500c stardom
The Kiev 88 mount is very similar to the Hasselblad 1600 1000 F mount. If
you remove the stop down pin this lens can be mounted on one of these bodies
(about 5 minutes work) Kiev lens, real blad. Blue Moon Camera has a mint
working 1000F ([email protected]) not sure $$$$. They cone up on e*ay
every couple weeks as well.
Probably the best scenario is to buy the lens (it is a 30mm fisheye you
probably will not use it as a daily shooter) and a Kiev outfit
([email protected] 503 978 0333 has a Kiev 88 and four or five lenses
(fisheye and others) in mint shape and including for $800 or so) Like a
Hasselblad 1000/1600, if you get a good Kiev, ignore the grinding sound and
never ever change speeds until after the film is advanced and (like a 1000
1600 2000 200 blad) are careful of the shutter curtains chances are you will
be happy.
Machining to fit a 2000/200 blad. I believe Kiev USA and Harbetti (sorry
spelling off) offers these stock. Bill Crispien of Custom Camera Craft (503)
281 6855 could probably do it for you as well.
I use my 30 on a Kiev 60 (like a Pentax 6 x 7 only 6 x 6) I paid Jake $200
for a new export kit. And something more than that for the lens.
Buy and play it is the best deal in MF photography in history
Mark
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mounting LF Lenses on the Hassy
".........hassy microscope mounts with integral leaf shutters were
popular for such telelens modifications. ( These need to be milled out
to a particular diameter )
I presume you can also mount a
leaf shutter (copal etc) from view camera work into hassy extension tube
(for the mounting) and create a similar mount for use with various barrel
and tele lenses with sufficient rear air-gap to permit such mountings.
........"
There is a way to get a LF lens on the Hassy.....with off the shelf
parts.....
The basis of this discussion is that you need a Hassy bellows, either the
new or older ( cable release type.) to provide a continuous focusing
ability.
You will need an adaptor tube/ring that was made by Rodenstock to fit the
200 MM Imagon lens onto the Hassy body. This tube was made with the front
milled to accept a Copal #3 shutter. Putting your Copal #3 lens onto the
front of this would allow you to mount any FL ( within reason of the bellows
length) onto the Hassy without problems.
The problem is that the tube is not common. Well, nothing is as easy at it
seems. But this is a way to get a 300MM or 400 MM Nikkor LF lens onto the
Hassy without a lot of expense.
Frank
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998
From: Danny Gonzalez [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Third party Hassy lens mount
Tony, Bob and All,
The modification of the Oly 250/2(and the Canon200/1.8, I presume) achieves
infinity focus on the longer back MF cameras via physically milling/removing
the rear of the lens and all of the internal flare baffling. For the Canon
lens, only the FD version (very rare) would work without going through the
additional steps of adding contact/battery controlled focus/aperture
activation.
My lens was modified through Ken Hansen NYC many moons ago and cost well
over $500 for the conversion alone. The Olympus lenses that are workable
(250/2 and 350/2.8) both cost in the neighborhood of $4500 on the used
market. At infinity, coverage is complete to the 645 format extremes but
there is a good amount of corner falloff that limits the lenses usefulness
against an even background. Focusing to anything closer than 50feet resolves
the vignette completely. Image quality, in terms of sharpness/contrast is
nothing short of outstanding and, on the Oly250, distortion is minimal.
The effect presented by the lens at wide aperture is startling and dramatic
with foregrounds and backgrounds that 'melt' instantly away from the point
of focus, much the same as a tilted lens used 'incorrectly' renders abrupt
image clarity. It's an imposing looking thing that I wont trade unless I'm
forced too.
Danny Gonzalez
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]
Subject: Machinist / Repairman Recommendation needed
I have a 2000 FCM and have read numerous posting regarding lens adaption
to the Hasselblad FP series bodies. What I have in my possession are the
Hasselblad lens mount adaptor part # 40037 and I would like to adapt at
least three lenses to it.
The lenses in question are the 30mmF3.5 Zodiak lense, 180mmF2.8 MC Sonnar
lense and finally the Meyer-Optics 500mmF5.6 MC. I have also thought
about as a backup , the newer Schnieder lenses for the Exakta system.
(60mmF3.5 and the 180mm F4.0)
Could someone here give me a list of repairman/machinist who is
knowledgable enough to undertake this job. I had check to no prevail and
mostly got NO as my answer. Is the the correct way to approach this lens
adaption and if not what is the correct way to approach this?
Thanks,
Evan Dong
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Machinist / Repairman Recommendation needed
We have a specialist in Germany for adaptations, called Zoerkendoerfer, he
should be able to do such conversions. He is in the internet, but I do not
have the adress allthough it could be found via searchmachine. He used to
adapt Zeiss Jena optics to Hasselblad (and much more). If you do not find
him I could search for his postal address at home. I doubt that it is
possible to adapt these lenses via the Hasselblad lens mount adapter
without modifications to the lenses.
Ulrik
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: add motor to 500C/M > I have an old 500C/M body. Is there a way to connect a motorized drive to > it. Thanks in advance. Not to my knowledge. That's a feature of the newer 503CW. I believe you have only 2 choices. Either trade your 500C/M for a 500EL/M, or buy a 500EL/M as a second body. As for the 500EL/Ms. there are 2 variants. The older one uses the discontinued 6.25V nicad batteries and the newer one uses 5 AA nicads or alkalines. The older ones can be converted to use the AAs. You can also get external battery cassette, part 43023, and plug its cord into the external socket on the side of the EL/M. I made an external battery pack using 5 D alkaline batteries to do the same thing. Gene Pallat [email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998
From: Jeff S [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Good Second Body to 500C/M?
Hi Tom,
If you have the parts onhand, here's a test you might perform on your camera
to verify it's focus:
Get a spare (preferably damaged) viewscreen, tape it at the focal plane,
frosted side facing where the film emulsion would normally go. Now verify
that what you see in the finder matches what shows up at the focal plane!
I am not familiar with the C330, but I do know that many cameras,
including the 500c, have viewscreen height adjustment screws, which are
critical to ensuring proper focus.
Jeff
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re:Hasselblad leather
A question was raised the other day regarding the replacement and
availability of the Hasselblad leather. I do have a large supply of
replacement leather that matches the leather on the Hasselblad bodies,
magazines, prisms and lenses.
Email if interested.
Dick
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 From: RJP 6x6 [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help newbie with purchase? / NEW CB LENSES The 80mm/CB lens is NOT!!! the same design as the CF80 or the C80 T*. The CF80 and the C80 T* have the same optical design, but differ mechanically. The C80 T* lens was packaged with the 501c and 501cm kits when first introduced, and was a fantastic deal on a very high quality lens. The CB80 lens has one less element, and a good bit more plastic then either of the other 80mm lenses mentioned above. The budget minded series of CB lenes, "in my opinion" is yet another negative example of market forces being used as the impetus to lower the overall quality of an outstanding abet expensive European product. This would be very disappointing, and costly to the Hasselblad public image if the bean counters at Hasselblad manage to convert the entire lenes line over to the CB ( cheapened budget ) series. If you can find a 501cm kit with the C80mm T* lens jump on it, the kit price was the same as the kit with the CB lens. So in response to Hasselblad saying in their ads that the savings on the CB lenes will be passed onto the consumer, who's pocket did the savings on this kit go into? Bob P. 6x6
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Samsung/Rollei Business >>Can Rollei subsequently get its dukes up and really compete with the >>Swedish product considering the sizable discrepancy in the prices of the >>lenses? > >Boy, I'm surprised we haven't already heard from a certain esteemed list >member already regarding this comment. To the effect of '....Given the >difference in the sophistication of the electronic and mechanical of the >Rollei PQ lenses vs. the 'Swedish guy's', you're really comparing apples >and oranges. More to a lens than just glass....'. >Of course, some photographers might prefer oranges... I haven't been able to verify it yet, but a generally reliable industry source tells me that the new less expensive lenses being sold by the Swedish guys are actually made in Japan by Kyocera. If so, that would be a BIG break with tradition. I'm looking into it. Bob
From: dannyg1 [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Is there really no one using Kiev backs on Hassy? Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 Mark, > I've posted a couple of inquiries to find if anyone has tried or is using > Kiev rollfilm backs on Hasselblad bodies > Surely someone has tried this? The standard Kiev 88 backs won't fit. Kiev USA had a few prototype automatic to frame 1 backs that had been machined to work on H'blad's (but not Kiev's) but the price was $450 each. I doubt anyone wants to spend that money to get a back that's notorious poor felt traps and poor spacing..... Regards, Danny Gonzalez
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: [email protected] ([email protected]) [1] Re: Kiev 88 TTL Meter Prism Date: Sat Mar 14 1998 I have to agree, I've been using a Kiev-88 for about 6 years now, and I've found the TTL meter to be quite dark along with an in-accurater meter; I prefer instead to use the NC-2 prism head and take light readings with an Sekonic 318B meter and my minolta maxxum 7000 (35mm backup when shooting 6x6.) Besides, its hard to find batteries for the thing. ptune -- [email protected]
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: UKRAINIAN Prisms
The Kiev cameras, and the prisms which fit our Hasselblads, are Ukrainian,
not Russian.
The prisms are magnificent optically and all that I have used are accurate,
though I have heard of some that aren't. I, too, shoot mainly slide film,
and my Kiev prisms (I have several) are all within 1/3 stop of my Gossen
and Weston meters.
Repairs? There is only one source: Eddie Smoloff at Active Camera in
Brooklyn. He is a former factory employee. Inexpensive, excellent, fast
work, and he stands behind his warranty. His address can be had from the
Service Directory in the 'Bug.
Marc
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
From: Cyrus Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UKRAINIAN Prisms
[snip] > The prisms are magnificent optically and all that I have used are accurate, > though I have heard of some that aren't. [snip]
Mine is off linearly relative to my Canon Elan IIE. It's as useful
as any averaging meter, and so inexpensive (and lighter than the
Hasselblad 45 degree prism that I once owned) that it almost doesn't
matter if the meter actually works or not. The instructions are in
Russian and useless to me at least. Mine came new with no packaging
to speak of, but with a battery
Cyrus Gardner
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998
I purchased mine for $215 incl express shipping, w/ 15 day return
privilege, from Bill Moritz, a dealer whom I met at a local camera
show. His email is [email protected].
Cyrus Gardner
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
I believe I mentioned on the list in the past that Arnie, owner of
Brroklyn Camera Exchange, has them new for $189. I bought mine there
along with several other items in the past. I have yet to be
disappointed by Arnie. He seems to be a straight shooter. I have never
seen anyone give him a bad report on the newsgroups either so if you're
interested try him and tell him Russ Thornton from Chuluota sent you. he
won't remember my name but he will the city. Let me know what you find.
Russ
Visit me at http://www.geocities.com/area51/Chamber/4565/index.html
516-678-5333
and I see he has an e-mail address:
Russ
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
Kiev prisms are magnificent optically and all that I have used are
accurate, though I have heard of some that aren't. I, too, shoot
mainly slide film, and my Kiev prisms (I have several) are all within
1/3 stop of my Gossen and Weston meters."
Where is the best place to buy these prisms? I know that not all mail
order vendors of these Ukranian cameras are reliable.
There are several Kiev prisms. In summary, I have the late model with
meter and love it.
Kiew prisms are of two basic designs. The meter prism, or the NC-2
copy. Both prisms have a viewing angle very roughly 45 degrees. The
NC-2 copy is similar to the NC-2 that Hasselblad sold, in that it has
no meter. I understand the NC-2 copy is out of production. The meter
prisms come in two basic flavors. The late model meter prism has an
"auto-off" feature, and the old one would drain the batteries if left
on.
Though some of the subtle details are lost on me, not all prisms are
created equal. Some are brighter than others, and some have more
contrast. I conducted a test of the three prisms above, and found
that the late model Kiev meter prism was the sharpest and brightest of
the three.
In the late model, you push a button and get an led display protruding
into the frame. There are two leds, and you adjust the meter dial os
that both are illuminated to obtain a reading. After about a minute,
the leds shut off to save the batteries.
The readings are highly accurate, as reported above by someone else.
I was surprised, as I felt that the focus screen would influence the
reading, and the meter and screen would have to be a matched set to
obtain a good reading. But, in testing, it worked fine. However, the
older meter prism I tested was so far off as to be inoperative.
Perhaps I should try using the meter for something beyond tests. I
have never used the meter feature, even though it has been available
for the last 100 rolls or so I shot. My technique involves taking
readings with a handheld meter, primarily incident, as well as judging
daylight by "rule of f11" and making Polaroids when paranoid.
At one point I considered trading my Kiev for a Hasselblad NC-2, as
the small intrusion of the led display into the frame bothered me.
However, I have since gotten used to this, and decided I was cropping
too tight in general. Twenty some years of 35mm shooting had me
trying to squeeze every mm out of my negs. MF work is not so
critical.
Where can you get a Kiev prism? New from Hasselblad USA, or the
Russian guy on the West Coast I bought from. There are also a lot of
them on the used market. Watch what Polaroid back you want to use
with the Kiev. The NPC fits the Kiev; not every one does.
Peter
From: Kip Babington [email protected]
I think the Hasselblad brand replacement screens used to come with
installation instructions. I had a 500C many years ago and bought a split
image replacement screen for it (this was long before Accu-Matte screens
were on the scene.) As I recall, installation required a tiny screwdriver
and a pair of fine point tweezers (available at hobby shops, among other
places), a tripod and a target at infinity. (If I were doing it today I'd
need some close up glasses, too, like the cheap plus two or plus three
power reading glasses you find in US
pharmacies and large super markets.)
There were four screws at the corner of the upper screen frame, which held
the screen down against a thin flat spring frame that went between the
screen and body casting. Removal was no problem, except for keeping track
of the tiny screws as they were removed. The trick in replacement was to
get the four screws started in their threads at the same point, and then
with the camera on a tripod and the lens set on infinity and pointed at a
very distant target, tighten the screws down equally as you watched for
the image to come into focus on the screen. This was fairly easy to spot
with a split image screen, but might be a tougher judgment call with a
plain screen. When done, a tiny bit of clear nail polish around the screw
heads held them in place.
In any case, my instllation job worked fine for me for many years. I'm
confident this procedure was from instructions that came with the screen,
because even though I consider myself rather handy with tools there's no
way I would have had the guts to start loosening screws on a Blad without
knowing what was going to happen. I don't know if the new replacement
screens still come with instructions, but the replacement process itself
is fairly simple for anyone with moderate hand eye coordination and some
courage. A professional job might (or might not) verify that the lens set
at infinity actually focuses at infinity on the film plane before
adjusting the new screen, although you could come pretty close yourself
with a roll of fine grain film and a magnifier. And doing it yourself
will be much faster than having it done professionally, no matter how
slowly and carefully you work.
Screen adjust (lens in focus -see note by Dick below)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998
Today I went to the Hasselblad U. seminar in my town (more on that
later...) and got my depth of field preview button fixed!!! One of the
Hasselblad reps showed me what went wrong: If you slide the DOF button
down too far or with too much force it can slip off the shaft. To get it
back on track a fingernail inserted underneath the bottom of the button
and pulled up does the trick. It is indeed "finicky" on my 80mm C lens.
I noticed the new CB lenses have guide rails on either side of the DOF
button to prevent this. At any rate the Hasselblad reps were very kind
and helpful. It was great to try several lenses and converters to get a
feel for what my next purchase will be. Salesmen in camera stores are
rarely this helpful anymore.
At the recent Hasselblad University Seminar here in Cleveland, I was
able to ask one of the Hassy reps a question about used film magazines.
It centers on the age old discussion of magazine inserts whose serial
numbers dont match their housings; ie- youve got parts from two
different film magazines. I asked the rep just how critical this is.
He smiled and said that can vary. He felt that if you had an
insert or housing that was manufactured a significant number of years
earlier than its associated insert/housing, this could be a problem;
possible framing difficulties, less than optimum film flatness on
pressure plate, light leaks (?) etc. The closer in years the two
components are, the less likely you would have a problem. Although he
offered no numbers, the statement seems to make a certain amount of
sense to me, assuming that the manufacturing molds have remained
constant over the years. The rep was primarily addressing wear
factors. It seems reasonable that an insert which had been used heavily
for 20 years in another housing may tend to rattle around a little
inside another housing that was only 10 years old. Problems with film
transport could arise from such a scenario.
Stuart Pearl [email protected]
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998
Waldo,
Danny Gonzalez
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998
Hope it helps.
Alf
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998
Has anyone found the depth of field marks on the 50 CF to be about two
stops optimistic? I did some interior wide angle shots of a pretty set of
rooms recently, and found that setting infinity to the DOF mark for the
given aperature did not yield an acceptable distant focus. In the normal
case, I assume the lens maker has set the marks about one stop more
optimistic than my requirements for circle of confusion, but I think I'll
switch to two stops for this lens.
By the way, I like doing some expansive wide angle shots on my wedding
jobs. In the normal case, I try to shoot each room from its four corners.
Also, I try to do some exterior shots. If it is at night, I still do an
exterior, but make a longer exposure.
These wide angle shots are what the film and video types call
"establishing shots." For film, they are often painted on glass by a
"matte painter," when a real exterior is not possible. While I don't find
that sales of these exterior shots is as high as say, family groups, I do
find that I enjoy doing them, and that they help make a nice journal to
document the event.
Date: 9 Apr 98
The 60 CB is EXACTLY the same optical formula as the CF, so
it delivers the same quality.
The 80 CB is NOT the same formula as the 80 CF (one element less), but
I was assured that, for all practical purposes, it was every bit the
equal of 80 CF.
The 160 CB is a Tessar design: 4 elements in 3 groups. I was told it
had superior optical performance, but was NOT as good as the 150 CF
Sonnar design. However, the tech said the differences were "minor."
All things considered, I'll wait for optical tests in the photo
magazines to come out before believing statements about the quality
of the CB 80 and 160. I'm sure they are good, but nearly as good
as...?
--
Patrick Bartek (NoLife Polymath Group)
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998
Good question. Last week I got to handle the new CB lenses and they are
very different. They are much lighter and use more plastic and carbon
fiber components than the CF lenses. Most have fewer lens elements as
well. However judging from the transparencies I saw shot with the new CB
160 it is as good as the 150 CF. The glass is still made by Zeiss in
Germany, and is still T* coated. They have a couple of nice features
such as a clip to hold the PC cord in the socket, and larger numbers on
the lens barrel. I would not hesitate to purchase one. If you do a lot
of outdoor photography the more rugged CF lens might be better, but that
is just my opinion.
--
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998
Simon and Paul,
I'm sorry to report that by H'blads own MTF curves for the CB 80, the lens
is much worse at the edge and corner than the CF version at both wide open
and optimum apertures.
The 60 CB, being optically identical to the CF version, has an identical
MTF diagram. The 160, though very strong for a Tessar design, needs to be
stopped down before it gets to good results. It is almost comparable with
the 150 at its optimum aperture but worse wide open.
Danny Gonzalez
I'd suspect that it is the lens rather than the body. The little
metal tab that sticks out from the cocking ring and that mates with
the cocking tab on the body is very sensititve....like a mouse trap.
I could see that if something jarred it, the lens would pre-release
but the body would not. Just speculating. If the jam happened often
and with a particular lens, that would tend to confirm my suspicions.
I've messed around with several different bodies quite a bit and I
can't see how the body would do this. But I can see how the lens
would.
Let us know what your repair guy says.
Gary Gaugler
From: John Hicks [email protected]
Yes, that's correct. Sometimes the problem is actually the way the lens
seats onto the body when it's attached; that puts a little too much
pressure on the release...occasionally. Or if the mount catch is worn and
the lens is wiggly....
--
John Hicks
From: [email protected] (Photo35744)
All you have to do is take the back off, flip up the aux shutter there you
will see a small screw at the 6 o'clock position on the lens mount. With a
small screwdriver turn the slot clockwise until it stop. You just cocked
the shutter and now you will be able to take the lens off.
Robert P. Pielli--Portraits by Pielli
From: Peter Rosenthal [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 3/15/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] ROLLEIS
There are all sorts of reasons for a Hasselblad jamming. After all,
jamming is nothing more than a malfunction that stops the camera from
working. It's been said, and corrected, that trying to put an uncocked
lens on a body jams it. Just isn't possible.
As far as trying to put a cocked lens on an uncocked body... can't be
done easily or completely. But on some bodies and some lenses and in
some cases they can be ratcheted on but are just as easily ratcheted
off. The lens' female keyway gets wedged onto the alignment pin next to
the body's male cocking keyway. This is rare. What is more common is
the lens linkage trips and rotates while putting the lens on or taking
it off. It's slight rotation prevents the lens from coming off as
designed. Can't be cocked or fired in this condition. Again, it's the
keyway getting wedged on the pin. Not pointing to the red dot.
Something else that has been said is that the lens is tripped while on
the body. This isn't possible either. The shutter spring is directly
gear driven to the keyway on the lens. Having said that... when you put
a lens on a body the shutter LATCH is indeed tripped. The latch being
on the mounting flange of the lens. The shutter itself is now held
back directly by the gear-train of the body and lens. The gear-train of
the body (and therefore the lens gear-train) must rotate far enough (a
little more than 270 degrees) for the shutter itself to open and close.
"THE JAM" is caused by the body and the shutter having been fired
(sometimes a photo, sometimes not) but the mechanism that allows the
wind shaft (knob, lever/handle or meter) to turn after firing does not
get out of the way. Since you can't cock the shutter in this condition
it's jammed. You can bypass the wind knob and use the internal keyway
in the body to cock the shutter and body. Good to go!!
Once again, I know, too many words... I'm working on it.
Peter
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779 5263
From: David S. Odess [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 3/18/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] ROLLEIS
Peter made some very good points, and I would like to just ad a few of my thoughts.
Any camera that has moving parts is subject to jamming, even a Hasselblad. As a factory trained Hasselblad technician
with 27 years experience repairing the Hasselblad system exclusively, it is my experience that almost all instances
of a Hasselblad jamming is caused by the camera itself, and not caused by the user.
The most common reason for a Hasselblad to jam, that is the fault of the user, is the incorrect use of extension tubes.
The jam occurs when the lens and the extension tube(s) are removed from the camera body as one unit. This will
usually cause the lens to trip before being removed completely from the camera, resulting in not being able to get the
lens off (or back on) the camera.
When using extension tubes, it is of the utmost importance that you follow the proper procedure when installing and
removing them from your camera to prevent the camera and/or lens from jamming.
When attaching an extension tube, always attach the tube to the body first, and then attach the lens to the tube. If
using more than one tube, attach the first tube to the camera, then attach the second tube, and then attach the
lens.
When removing the components, it is essential that you remove them in exactly the opposite way you attached them.
Remove the lens first, and then remove the tube from the body. If you are using more than one tube, remove the lens
first, then remove the tube that was next to the lens, then remove the tube that was attached to the body.
NEVER REMOVE THE TUBE (OR TUBES) AND THE LENS TOGETHER!
If you mistakenly try to remove the lens and tube(s) at the same time and they jam on the camera, gently try to reattach
the assembly to the body, and proceed according to the above instructions. If they will not lock back on to the
body properly, don't try to force them on or off. This can damage the front key on the body. If this happens, the front
key assembly on the body will have to be replaced, and this is a very expensive part.
If you find yourself with a lens and tube(s) stuck on the body and you can't get the assembly on or off, take the camera
to a Hasselblad technician who can remove the assembly without damaging the camera.
As Peter mentioned, it is possible for the lens to trip when being removed from the camera body. This is usually caused
by the front key in the body being out of adjustment. When the camera body is wound, the front key should be
pointing just slightly higher than the red dot. If the front key is positioned too low, it will result in the lens being tripped
when removing it from the body.
Most Hasselblad jams are caused by a broken part in the lens shutter. When the camera is fired, and the lens shutter
does not complete its cycle, the camera will jam. It won't be possible to wind the camera for the next exposure. The
part that brakes most often in the lens is the main spring. This is why I replace the main spring as a matter of course
when overhauling a lens. Another, but less common reason for a jam is if the drive gear in the lens shutter
brakes.
Another part that can brake or lose tension is the spring in the camera body that powers the two auxillary shutter flaps.
When this happens, the camera body will not complete the firing sequence, which will not allow the winding of
the body.
It is important to remember that if your camera jams, whether it be a Hasselblad or any other brand, you should not force it.
Forcing a jammed camera can result in further damage.
Dave Odess
Factory trained Hasselblad technician
28 South Main Street #104
Randolph, MA 02368
(781) 963-1166
..
From: Austin Franklin [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 3/15/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] ROLLEIS
Tom,
> And how large a percentage of the Hasselblad community 'have problems',
> would you say...?
WAY less than %1. I did a "Hasselblad Jam" survey a while ago...and not
many people have actually had it happen, and, if I remember correctly, it
was all C lenses that exhibited the problem.
> But I know of no camera that is more reliable.
I would agree. The "problem" is severely exaggerated. Personally, and I've
got probably 10 Hasselblads, and some of them C's, have never had that
problem, and I've been using Hasselblads for nearly two decades, and using
them quite frequently.
Regards,
Austin
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998
FWIW, I just bought a new Kiev 45 deg. metered prism for $215 incl.
express shipping from Bill Moritz at http://www.photomall.com. It
seems bright enough, and the meter typically agrees with my Canon Elan
IIE's centerweighted reading to w/in 1/2 stop or less. I'm happy
with it, and I'll be getting rid of my brighter but meterless NC-2.
(I also replaced my AcuteMat (sp?) D screen with a split prism-and
-grid screen for $200 from Bill Maxwell per the suggestion of a list
member. I'm very pleased with that as well. Thanks for the good
lead.)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998
Kim the Star & Mark [email protected] wrote:
IMHO, the bellows is versatile only if you want very high magnification
or have the 135mm lens which is especially made for the bellows.
With the 80mm lens (which is probably your best bet of the lenses
mentioned), you need to start with the 8mm extension and then go
to the 16mm and then the 32mm and finally the 56mm in order to
cover all the magnifications. If you do get the 150mm lens you
could skip the 8mm extension since that lens has that much
built into the lens barrel.
Roy
--
This is a popular topic on this list. Yes, it can be done. See the
archived list, if you know where it is. Otherwise, roughly,
A. Tape over or plug the observation port in the 12 back.
B. Load the 220 film, and turn the crank the correct number of turns,
which is about nine. Determine this by experiment or more detailed
examination of archives.
C. Shoot twelve, then reset the counter for the next twelve, trying not to
get confused on hour many sets of twelve you've shot.
I would like to know if it's possible to use 220 film with the old 12
back. I appreciated for any feedback regarding this combition.
From: Eugene A. Pallat [email protected]
Mr500CM wrote in article
snip EL/ELM Batteries: Varta discontinued these batteries in the beginning
of 1997. The factory has more than a two year supply in stock and they are
searching for a new vender to stock them in the future. It is important to
discharge them to prevent memories and avoid overcharging. A full charge
is 14 hours with the standard charger. snip
To solve that problem, I made a battery pack which uses 5 D size alkaline
or NiCad batteries in a belt pack. For connection to the camera, a
standard 6 pin DIN connector is used with a cable to the battery pack. You
can get a D size NiCad charger at any Radio Shack or electronics store.
The DIN connectors are available from the same sources for $1.50 to $2.00
US. The pinouts are in Ernst Wildi's "The Hasselblad Manual" on page 68 of
the 4th edition.
I also made a DC power supply which runs off the 110VAC line to deliver
the required voltage to the camera.
Gene [email protected]
Orion Data Systems
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998
I use a 9 volt in mine.
Just clip on a cheap connecter from rat shack with the wires tined and off
you go.
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998
Why knock yourself out? The original batteries were made by Varta and are
still readily available from any Hasselblad dealer, albiet not from
Hasselblad directly. Personally, I've used the "Dick Werner" 9V conversion,
and it makes the Nicads look like the bad idea they always were. The 9v is
cheap, readily available, and doesn't need charging! Those Nicads are
nothing but a pain in the backside!
Leo.
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998
The following is the name and address of folks who can make batteries to
order by assembling the correct number of cells to form the total battery
according to voltage specifications.
House of Batteries 714 642-8222
They may be able to make what you need from existing specs or they require
the old battery to ascertain size, voltage etc. They do shrink wrap and the
final product will look and perform just like the OEM.
I have had several batteries packages build by these people and was very
pleased with price and performance.
Joseph Codispoti
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998
I spoke with Hasselblad repair not too long ago and they told me that they
are introducing a new battery to replace the VARTA. It is a dryfit type
that has no memory and will sell for the same price as the Varta. Should be
out in Fall 98.
Joe
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998
I seem to recall some discussion of this, so maybe this is old news, but in
the latest blurb I received from Lisle-Kelco, they report that there is a
new battery to replace the discontinued Varta nicad battery for the above
cameras.
It is a metal-hydride battery (PBI 500 series) made by Plainview Batteries
in the U.S. Lisle-Kelco is making arrangements to sell the battery in
Canada.
Dan C.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998
To quote from the article, "no memory effect, greater cycle life
(9000-10000 cycles) and uses the same Hasselblad charger".
Dan C.
you wrote:
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998
I have owned the Hasselblad CW Winder since last year and have had
problems regarding the life of batteries. It has seen only occassional
use (c. a 220 per week) since I purchased it but have had batteries die
in the winder after only three to four weeks.
I have tried Nicads and alkalines and there seems to be no difference.
When it is working properly, it is stellar. However, if it cannot be
relied upon for usage, it is really useless.
I did send it to Hasselblad for service and they stated that they put
new batteries in it and, since it still worked after 24 hours, there was
no problem.
The potential of this winder with the 500CW body is really exciting, but
if I can't rely on it, it has little value for a working pro.
I appreciate any and all responses.
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998
Okay... The winder will adabt to Hasseblad 500C, 500 CM, 503CX, 501C,
501C/M, 503CXI, and even 503CW.. :-)
It is made by a company called Apcam. The price I have here is
499.95 through B&H. It takes 6 AA batteries, has a green LED to
indicate it is on and the red LED lights up when winding or ready to
wind. Weights 23 oz. The picture shows a flash post on the top the
triger button is near the top. Has hand impressions for ergonomics.
I don't see a strap, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come with one.
The add reads:
The part number through B&H is dependent on the model.
B&H number is 1-800-947-6650
Also it says somthing about a security screw to the tripod socket, so
that might mean it attaches to the tripos socket in addition to the
crank.
That's it
WBerry
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998
you wrote:
Chris
Like all true Zeiss Fanatics, I am a Hasselblad owner. Viktor Hasselblad
isn't "averse" to JSK, but they simply have made much use over the past
fifty years and more of Carl Zeiss optics and are happy with them.
The Hasselblad "zooms" are JSK-made, and there were some JSK lenses
marketed for the earlier incarnation, the 1600F/1000F.
It is the same as it is for Rolleiflex: only a fool would sneer at a
Schneider lens. They are top-notch. But all my Hasselblad lenses are
Zeiss, as are all my Rollei opticks, save for that one lone Baby Grey.
Marc
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998
This has been a fun problem to hear about. In my case, I would try to
find which component was bad by substitution. We have not been able
to determine if the back, body or lens is bad. Myself, I would go to the
local camera store, and expose a test roll out front in the sun, swapping
between the suspect outfit and another outfit from the store. i.e. Try
their body/lens on my back for some exposures. Probably I would use
C41 roll film, so we could develop it right away in the minilab. Another
test possibility is to use polaroid. And careful examination of the outfit
would be good. Lens: shutter no oil, no bent blades, runs well when
test fired. Body: proper rear curtain shape, operation. Back: no light
enters dark slide insertion slot.
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998
I had an unusual leak this week that took me a couple of rolls of film to
understand. Several negatives had unsual 3mm light leaks near the middle
of the negative. On the next roll, there were several more, but this time
they were immediately followed by a linear light leak in the direction of
film travel. This occurred in an A12 back that I had just purchased (for
$50 - no it wasn't hot, just broken grins).
One of the nine screws holding the plate onto the back is missing and
caused the leak! As long as the back was on the body, no light leaked.
However, changing the back mid-roll or winding the film at the end of the
roll with the back off of the camera let light leak in thru the open screw
hole. So, now I am off to the repair shop to find a replacement screw.
...gregg
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998
Some more obscure reasons for a center hotspot:
Danny Gonzalez
From: Jim Lebiedz [email protected]
I recently pickup up a very used lens for my Hasselblad. The Carl Zeiss CF
5.6/250 T* lens had a terribly scratched front lens element that afforded me
the opportunity to buy it for very little.
Thinking that it could not be too expensive to have the front lens element
replaced, I called Hasselblad USA and inquired about the cost. Their
reply was
that they would only replace the entire front lens group, which consists
of 3
of the 4 elements that make up the lens, for $790, plus labor. To say the
least I was surprised by their response.
Not willing to pay close to $1,000 for labor, material and shipping I
sent an
e:mail message to Carl Zeiss in Germany asking them if I could just get the
front lens element. Well, to my surprise, in somewhat broken English, I
received a reply. Carl Zeiss replied that for 194 DM they would send me the
front lens element with T* coating. Translated into US dollars, that was
less
than $100! Replying to them that I would like for them to send it, two days
later it was delivered to my door!
Now understand that I am not in the lens repair business, I took a deep
breath
and grabbed my spanner wrench and disassembled my CF 5.6/250 lens. To my
surprise, the front ring came off fairly easily. Then I unscrewed the front
lens group housing easily. It was a beautifully machined piece of black
anodized aluminum with all 3 lens elements held in by a threaded ring at the
front. Now came the challenge.
The threaded ring holding the front lens group within the housing had no
obvious means by which to get a grip on it. Another exchange of messages to
Carl Zeiss revealed that to unscrew that ring you had to use a rubber
stopper,
with the center carved out to clear the glass, to get a purchase on the ring.
I went to local hardware store and bought a black rubber stopper large enough
for the job and carved out the center. After some effort the ring came loose
and I was in business. I used a small suction cup to lift out the old
lens and
to install the new lens after much care taken to clean the rear of the
element.
At the recommendation of a friend in the lens repair business, I also
blackened the edges of the new lens before installing it.
After cleaning out the dust from the lens barrel and cleaning all the exposed
lens surfaces, I reassembled the lens. After shooting a test roll of chrome
film and inspecting the images on the light table, I can tell you that my
repair job was an unqualified success!
I can not say enough good things about the Carl Zeiss company. They were
more
than helpful and supported me all the way. So for about $100 I tuned my
marginally useful lens into an optically perfect one. The Carl Zeiss lenses
are very well made and my confidence in dealing with lens repairs has soared.
This was quite the experience for me!
Don,
The available variations have advantages and disadvantages (the dates are
from memory so may be off): 500C is inexpensive but has the
shutter release lock, cocking indicator and light baffle flash sync. Its
main disadvantage is the lack of interchanging focus screens; add age as a
factor as well. Transition 500C/500CM is still a good bargain as
it has all of the better features available (minus the latest 'single
action' w/l finder, the rapid crank, the Acutematte screen and the long
mirror of _only the _very latest 501CM), yet is inexpensive because it's
marked 500/C. This model has interchangeable screens and is identical to
pre-1977 500 C/M's.
Pre-1977 500CM's have the shutter release lock, cocking indicator, the
flash rail and light baffle flash sync. They dont have the latest 'single
action' w/l finder, the rapid crank, the Acutematte screen and the long
mirror.
Post-1977 500 C/M's lose the light baffle flash sync.
By 1989 the shutter release lock and flash rail were gone. The single
action waist level and rapid crank become standard as does the CF version
lens.
By 1992, the 500 classic is offered as a kit. Same as above but the
cocking indicator starts disappearing. The acutematte screen becomes
standard and the backs get a roller bar spool holder.
By 1994 the classic kit becomes black and plastic body panels are intro'd.
The camera gets a new tripod mount plate.
After 94 my familiarity with the minutae of the camera gets blurry. The
501C is intro'd and the 'new C' 80 became standard. Do I understand
correctly from Don that this camera has a fixed rapid wind crank?
1997's 501CM is intro'd with the gliding mirror system, CB 80 and the
acutematte D variant becomes standard.
Were I to buy another 500CM, I'd probably buy either a 1976 or mid '80's
one. Having the baffle sync and the release lock are things I value and I
believe the build quality has declined subtantially since then. There is
no denying that the current classic kit, with its free A12 (w/ d'slide
holder) is a bargain and, with the acutematte D screen and long mirror,
probably a good bit more modern in use than the older 500's.
Regardless of any of the above, if I were going to buy my first Hasselblad
again, I'd buy the 2000-2003 series camera (FCM or FCW) anyway. The
advantages of having both shutters and a full host of sync possibilities,
plus the long mirror _and the cocking indicator and the full metal jacket
_and the option of fast lenses _and an OEM winder _and an affordable
price(there's more too) make the choice an obvious one to my mind.
Regards,
Danny Gonzalez
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: hasselblad 500 c/m and 501c/m difference
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003
m@rko pec@revic wrote:
> Anyone, please?
The main difference is that the 501 CM has a better, non-vignetting mirror
arrangement.
The mirror in the older 50x C(...) series was made too short, to allow it to
move up without hitting the rear of the 80 mm lens. The result is that when
long lenses are used, or short lenses with extension tubes/bellow, the top
bit of the viewfinder image is dark. Only the viewfinder image, mind you,
not on film.
Other differences are:
- the 500 C/M has a detachable wind crank, the 501 CM does not.
The original cameras had a wheel/knob, and could be replaced with a folding
crank. Later the knob was replaced by the current knob/folding crank
combination thingy.
And there was (!) a transport knob with built-in exposure meter that could
be fitted in lieu of the normal knob, later crank.
Since it is no longer produced, and the 501 CM will not take the winder,
there is no need for its wind crank to be detachable.
The original reason why the 1957 500 C had a detachable knob was that
Hasselblad had planned to build a motor winder for that camera. They never
did; the fixed motor EL(...) series appeared instead. Until, of course, the
503 CW and the Winder CW was introduced.
- the 500 C/M has a camera ready indicator window, the 501 CM does not.
This signal window (similar to the one on the film backs) signalled the
state of the camera: red for released and not wound, white for ready. this
helped avoiding mistakes when changing backs: both signals on camera and
back had to be the same colour to avoid accidental double exposure or loss
of one frame.
Since the mirror is raised, the viewfinder dark when thet camera is in
released state, a quick glance in the viewfinder will tell you all you need
to know.
- the 500 C/M had a little locking lever that could be used to keep the
release button depressed for time-exposures. The 501 CM doesn't. You need to
use a locking cable release instead.
- The 501 CM is supplied with an Acute Matte D screen. The 500 C/M started
out with a rather dim and coarsely structured screen. Later this was
replaced by a first generation Acute Matte screen.
A previous owner can have changed the original screen for any of many
possible screens, non-Acute Matte, Acute Matte or Acute Matte D, or even a
non-Hasselblad screen (Beattie, Maxwell), so check before you buy.
- The 501 CM has the new style tripod coupling plate. This was introduced
after production of the 500 C/M was terminated, so 500 C/Ms only have the
old style. There is an adapter plate available to allow use of cameras with
"old style" coupling plates in new style tripod quick couplings. (By the
way, these are proprietary Hasselblad quick couplings. A few tripod
manufacturers used to make coupling systems that would fit the Hasselblads
directly, without any need of adding an extra coupling plate to the camera.
I don't know if this is still so.)
- The folding hood viewfinder. Depending on how old the 500 C/M is, it may
have an old style folding hood, that is more awkward to close, and tapers
towards the top, so you can't see all of the viewfinder image when you look
from too far away. The old style hood also had a non-removable magnifier,
the new style can take one of several diopter-corrected magnifiers.
The new style hood was introduced when the 500 C/M was still in production,
so many will already have the new style hood. The 501 CMs all have the new
style hood (Again, unless some previous owner has changed it).
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
Martin,
The rear light baffle is there, on every 500 camera. It blocks light from
entering around the mirror and focus screen. The baffle synch allowed use,
with flash, of bellows mounted lenses that have no shutter. Of course the
synch times are inconsistent at the quickest speed because it's all
controlled by how fast you can press/release the shutter button. A case
could be made that it is a fairly unimportant feature as you could use
open flash with most bellows mounted flash stuff.....
I think I have seen what you're speaking of and if it's what I'm thinking,
they're not cracks but wrinkles in a black paint that form because of
expansion/contraction due to humidity and temperture changes. If they are
actually cracks in the plates, I haven't seen the effect and will check.
Regards,
Dear John Chong; I am a photographer and photographer's assistant living
in St Louis MO USA. I have had a chance to use many different MF system
cameras in the course of working freelance at all these studios. Recently
I bought a 500c with 80c lens and two film backs. I have since added a X2
teleconverter and a Polaroid back.
After using almost all the cameras in town (including Mamiya, Bronica and
Pentax 6x7) I found the Hasse, with it's interchangeable backs, shutter
sync at all speeds, and simple, logical opperation the best choice. The
biggest selling point was that with Hasse I can rent other lenses or backs
as I need them until I can afford to buy them. If I had not needed
interchangeable backs and lenses for my work I would have stuck with the
Rollie TLR I traded in for the Hasselblad. The Rollie was as good a
camera, just less verstile. I need Polaroid back to test strobe lights,
sometimes need wide angles or tele lenses, etc., but I have negs and
transparencies from both the Hasse with the 80c Zeiss and the Rollie with
the 75mm Zeiss and can see no difference in quality.
Hope this helps.
John,
One thing that you shouldn't be worried about with Hasselblads is
obsolescence.
All of today's lens, film magazines, prisms, etc. made for the 500 series
cameras can be used with the 500C. I have the 500C/M. The major
difference between the 500C and the 500C/M model is that the C/M could
interchange focusing screens easily. This is pretty important if you are
planning to work in low light situations, such as a studio. The old
standard Hassy screen was VERY difficult to work with when I brought it
into the studio. You could change focusing screens on the C, but it's
more involved. Check the Hassy threads, I think someone wrote a procedure
on how to change screens. If you end up with the C you might as well go
and get the Acute Matte-D screen and get it done and over with. I've used
the Beattie, and was primarily happy with it, but then I saw what an AM-D
screen looked like, I've switched shortly afterwards. If you get a 500C
or 500C/M, you should be prepared to dump an extra $100 to $200 to replace
the light seals, mirror foam, and general CLA, unless it's been recently
serviced. Chances are the seals and foam have rotted away with age. You
should probably try to get an A12 back with your camera. The difference
between the 12 and the A12 back is the A12 is much easier to load; you
don't have to peek through a hole to watch for the first frame to come up,
all you have to do is wind the A12 back film crank until it automatically
stops at the first frame. All in all, I feel you should wait and save up
the extra $400 to 600 for a 500C/M outfit, with an A12 back. It'll save
you a lot of headaches. Hassy is a great system to invest in. It's the
most comprehensive MF system, has a large used market, and easily
rentable.
As far as the Rolleiflex and Hassy lenses; they're the same lens made by
the same people, so of course the image quality should also be the same,
right?
Ken
[Ed. note: I am told that the hassy 80mm and Rollei TLR 75mm planar zeiss
lenses are actually different, e.g., number of elements etc.]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Regarding all this crying about the little red film indicator window on
the side of Hasselblad magazine insert. This window is there to indicate
that you have film in the camera-nothing more and nothing less. You have
a counter on the other side to see how many frames you have shot.
If the little red are does not line up the way you want it to, instead
of singing the blues, just pop out the little black mask that is on top
of the red indicator-you can pop this little plastic mask out with a
small screw driver. This little black mask is held in place with a small
amount of rubber cement. After popping it out, line it up the way you
want it, mark it with a pencil line, and reglue the mask back into
place.
This only takes a few minutes to do-hell, it takes you longer to wipe
away all your tears.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I bought a Kiev Polaroid back about a month ago. It works great with my Kiev
88 and my Hassy 500C. The cost was about $170.
It was purchased from Kiev USA. http://users.aol.com/kievusa/
Dwight.
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998
I learned first hand last week about the infamous Hasselblad lens
jam, although this one was accidentally self inflicted. This is the
sort of thing that my Bronica friends like to slam me with. They always
claim its a Hassy defect. Fortunately I was able to effect a field
repair thanks to comments in this forum, Wildi and the camera store
dealer who sold me the equipment. Its critical not to panic when this
happens, but to just carefully try to see what actually happened and
perform some simple diagnostics.
I was shooting a wedding and was now at the reception. Dinner was
done and I was going to do close-ups of the couples rings. It was
fairly dark in the back of the hall as I took the 80mm Planar off the
camera and started mounting the 150mm. Both camera and lens were cocked
in the ready position. I probably couldnt have done this if Id tried
but just then Murphy dropped in for the proverbial visit. As I moved
the 150 into the mount (at a bad angle owing to darkness), both items
touched and I heard an ominous double click. Both the body AND the lens
had been simultaneously triggered, without being coupled. Immediate
inspection showed the lens drive shaft on the body and the lens-drive
coupling on the lens were no longer in their proper positions. Until
you make things right, you CANNOT mount the lens. Fortunately this was
the best possible time for such a learning experience since bride and
groom were between events.
Gently pushing through the rear shutter on the body, I used the
small screwdriver blade on my Swiss army knife to rotate the back of the
drive shaft pin 180 degrees. I then used a dime to wind the lens drive
coupling pin on the back of the lens 360 degrees. With the body cocked
I was now able to mount the lens, although I had to do this whole
operation a couple of times before I got it right. The Swiss army knife
was improvisation - a better tool would be a long narrow shaft
screwdriver with a small head. The rest of the wedding went perfectly,
the results are back from the lab and Im very happy with the work.
BTW, the #2 Proxar on the 150mm works great for close up hand shots
of the couples rings on a background of brides maids bouquets. I
dont have any extension tubes and the camera store through in the
Proxar when I bought the 500c/m.
- Stu Pearl [email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Go to; www.houseofbatteries.com they can make you almost anything you
need. Consider other brands too, Varta does not always have the Ni Cad
technology. Varta supplied the ELM batteries due to location and
technology at the time.
Benson
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998
Hasselblad sells a nice little booklet (DM 5, about USD 2.7)
with the title:
"Hasselblad - The camera system. 50 years. 1948-1998."
ISBN 91-630-5976-2.
It contains a gallery with a total of 78 pictures from
greats like Ansel Adams to Christian Vogt, and pictures
of all Hasselblads and pre-Hasselblads.
The print quality is excellent, language: English.
Alf
From: Rick Strome [email protected]
I have the same problem occasionally. It is a partial jam. This may solve
the problem, but it may not. Take the back off and look at the body from
the rear. There is a small pin on the bottom right that is about 1/8 high
and sticks out 1/50 inch or so. Try pressing on that pin with your
fingernail gently until you hear a slight click. This will cause the pin
to come out slightly. This might solve your problem. This solves my
problem when that is the problem. Also try sliding the dark slide in and
out. I have sent my 500C in for repairs to fix the problem. If that
doesn't fix your problem, then you need to get the camera repaired.
Good Luck, Rick Strome
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998
Marc,
I thought this desire by CZ to move Hasselblad lens production to the
former Tomioka factory in Japan was pretty well known. I have been told by
factory people that they had wanted to do this for ten years or so.
The last time this came up in a conversation with CZ people I was told that
it was a dead issue because the "Made in Germany" marking was so important
and there was no longer that much of a financial incentive since
Japanese production costs had gone up so much.
The company line on why many Contax lenses are made is Japan is that this
is simply where they sell most of them.
Bob
[Ed. note: given 80CB lens is $2300 US and 80CF is $2700 US, the 15%
price difference might not be worth it given the lenses are quite
different?]
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998
Peter Klosky [email protected] wrote:
Peter,
I haven't used or even handled any of the CB lenses (I've seen them in
showcases though...). Back in April Danny Gonzalez wrote here:
[snip]
I'm sorry to report that by H'blads own MTF curves for the CB 80, the
lens is much worse at the edge and corner than the CF version at both
wide open and optimum apertures.
The 60 CB, being optically identical to the CF version, has an
identical MTF diagram.
The 160, though very strong for a Tessar design, needs to be stopped
down before it gets to good results. It is almost comparable with the
150 at its optimum aperture but worse wide open.
[snip]
Somebody else here (couldn't find the post) said he had used both 80mm
lenses and found the CB not as good as the CF. Either Asahi Camera or
Nippon Camera (got the issue buried nearby but I'm too sleepy to dig
it out) recently tested the three CB lenses, and said the 80mm CB
wasn't as sharp as the 80mm CF. They liked the 160mm, but didn't
compare it to the 150mm Sonnar, as far as I remember.
So, there is critical opinion saying the 80mm CF outperforms the 80mm
CB.
Regards,
PB
Paul C. Brodek
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
The simplest approach would probably be to use a standard 35mm tilt/shift
bellows, such as some high end OEM (Nikon) or Spiratone Macrobel series-II,
if I remember correctly. These bellows provided some tilt/shift
capabilities of sorts at the front standard. You use the adapter to mount
the lens onto the bellows (or zoom extension tube?) as if it were a
preset nikon lens (no automation)
Since my Hassy to nikon adapter is only a 3/8ths inch thick metal ring,
you have to use something between the Nikon body and the lens to bring the
lenses into infinity focus (the hassy 500/2000 mount is 74.90mm lens mount
to film plane distance vs. nikon bayonet mount 46.50mm lens mount to film
plane (lens registration distances from W.J. Markerink's handy page at:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm So you have to use
something to provide the "missing" 74.90-46.50mm distance to get infinity
focus - and even more to do closeup work. That's where a bellows comes in...
By using a bellows, you also get extended closeup range too ;-)
A more interesting MF bellows might be the tilt/shift bellows for the older
Bronica S2/EC/S/C series - which provided tilt/shifts and continuous
focusing from infinity to closeup (limited tilt/shift at infinity,
though) for standard Bronica Nikkor/Zenzanon/Komura lenses which was
mostly used for closeup work to map focus/DOF to closeup subjects - but
also extended to infinity thanks to Bronica's unique focusing mount.
With the right adapter, you might be able to mount it on 35mm lens mounts.
See http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html for more details and
photos...
Personally, I never saw much use for mounting hassy MF lenses on my
nikons - the 35mm lenses were quite good, and for closeup work the
micronikkors had plenty of coverage even with tilts/shifts, and my
bellows provided auto-diaphragm automation lost using the adapter.
A 4x5 or even 2x3 view camera with movements would be a lot cheaper than
hassy optics to get flexible movements and larger image size for most uses.
Why not use tilt/shift bellows with medium format lenses on nikon 35mm,
say, in place of expensive or unavailable nikon tilt/shift lenses? The
short answer is that most medium format lenses - even wide angles - are
normal to telephotos on 35mm, so you can't win ;-) A 28mm lens is the PC
lens of choice on Nikon 35mm, IMHO, but try to find a 28mm anything in
medium format, let alone at a reasonable price ;-)
However, there is also a set of tilt/shift lenses from Kalimex Corp. and
they also make a nikon and pentax M42 screwthread adapter for their
lenses ($35 US), so perhaps this will be of interest? Zorkendorfer might
also make a custom adapter, but it would be pricey, I'm sure. More pricey
is the $2500 used med. fmt super-angulon PCS lens for the Bronica
ETR/S/Si which is featured, thanks to Tom White, at my new pages on
bronica etr at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronetr.html - lens envy alert!
see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/links.html for links to Kalimex etc.
see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronhb.html for homebrew lens hacking ideas
hope this provides some ideas and alternatives - good luck - bobm
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998
I have not tested the following with the 6008, but the
follwing may be of interest to many of you...
One fact which I didn't mention, but one which I hinted at, which
is many times the major image sharpness factor, is film flatness.
the Hasselblad film magazine, in the past, was one of the biggest
contributors to unsharpness, even when imaged with the fine
Zeiss lenses. The TLR Rolleiflex didn't suffer from this illness.
Film in the Hasselbald magazine takes an abrupt bend before it
reaches the section where it is exposed to make a photograph.
If you load the film and shoot some pictures--no problem.
But if you shoot a few frames and then leave the film in the
magazine for a while--then shoot pictures, there's a good
possibility that the next frame will not be flat during
exposure time. It may have a "bump" in it, so focus of objects
will not be consistant. The TLR Rollei's film bend is not so
abrupt.
Another problem with rollfilm imagery is that the film in the
beginning of a roll can lay flat. Film of the last few exposures
come from closer to the film spool core, and therefore often show
slight bumps, which can result in erratic sharpness within the
6x6cm negative. Just take an old roll of 120 film and open it up.
Hold it at an angle to some light and compare emulsion flatness of
the beginning of a roll and the end of a roll. Not the same.
This is one major reason why 620 film died. The spool was much
thinner in the center and this difference was greater. 127
suffers in a similar manner.
So, in evaluating lenses evaluate the system--camera and lenses,
and make actual photographs on film. This is my opinion.
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
This should tell you that one NEVER and I mean NEVER sends their
equipment to Hasselblad for repair unless you want to pay through the
nose. There are too many good repair men out there that will do the job
faster, they will do the job better, and they will do the job at just a
small fraction of the ridiculously high Hasselblad prices.
Here is a good example of such a repair man..................
Give him a try and save some money. He is not a make work outfit like
Hasselblad. Hasselblad is like the tire stores your wife may go to. You
want a new set of tires. Before you are done, they tell you that you
need new brakes, new shocks, etc. This is not fair to anyone-this is
just plain robbery
Dick
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
Keep in mind that these products might not carry a warranty. quite often
grey market stuff does not. Regardless of if there is a warranty card
enclosed or not. If Hasselblad gets a damaged item in for warranty repair,
the serial number will tell them which country the item was sold in.
Be Careful.
RM
From: john abraham [email protected]
What do you do with that thing ? I have darkslide holders. they fit
baseplate of most (c,cm,cx,fcm,etc.) Those bases without rubber feet.
They'er made of ABS plastic,verry tuff,protect bottom(I use
rocks,trees,fence posts,for tripods.) aand hold the darkslide. $25
includes shipping. I make them in my spare time.
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
This is something you can find in the archives of the Medium Format Digest,
regarding the same issue:
500 El, EL/M, and ELX owners can send their cameras in to a Hasselblad
service center for a modification/conversion. They install a 553ELX
mounting plate with contact spring, a AA battery compartment to hold 5 AA
batteries like the 553ELX, and a 553ELX battery cover (black or chrome to
match your body). The cost is very reasonable, about $240 in Canadian
funds. Note that the battery charger should not be plugged in if
non-rechargeable AA batteries are used. If you are interested in getting
rechargeable Varta-style NiCads, I picked up two new ones at a very good
price. These are available at:
The Power Source 2284 Old Middlefild Way
They cost $32.50 each (US funds, then) which is a real bargain compared to
what Hassy dealers used to sell them for.
-GH
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
I'd be interested in hearing from someone who has used 9 volt
batteries "EXTENSIVELY" in their EL/ELM series cameras. I've only used
them occasionally and while they seem to work fine, quite frankly they
make the motor sound as if it is really being put to the test (that is,
the motor winds faster). I'm just concerned that over the long hall, the
increased voltage might be hard on the motor......any comments.
Thanks,
Mark
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
I use mine quite a bit and have not seen any ill effects, the motor is
being overdriven somewhat.
You have to remember that you are doing short on times and there is plenty
of time to cool between cycles. Heat is the #1 killer of DC motors.
Unless you are running long roll in continuous mode your duty cycle is more
than adaquate to keep the motor cool.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Hasselblad launched its new baby, a dual-format 35 mm (!) camera today
in Frankfurt, Germany.
Some pictures of it and the press release are found under the NEWS
option on my Web site (http://hawk.foto.no/pinhole/nikon). Take a look
and read the press release.
I played around with this camera and hands-on impressions were
favourable, in fact to the extent that I ordered one for myself (to be
delivered in August)!.
In the first announcement, no price estimate was given. At the press
conference, Hasselblad representatives talked about DEM 3300 (approx $
1800). So, this isn't a cheap one, but by my first hands-on experience
probably in line with its quality.
Had an error on the pictures on my Web-site that now is corrected, so
now everyone can see what the new Hasselblad baby looks like.
Regards
Bjorn Rorslett
Editor's Note: The following post is esp. interesting for its discussion
of adapting the 30mm Kiev lenses to Hassy 500c/m style mounts etc...
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
"Mark Ziemann" [email protected] wrote:
You are quite correct Mark about the Kiev, the rather crude course
quarter turn screw thread lenses and the fact that the Kiev uses a
focal plane shutter rather than leaf shutters built into the lens puts
it more into the 1000/1600 category.
I use two Kiev bodies (80 & 88) for shooting during bush walks with
the fabulous 30mm lens, 65 & 80mm lenses.
In Australia you can no longer buy Kiev products for love or money and
many of the 30mm lens were adapted onto the 500C/M bodies as they
could be purchased for $A400 compared to the Hasselblad equivalent
which costs over $A4000!
If you can obtain the 30mm then I can thoroughly recommend it, there
is supposed to be an 45mm lens but I have never seen them in Aust.
regards ....... Frank Webb
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998
Take the camera to a hardware store. Buy an "Easy Out"of the proper size.
This is an item like a little screw with a left hand thread. You thread it
into the stuck piece, (turning it counterclockwise and it will unscrew the
part.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998
No, it's a 8-elements in 6 components lens. According to Haselblad, they
have designed the lens. Take that for what it's worth.
By the way, their new zoom lens for the 200-cameras, isn't built by Zeiss
either. Hasselblad say that they have made that lens design too, and have
it built in Japan according to their specs and tolerances. Their other zoom
lens is made by Schneider and the lenses to the Arcbody is made by
Rodenstock. The Arcbody lenses are the only one of these that I have tried
out myself, and they are terrific.
Stefan Ohlsson
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
According to their press material, both the tele converter and the zoom
lens is designed by them. When I asked the CEO of Hasselblad, he confirmed
that they have designed those lenses. He also said that they will have
other partners in the future, besides Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock and
now Fuji.
Stefan Ohlsson
When buying new Hassy equipment, does one subsystem tend to me more
durable than another under pro usage? For example, if I purchased a new
503CW with A24 back and standard 80mm CF lens, should I expect to need a
clean, lube and adjust on all the components at the same time (assuming
I used all items equally and didn't swap in other backs, lenses, etc.)
or does one item tend to me more durable than the other when subjected
to heavy use?
The feeling of one of the local repair shops was that backs at least
should be serviced about every 5000 shots or so, whether or not they
have any obvious complaints like bad framing, jamming, etc. or subtle
hints of use. I was curious from a design/engineering standpoint if some
of the components are more failure prone than others. I haven't heard
of any Hassy lemons in the mechanical branch of the family tree: 500C,
500C/M, 503CX, or 503CW (latter, too soon to tell??). Any statistical
or anecdotal data on this group? Thanks in advance.
- Stu [email protected]
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998
A Hasselblad technican here in Germany told me one year ago that they do not
built the friction brake into the magazines any more
(too much friction). He told me that there is no difference in picture
quality
(film flatness) when compairing the 12 and A12
models and subtypes. Thats just what he told me, no personal scientific
experience.
Ulrik
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Hi Joe,
I've used the Softar 1 (and 2) on *gasp* my Hasselblad for weddings and
portraiture; I love it. It creates the same effect regardless of aperture
setting. Some soft focus filter effects increase with increased apertures,
or won't achieve a soft effect when stopped down.... The Softar is
wonderful, though it does seem to reduce contrast abit...
Effects are very apparent if subject has bright highlights (they sort
of...glow), under open shade it puts a softness around the edges, while
still maintaining a "crispness" that I didn't find with Lindahl or Tiffen
soft focus filters....
In the studio it's very nice as well- the Softar 2 is VERY soft; I'll
mainly use this for outdoor "dreamy" type portraits. If you have a Softar 1
& 2, they can be stacked to achieve the same effect as a Softar 3 (a little
TOO much for my taste "Who IS that in the picture?")
They can be horribly expensive, but they achieve a very unique look...
my 2 pennies-
Bob Keene
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998
Hi Bud,
What I've read on the Distagon 60CB says that the optics were
identical, with only build changes (more composites, "looser" focusing
ring, changed textures on the focusing/aperture ring, etc). A reveiw
in Asahi Camera said that the CB would replace the CF version, but I
haven't seen that anywhere else.
The Planar 80CB optics differ from its CF counterpart, with supposedly
slightly inferior performance. The Tessar 160CB is a new design with
no CF counterpart.
Regards,
PB
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 "Bud Schoener"
[email protected] wrote:
In "The Hasselblad Compendium" the author discusses some common servicing
issues in the appendix, just before the acknowledgements. One issue is the
light leaks that frequently occurs in magazines, through the slot where one
inserts the dark slide.
He claims that the remedy is to store magazines with the dark slide
removed, to prevent the foam light trap from becoming permanently
compressed. I have been storing magazines for years with the dark slide
inserted without ever having experiencing a light leak. Should I be
storing magazines with dark slides removed, or does it really matter? I'm
wondering if there is any consensus among users regarding this. Does
storing magazines with the dark slide inserted really cause a light leak
problem?
GH
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998
I can think of four causes for light leaks through the dark slide slot (as
opposed to light leaks from some other point): (1) deterioration of the
light trap material due to age; (2) wearing down of the light trap material
due to insertion and removal of the dark slide many hundreds of times; (3)
damage to the light trap material from a defective (bent or dinged) dark
slide; and (4) compression of the dark slide material from leaving the slide
inserted for long periods of time.
(1) and (2) are inevitable. (3) and (4) can be avoided. I always store my
backs with the dark slide removed.
Les Alvis
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
Should I be storing magazines with dark slides removed, or does it
really matter? Does storing magazines with the dark slide inserted really
cause a light leak problem?
I do not know if this causes the light leaks. Foam deteriorates with time.
However I cannot see a problem at all. You can change the foam light trap
yourself within 15 minutes. The parts cost less than 10 $.
Ulrik
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
I noticed that as well when I received the Compendium. My first thought
was that, "if I keep the darkslide away from the magazine, I will lose it
for sure!". I too have kept the slide in my one magazine for years, and
have never experienced a light leak. Maybe I'm just lucky?
Dan C.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998
It should be noted that at some point in time Hasselblad improved the
light-trap material for their magazines. When redoing the light traps,
something every old magazine needs at some point, my repairman always puts
in the "new improved" type (I believe this is all that Hassy is supplying
now). For me anyway, this has eliminated any problems in this area. I
always store my darkslides inserted into the mag, and I have yet to have any
deterioration of the "new" type. However I am an amateur photographer, I
would expect that you pro's would still need periodic replacement of the
seals as a matter of routine maintence.
Best, Leo.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
Bob Keene wrote:
I use an ELX with a Quantum Radio Slave unit and it works fine. Instead of
buying the overpriced wire I had one made in a radio shop. The DIN
connector was difficult to get though (it is an old type), I found one in a
shelf of obsolete gear in another shop. The connector scheme is printed in
the ELX manual.
--Terje, Norway
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
The DIN connector is available from Mouser Electronics http://www.mouser.com.
I think the part number is 502-12GM5M. Ask for their catalog, lots of useful
stuff.
Richard
Date: 6 Sep 98
Joe McCary - Photo Response wrote:
Getting a 60 when you have an 80 would be a waste of money. The 60 is
/only/ 10 degrees (horizontally) wider than the 80. The 50, however,
is about 20 degrees wider than the 80, a much better choice. A 40/SWC
is about 30 degrees wider than the 80, a large jump but not
unreasonable.
I myself don't like the 80, but prefer a 60 as a "normal" lens. So my
system works out to be SWC, 60, 120, 250.
--
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998
the current proshade is collapsible, the earlier not.
It is a pain to try to put the early proshade in a camera bag. Myself, I fit
mine in a clear plastic food storage container, then put it in my
tripod/flash
bag.
Amateur Photographer in the UK says it is the equivalent of 650 pounds in
Japan. I don't have the pounds-to-yen conversion rate handy but 650 pounds
is about US$1100.
The identical Hasselblad X-Pan will probably sell for well over 1000 pounds
in the UK. A rip-off or what?
Roger
don ferrario wrote
From: [email protected] (Planar100)
[email protected] says...
In Sweden a good used Hass 70mm back is a bargain:150-200USD; a A12 is
twice as much. 70 exposures without changing film is great on travel. The
problem is that probably most of the 70mm emulsions will soon be
discontinued, or they will be too expensive compared to 220. I'd better
fill my freezer with a bunch of 100feet rolls Plus-x 70mm before it's too
late.
--
h dot gunnarsson at ebox dot tninet dot se
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998
I had the same problem... First, I sanded it with very fine sand paper.
This smoothed all the edges. I did not sand close to the "hassy label."
Then I masked the label with masking tape. I chose krylon paint in the mat
finish. I let it dry between coats and sanded with a wet dry sand paper.
400 and 600 grit. Using no water. Use the sand paper dry. After a few
coats and I was satisfied I waxed it with paste wax. Looks almost new...
tom.
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998
Regarding the NC-2 prism....I forgot to mention that I did mask the leather
or vinyl as well. I did not disassemble the prism. Mirror alignment Is
critical and I would be afraid to fool with it. Krylon mat finish and
paste wax works wonders. I also masked the glass on the bottom and did not
worry about spraying the metal which was silver on mine.. it is the part
which slides onto the body. An exacto knife to cut around the hassy wording
and leather helped. Let dry between coats. I put three on and used fine
[super fine] steel wool between each coat.
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998
Perhaps I should give it another try tomorrow
Don't try it. You will wreck the film transport system.
The A24 is meant only for 220 film.
JC
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998
Im considering a purchase of this lens, has anyone actually used it and
what do you think ?
Thank you
al
I have been using and enjoying the Variogon lens for the past 6 months. Most
of my work is landscape and this lens is perfect for my needs. It
provides me
with 141 focal lengths compared to two I once had when I used the 150mm and
250mm Sonnar lenses. Optically, the Variogon is very close to if not as good
as the aforementioned fixed focal-length lenses. Contrast is good, color is
good, as is sharpness. I have not noticed any barrel distortion from this
Schneider made lens. But beware, this lens is NOT made to be hand-held in
shooting sessions. If you try to hand-hold your shots you will become
quickly
disillusioned because of its weight. This lens is meant to be used with a
TRIPOD. If you are buying the newer CF version of the lens, then you will
probably have a tripod mounting attachment built-in as part of the lens.
However, if you are buying the older "C" version, you will have to find the
tripod mounting collar that Hasselblad at one time offered as an
assessory for
this lens. It took me weeks and many hours of reseach to find one. I
actually bought the tripod mounting collar BEFORE I purchased the lens. They
are VERY difficult to find on the used market. I paid a premium of $275 just
for the collar. Having said that, I wouldn't change back to the 150mm and
250mm Sonnars. I am very pleased with the Variogon. One final note, you
need either 86mm or 93mm filters for this lens, and they are expensive.
Hasselblad
no longer makes the 86mm filters but B+W does and you can get them on special
order from Tiffen. Good luck.
Gust
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998
I have found that if you store your magazine without the dark slide you will
be prone to more dirt, dust, and other things getting into the back. My
equipment is carried and stored in hard cases, but still the chance of some
interior foam or other dirt getting into the back when the dark slide is
removed is not what I want. I have one new back with the dark slide
holder and
did store it with the slide out, until I saw bits of dust collect in the
rollers and on film plate.
PS does any body know if when using the new 202, 203 cameras and the CFE lens
will the auto exposure work and set the shutter up to 1/500sec when using
flash, or does it still only work at 1/90. Peter
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
Rick Nordin Knows His Stuff.
Zeiss Ikon made the same recommendation for storing the magazines for the
Contaflex and Contarex cameras -- and, yes, all of my magazines are so
stored, with the dark-slide out. But Zeiss Ikon provided a handy-dandy
slot so they wouldn't get lost.
I guess I'll have to pull the darkslides from my Hasselblad magazines!
Marc
From: [email protected] (Planar100)
Not an answer to your question but ... You don't need one for the
infamous lens-body-jam; a small screwdriver will do just fine. More info:
http://www.photoweb.net/pw_tech/tech_index.html
--
From: [email protected] (Mel1wood1)
Midwest Photo Exchange sells one for $19.95
hope this helps
From Medium Format Digest:
I have a Kiev 88 metered prism and use it on both my Kiev 88 and Hassy
C/M. Your problem may not be so much with the TTL's brightness as with the
camera's screen brightness. The Kiev TTL actually seems brighter on my
Kiev than my C/M because the Kiev's screen is brighter. If I put a Beatty
screen on my Hassy the TTL will be brighter on the Hassy. The main
difference in Hassy vs Kiev TTL's (besides precision and cost) is
primarily light measurement angle and area options in my opinion. I like
my Kiev 88 TTL.
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998
Gary Todoroff wrote:
After having put the film-cassette into the magazine 70, the window
closest to the film counter shows white, thus indicating that the
magazine is loaded. Now you are supposed to transport the film by
winding with the foldable winding key until the film counter indicates
No. 1, the operating signal close to the film plane marker should have
turned white. - With the used magazine70 I happened to accquire this
mechanism does not work like this anymore, but when winding the film
just after loading with that foldable winding key while watching the
second signal, it eventually changes from red to white and right back to
red...but keep winding, it will happen again: After transporting one
more frame the signal turns white again for a glimpse...and then red...
Just watch that window WHILE winding and stop exactly when the signal is
in the white position. Thereafter attach the magazine to your camera
of which the shutter must be cocked of course...
Please let me know if this will work for you, because only after
numerous trials and errors I FINALLY figured this out. .:-((
But I did not have the official Hasselblad manual. ;-)
By the way: Ernst Wildi's Manual was of *some* help...
Good luck!
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998
An air release is a good idea; I have used them for years with good
result. Fitting an air release to a 500CM can be tricky, though. You
often need another piece in addition to the air release assembly. That
piece is a "right angle" or "U-shaped" extension.
The location of the shutter release on the 500CM is close to the lens.
The nature of the air release is that there is a squeeze bulb at the
photographer end of the affair, and a piston plunger at the camera end.
The piston is about 1/2" or 1cm in diameter, and can be impossible to fit
on certain lenses. Again, there is a brief adapter/extension designed to
move the piston affair away from the camera. Be sure to try fitting the
rig together at home before trying it out on the job, like I did.
The quality of air releases varies widely. The Hama is good, but is
somewhat expensive at about $30, compared to about $10 for others. Be
sure to check the action of a candidate air release. It should move
promptly, and have a strong ejection of the plunger. If it is weak or
slow, it may not fire the camera.
There are a lot of reasons I favor the air release. One is that the
mechanical isolation of camera from the photographers hand is good. The
straight mechanical, non-air variety of cable release tends to move the
camera a bit more when pressed, and also when moved. Provided there is
some slack in the air cable, moving the bulb has effect at camera.
Another reason I like the air release is that I can easily put the bulb
behind my back, so it is more difficult for a subject to close his or her
eyes when the anticipate they may be photographed, so they can ruin the
photo with closed eyes. I use a 500CM also, and I like to set it on a
tripod, use an air release, and observe the moment of exposure directly,
after first composing in the viewfinder. And the ability to fire the
camera from a distance of 20 feet is valuable.
Another way to get the camera to go with the photographer away from it is
to use an 80C lens that has a self-timer. In side-by-side testing, a new
80CF did not out-perform my 80C, even with a subject that had some flare.
The self-timer has been dropped in the CF line; the late model lenses do
not have it.
Kodak just sent out samples of its new Portra film to
Promise-of-Excellence members, along with a video tape of several shoots.
One of the children's photographers used an infrared remote control so she
could adjust the child, then quickly step out of the scene and fire the
camera. While this technique has a lot of promise, I'm staying with an
air release w/ U-shaped adapter. For those of you that have the videotape
but have not yet viewed it, you are in for a nice surpise. It is a nice,
show business like production, with plenty of marketing hype, which is fun
to watch. Anyone tried the actual Porta film or have a plan for doing so?
Peter
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998
you wrote:
When in the 1960 NASA decided to buy 6x6 gear they asked for quotations
from Rollei and Hasselblad. Rollei refused to quote its modified SL 66
because they thought the turnover with NASA would be to small.
That's the story.....
Dirk
From: [email protected] (Ron Hopkins-Lutz)
[email protected] (James Chow) wrote:
Sorry first cameras taken by humans into space were Salyut 6x6s (ancestor to
the Kiev 88) and Zorki 35mms by Soviet cosmonauts.The photos were never
released and later were reported lost in the archives. Nicolai Titov, the
second man in space, complained years later that he didn;t take some pictures
because he had to keep removing his glove to wind the knob on "the expletive
deleted Zorkis," which were knob winders.
First camera taken by American John Glenn to space was an Ansco Automat , not
the Minolta of the same name. Film used was Anscochrome 50. It was chosen
because it was automatic exposure and so Glenn wouldn't have to take his
gloves off to adjust it or wind film, since it had a wind lever rather than
knob. I remember the stories at the time stressed it was made in the USA.
I have noticed that NASA histories give a different account as to cameras and
films but don't know why.
=====
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998
Thanks for the advice. I got one of the 70's to work OK. However the other
one was actually defective and is currently being repaired for $180.
BTW - anyone out there with 70mm backs - DO NOT tape the film to a cassette
feed spool if you are loading one from bulk film. I did that, just as I
have always done with 35mm bulk loading. On the ELM, when the film reached
the end, it not only jammed the body, but also the lens. I even had a spare
ELM on board the Coast Guard Dolphin helicopter for the aerial photography
flight, but was unable to transfer my lens to the backup body. Result - a
valuable flight and the time of three crewman, a spotter and myself wasted!
Back on the ground, a local repairman friend and I succeeded in removing
the lens, but could still not get the camera to cycle or fire. I ended up
sending it to Precision Camera in Sacramento. A really friendly fellow
there named Ray walked me on the phone thru all the simple things to try
first. He said to send it in, so I overnighted it on Wednesday and had it
back on Friday! And he only charged me shipping! (May have helped that he
is repairing a 12 mag and the 70mm just mentioned). Great service!
However, I am disappointed that an ELM can break just because of a film
jam. It was an expensive lesson learned. From now on I will only slip the
end of the film under the clip of the 70mm spool, so that it can fall off
the spool at the end of the film. I think film will still have to be taped
to the take up spool though. I have tried slipping it under that clip, but
the drag of the film always slides the film from under the clip when I wind
onto the take up spool. Anybody with similar experience?
The 1000' altitude stereo shots using the A12 magazines have been stunning.
I am learning to use a stereo viewer with the transparencies on the light
table. Tall redwoods seem to just about poke you in the eye and I almost
fall into the depth of mountain gorges below. If the weather holds, we'll
be doing three more flights next week. I'm really looking forward to the
one to Point Arena, almost an hour flight south of Eureka. That is where
they filmed the final scenes from the "Forever Young" movie with Mel Gibson
landing his B25 bomber near the lighthouse.
Sure has been a fun way to use Hasselblads again!
Regards,
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998
Hasselblad sells a nice little booklet (DM 5, about USD 2.7)
with the title:
"Hasselblad - The camera system. 50 years. 1948-1998."
ISBN 91-630-5976-2.
It contains a gallery with a total of 78 pictures from
greats like Ansel Adams to Christian Vogt, and pictures
of all Hasselblads and pre-Hasselblads.
The print quality is excellent, language: English.
Alf
From Medium Format Digest:
I have owned several of these prisms over the years and have used them
consistently on my Hasselblad bodies. They have all been wonderful:
bright, tough, and the metering is quite accurate, well within 1/3
stop, though one of mine did need calibrated as another poster
suggested, an easy enough operation.
These puppies get themselves discussed on the HASSELBLAD LIST from
time to time. They generally receive pretty positive reviews.
They can be had in the US for under $125, a steal when compared to the
price of even a used Hasselblad unmetered prism.
Marc
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
The hassy model used in space was a special edition 500 ELM and the film
back that was used was the 70 mm film back. You can actually see one of
the 500 ELMs that was used if you visit the the Smithsonian Institution's
Air,Space, and Science Museum in Washington, DC. (the 500 ELM models used
for the space program do not have the black leatherette material on the
outside of the body or film back).
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
The deal as reported is that Fuji can only market the camera and lenses
in Japan, the rest of the world belongs to Hasselblad....I am sure after
the camera is out for awhile you will see grey market models being sold
in other parts of the world....All the japanese will want the Hasselblad
name plate and a the other markets will want the Fuji name plate,
because it will be cheaper and in a chrome/silver finish instead of
black....Normal, just like it's always greener on the other side......
Just my .02
Bill
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998
I apolologize in advance if I'm restating common knowledge....
Talked with a Hassy rep this morning about HB new equipment warranties. If
you purchase a new piece of gear in the U.S. from an authorized Hasselblad
Dealer, it comes with the standard 3 year U.S. Warranty. If you buy the
identical item from a NON-authorized dealer here in the U.S., you only get
the ONE YEAR year warranty, which is from the factory in Sweden. Another
interesting way to control your resellers. Buyer beware....
- Stu
Bob Shell wrote:
Well, Hasselblad was recently sold to an anonymous group of investors, and
the Hasselblad family no longer have a significant interest, if any. I
strongly suspect Kodak is quite absent from the new mix.
Marc
Actually, Op-tec makes a wide strap with lugs that will fit H'blads and
Bronicas. It's modeled after their Pro camera strap and made of same
neoprene material. It has rubber beads on one side to prevent slipping.
It's about $20.00US.
Hope this helps!
Ken
From Hasselblad User Group:
bobm wrote:
Earlier this year I read in a newspaper that Hasselblad was sold to a Swiss
bank.
--Terje
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998
Frank,
Yes, if you are using the A16 back, you might need a 90 degree. But for
normal square use, the Hassy NC-2 or the Russian (Ukranian) Kiev late
model metered prism are good, even at 45 degree viewing angle. The Kiev
is nice and bright, magnifies well, and has good contrast. I like mine
well enough, and it was about $200 new. Another thing to look for in a
prism is if it fits your Polaroid back; not all do.
Peter
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998
Frank,
The Kiev has no built-in adjustable diopter. Like Rick Campbell, my
vision is too bad without glasses to focus with them off and flip them
back on for direct viewing and other uses. In specific, my
prescription is -5 diopters, if that is in correct units. In other
words, I am near-sited (diagnosis myopia) and have about 20/200 vision
uncorrected. Eyeglasses have worked well for me, since about age 8.
My corrected vision is better than 20/20, measured at about 20/15.
I don't think my technique would allow me to flip glasses on and off.
I tend to set the camera on a tripod, then use the viewfinder to
focus and frame. Since the swinging mirror design of the Hasselblad
does not allow viewing of the moment of exposure anyway, due to the
blackout, I like to look at the subject directly. In this way, I can
see if the person moved, the flash went off, etc. I really need my
glasses.
A comment or two about eyeglasses and vision. I have two pairs that
I carry, one plain glass and one prescription sunglasses. Also, I
keep a spare pair of photo-grey eyeglasses in the glove box of my car.
This way, I can withstand loss or breakage of my glasses and keep
going. Since I have lost two pairs of glasses boating, and damaged
several snow skiing and playing basketball, I've invested in American
Optical Sports Goggles. These can withstand some abuse, and the strap
can be tied to a life jacket when water skiing. In addition, I do
practice my mobility without glasses, so I can continue if I sustain a
total loss. About the only time I had to take pictures without
glasses was when I shot a wedding in very hot, humid conditions and my
glasses fogged. In that case, I estimate the subject distance and set
it on the focus scale.
I'm not getting any "lens cuts" in my eyes to fix my vision. I feel
the weakened eyes would tend to burst in certain trauma. In addition,
I'm concerned that the corrected vision is not 20/20 or 20/15, and
that the cuts give some refraction that causes points of light at
night to look as several points. And some trauma I experienced, in
which a laceration of my eye at age 5 caused temporary sight loss, has
made me sensitive to getting my eyes poked and cut. The treatment for
the laceration was excellent; the fellow just put me in a darkened
room with my eyes covered for a few days until my eyes healed, which
worked. Anyone had RK and continued with photography?
Peter
p.s. I do flip off my glasses when I am being photographed for a
portrait, so the eye color will be that much clearer.
From Medium Format Digest:
This is not a do-it-yourself job! According to optical wizard Bill
Maxwell, of Maxwell Precision Optics, the Hasselblad mirror actually
rides in a shallow metal pan, where it is supported by three small
foam rubber shims. Over time, the shims age and lose their
resiliancy, allowing the mirror to fall a little deeper into the pan.
I just went through this with my Hasselblad 500CM, and was pulling my
hair out over out-of-focus pictures. I read about Maxwell on this
forum and sent him my camera. It now focuses beautifully. I also had
him install one his Maxwell screens, which I find to be better than
the H'blad AcuteMatte. I will soon be sending him my other 500CM body
for the same treatment.
From Medium Format Digest:
Had focusing problems several years ago. I used small apertures &
relied on depth of field to get less than satisfying results. Then
one day I did a test. I used the same lens with each of my two 500
CM bodies. The lens showed a different distance from the subject
with each body even though camera to subject distance was identical.
The small L bracket which the mirror makes contact with was bent down
a very small amount. Went to a camera store & inspected a new 500
CM. The bracket looked to be 90 degrees. Called Hasselblad in New
Jersey & asked them if the mirror angle is adjusted by bending that
small L shaped bracket. I was astounded when the repair technician
said yes. I took it to a local shop which has the factory tool
measure if you bent it into the correct 90 degree position. Did a
little further adjustment by adjusting the focus screen height by
turning the adjusting screws a small amount at a time. (takes a
special tool to turn them) Did this by renting a film plane focus
screen & comparing that to what I saw through the regular focusing
screen. My photos are now very sharp. I use wide apertures with
great confidence now.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Finally someone had the balls to put in print the truth about
Hasselblad's CB lenses.
Mr. Bob Shell of the "Shutterbug"
did it in the March issue. He goes on to say that the lenses are not T*
coated but a cheaper multicoating. He also states that they were redesgned
and there specs are not as good their CF brothers. This must have taken a
lot of guts to print since manufacturers put a ton of money into paying
for the magazine's articles.
The article did not rip apart the CB line, but it explained that it was a
cheaper money saving line. Still, most magazines would do a "Popular
Photography" fluff piece and avoid all negative comments and stick with
only positive facts. I'm glad to see that someone in this industry had
the guts to print the truth, even though it wasn't positive.
Lance
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Bob Shell is famous for trashing Hasselblad and also Nikon. He thinks the
sun rises and sets on Mamiya and Canon. Even though the new CB lenses have
plastic components in unimportant areas, what about the Mamiya lenses that
have been plastic for years, and what about the total plastic body of
M645? His criticisms of other cameras should be taken with a grain of
salt. When he starts trashing Canon and Mamiya 645 I will listen to his
sermon. I am an x Hassy owner.
EC
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Maybe so, I have not used any CB's, I do know that the CB 160 is a lens I
would
not buy.
Why not make them in Japan and save more money?
It's coming, the new 60-120 is made by Fuji and there will be others soon
to follow. I have been using H'blad since the 70's when only C lenses
were available. If you were to lay chromes from C and T* on a light box,
I doubt if you could tell the difference. In fact H'blad was not even
going to MC any lens over 120MM because the difference wasn't there. These
are the words of Wilde, not me. According to Wilde, T* was a sales gimmick
and done because everyone else was doing it. I agree that I don't like
the reduction in quality any more than you do but it is the wave of the
future, we better learn to like Fuji lenses because that is all there may
be.
EC
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999
My 350mm f5.6 lens, trumpet shaped, was in for repair at Hasselblad in
Sweden because of a loose front element. They returned it claiming that the
original ring keeping the front glass fastened was not obtainable any more,
and they would not use third party parts. Instead I left the lens for
repair at a local handy-man, a "lens doctor", who mangaged to do a good job
with spare parts from his own drawers.
I discovered the fault when the horizon got out of focus through the
viewfinder. I was told that this was not the first lens with that
particular fault.
--Terje, Norway
My 350mm f5.6 lens, trumpet shaped, was in for repair at Hasselblad in
Sweden because of a loose front element. They returned it claiming that the
original ring keeping the front glass fastened was not obtainable any more,
and they would not use third party parts. Instead I left the lens for
repair at a local handy-man, a "lens doctor", who mangaged to do a good job
with spare parts from his own drawers.
I discovered the fault when the horizon got out of focus through the
viewfinder. I was told that this was not the first lens with that
particular fault.
--Terje, Norway
To: [email protected] Subject: Re: spare parts availability
My 350mm f5.6 lens, trumpet shaped, was in for repair at Hasselblad in
Sweden because of a loose front element. They returned it claiming that
the original ring keeping the front glass fastened was not obtainable any
more, and they would not use third party parts. Instead I left the lens
for repair at a local handy-man, a "lens doctor", who mangaged to do a
good job with spare parts from his own drawers. I discovered the
fault when the horizon got out of focus through the viewfinder. I was told
that this was not the first lens with that particular fault.
--Terje, Norway
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999
Hi Phong,
Don't I know you from the Leica list? Anyway, Hilton Command Exposures in
Nashua NH is where I have taken my equipment in the past. They are an
authorized Hasselblad service center. Their number is: 603-888-3684 Also
get to know Steve Freedman at Cambridge Camera in Revere. He is a good
source for equipment, supplies, and info. The Cambridge Camera number is:
781-284-2300 If you took your equipment to them they would most likely sent
it to the Nashua place.
Bill Franson
From Hasselblad List
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999
Adapter 40037 wanted.
This simple Hasselblad lens mount adapter fits via its male bayonet mount
into a body or bellows unit. It has a threaded hole in the center to accept
standard micro threaded lenses/objectives. The diameter of that hole is
approximately 19.5 mm or 0.77 inches or 3/4 inch. There is no shutter
mechanism involved.
Cosmetic condition not terribly important as long as the two mounts are OK.
Please e-mail directly to [email protected].
Thanks, Harry Haige
Mark Rabiner wrote:
Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad C
system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
So, the Rolleiflex and Hasselblad Planars are different designs, though
emenating from the same source.
Yes, yes, I know what Kingslake says, and he is, flatly, wrong: Sauer said
so!
Marc
From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Javier Perez [email protected] wrote:
The 200mm Imagon and the 120 and 150mm Imagons have been adapted by various
companies. At present Rodenstock has dscontinued the adapters but Kaiser
makes a bellows for MF cameras including the 200/2000 series that takes 39mm
Leica mount lenses like the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon N reversed mounted for
macro or the Apo Rodagon D series for duping. You could modify the mount to
accept other lens mounts.
The bellows is also avalable for the Pentax MF cameras, Mamiya 645, and
Exacta 66 cameras.
--
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO
Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,
Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999
Robert: The process of using 220 in the non A backs is given in great
detail in a book called the Hasselblad Way by H. Freytag. It was printed
by Focal Press. When I bought my first Hasselblad the dealer gave me the
book. Sometimes you can find them through Amazon books online. If you
would like more info on the process in this book send me a e-mail.
P.Peterson
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I am deciding whether to buy a 250, a 180 or a 150 lens.
I owned and tested all of the above lenses and i found the
following: T he 250 is NOT a sharp lens, in fact the 180mm, which is a
great lens, when teamed up with the 1.4 tele it creates a 252mm f 5.6
lens, which on my film tests was clearly superior to the 250mm 5.6 sonnar.
Hasselbad tech reps also confirmed that the 180/1.4 combo would be better.
The added advantage being that you also get the 180mm which is a superb
lens, perhaps hassy's best. If you really want a prime 250mm there's
always the 250mm SA lens for a mere $5500.....
From: [email protected] (Dave Munroe)
Hani Eid [email protected] wrote:
There's a third possibility: the 2000FC with 3 CF lenses. That would give
you the best of both worlds: higher shutter speeds with the focal plane
shutter (1/1000, 1/2000) and high sync speeds (or less vibration) with
the lens shutter. That's the beauty of an F-series body with CF lenses:
you can choose to use either the body's focal plane shutter or the lens'
leaf shutter according to whatever the situation requires.
For reliability and repairability, the 500C probably has an edge over the
2000FC simply because they're more common and more parts are in stock.
They're mechanically more simple, but the complexity really just moves to
the C or CF lens. I'd say the safe, conservative route is the 500C with
three CF (or C) lenses. There's nothing wrong with a 2000FC system, but
you may have to hunt around a bit for the F lenses. Myself, I'd choose
the 2000FC with three CF lenses.
-Dave
From: [email protected] (Dave Munroe)
Mark Nowaczynski wrote:
One limitation is that the 202FA was designed primarily for FE
lenses and use of the body's focal plane shutter. It cannot
make use of the shutter on CF-series lenses (CF, CFE, CFi) -- you
can only use the body's focal plane shutter with those lenses
and the lens has to be set to "F". Even so, that isn't too great a
limitation unless you frequently need to use the lens shutter for
flash sync at higher shutter speeds.
According to the Hasselblad web site, CB lenses and C-series lenses
should not be used. I suppose F lenses could be used, but then
aperture information couldn't be sent to the camera body.
To sum it up, you'd most likely be using FE or CFE lenses with a
202FA and those are the most expensive of the Hasselblad lenses.
-Dave
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999
I found that the meter works, though you might want to check it with
another meter, "rule of f11," or some test exposures. In my own
side-by-side testing, I found the late model Kiev TTL bright and
sharp, consistent with your finding. When I tested an older Kiev TTL
and a Kiev NC-2 copy, they were not quite as sharp.
Peter, The serial number on my Kiev TTL 45-degree finder begins with
'95' so guess I got a new one. You know when I was shopping for a 45
degree prsim, I was told
to avoid the Kiev TTl because it was too heavy, etc. But I'm more
than happy
with it mounted on my Hassy 1000F camera. It is crystal sharp for
focusing.
Glad I bought it.
The dealer who sold to me said the TTL meter wasn't really compatible
with
Hassy,
but I don't use the meter anyway.
Thanks for your help and if you have any other tips, etc. on the
Kiev, I'd
appreciate your comments.
Bob R.
I have a 203FE. It will give you more a couple of interesting options to
think about.
The 203FE focal plane shutter will flash sync only up to 1/90, as you know.
But with C, CF, or CFi lenses attached you can use either the lense's leaf
shutter or the body's focal plane shutter. With the leaf shutter you can
theoretically sync at 1/500 just as if the lense were mounted on the 553ELX;
however, because of the focal plane shutter needing to open first and close
last to get out of the way, 1/250 or 1/125 top sync is more realistic.
There isn't much tolerance for sluggish leaf shutter action, so this works
best with newer CF lenses which are in good repair. If you were considering
using older C lenses for fast sync, it might be a risky strategy in my
opinion. Best way to find out is to try it in a camera store.
The 203FE's TTL/OTF flash exposure control will be functional with the C,
CF, and CFi lenses as well as the F and FE lenses. If you use the focal
plane shutter, you will get TTL/OTF flash control and TTL autoexposure
control, with adjustable fill levels.
Focusing in a dimly lit room is a little easier with the faster F and FE
lenses. But the extra glass also weighs more.
The 203FE focal plane shutter will also give you 1/2000 when you want it --
with any lense.
Hope this helps.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
Anyone who has made this decision recently please share your thoughts. I
liked the idea of autoexposure but dont like the 1/90 flash sync with fe
lenses. I will be buying both with a winder (I know teh 553elx has it built
in).
Unfortunately there is a trade off, I was wondering if anyone had any other
idiosyncracies about either camera.
Thank you
al
From: [email protected] (BladFixer)
I charge $140 + parts for a complete overhaul on an SWC/M. Parts
generally run
another $25-$30 for a total of about $170. If you send it in I can give
you a
free estimate.
Thank you,
Rumiging around the new today I found this on the Kiev site. Comments?
KIEV LENSES for HASSY 2000!
Presumably they would also work with the 200 bodies.
Len Eselson
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999
you wrote:
They are not auto-diaphragm!
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Jim,
I have been using my late model Kiev TTL prism (about 1997 vintage) for macro
photography, with good result. I have the 500CM with the Acute Matte D.
Mostly, I use a 150C with a 21 tube, or my 80C with a 21 tube. I
recently did
some shots using a Sunpack DX8-R ring flash, with good result. I adapted the
52mm threads of the Sunpack to the bay50 with the Tiffen adapter for this
purpose, available from B&H.
The only problem I had was my Luna Star F flash meter had a little trouble
with the high power output of the DX8-R, so I shot at 1/4 power to get in
the range of the meter. In future, I'll meter at 1/4 power, then go to
full and add two stops to the reading, or possibly use the +5 EV adapter
that came with the flash, or "dial-in" the rig by recording the focus
distance and power settings,
bracketing, and choosing the best results for re-use later. At any rate, the
DX8-R that I bought bought new for $110 was a good deal. It has excellent
controls for different manual power levels, as well as several auto ranges.
The thing I like about it best is that it is more powerful than my old single
power level manual Cambron ring flash, by a factor of four.
Focusing was no problem; I like the Kiev, and it is only $200 or so.
Make sure
you don't get an old one; it has been improved.
Peter
...
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999
Peter,
Thanks for your comments. Yeah, I'm very happy with this metered finder. The
only bad part was not being able to use it along with a Polaroid back I
bought. Had to use
the waist level because the finder portrudes back and is in the way of the
big Polaroid back. Focusing with the Kiev is a breeze. I can see superbly
sharp through the finder.
Bob R.
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999
Peter,
I know it's not used widely as much anymore, but I've started playing around
with the
Polaroid 80 Back. I get the Pola 87 (B&W) and 88 (Color) film packs very
cheap at a local camera store and don't plan to really shoot much with this
film, but nice to have the option. Have heard a lot of positive feedback from
users of the NPC. Might get one down the line.
Bob
I just purchased a 203FE a few months ago. I'm using mine with the CFE (not
FE) lenses, as I want to have the higher speed flash synch. However, a few
observations regarding the 202 vs 203:
1) You lose a little bit in the top shutter speed (1/1000 vs 1/2000). May be
important for your application.
2) If you later decide to purchase, rent, or borrow a CF lense; you can ONLY
use the focal plane shutter (probably not important to you).
3) Talking to one other person about the 202 (before I bought my 203),
they indicated that having to change shutter speeds with the two "arrows"
(instead of the shutter speed dial) was a real pain. Since the 202 has NO
shutter speed dial, this also means you always have to use either the
magnifier or a pentaprism if you want to change speeds MANUALLY. If you
leave it on "A", this will not be as much of a problem.
Either camera is a superb instrument. It took me a while to decide to part
with the (considerable) extra dollars for the 203; but I'm glad I did.
(ps- make sure you really need that extra stop on the 50FE... it weighs 50%
MORE than the 50CF, and might be a factor if you are going to carry the gear
a great deal. The 150FE, oddly enough, is LIGHTER than the slower 150CF).
David Gerhardt
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999
David:
I like what I hear about the 202, 203 cameras. But I would like to ask a few
questions. If you use the CFE len's does that mean the 203 body will set the
shutter speed at 1/500 in auto mode if needed. Have you used this camera in
auto mode, and how does it rate for exposure. Do you do any flash work with
the 203 while using the camera in auto mode. Will you add the 60-120mm zoom
lens.
I think that the 203 with the 60-120mm zoom would be a great candid
camera at
weddings. I think that if Hasselblad made the new CW winder to fit on the 200
body's they would have a nice thing going. I own a 503CXi and a 503CW, both
with winders and I love the way they handle. But I would love a Hasselblad
with a zoom lens TTL metering "not just for flash" and a high sync speed for
my wedding work. Thank You
Peter
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999
Mark Nowaczynski wrote:
Mark,
I shoot the 201f. I plan to add a second focal plane body and it will be a
203. Having studied the 202 and the 203, I wouldn't care to live with the
limitations of the 202.
I agree with David Gerhardt's listing of concerns with the 202. I would
not want to be without a way to manually set the shutter speed. I like to
be able to shoot both CF and FE lenses. The 203 is quite a bit more money
but will be worth it to me for my handheld, availbable light shooting.
Mike Gardner
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
you wrote:
Can't help you with the memo holder, but regarding dark slide holders,
apparently the new A12 holders are permanently attached via plastic tabs
that extend thru the metal back. However, the new after market dark slide
holders from Lindahl are available and are GREAT! They retail for about
$20 and affix with double-sided adhesive. Have added them to all my backs
- I no longer lose my dark slides. Check them out at
http://www.lslindahl.com/
...gregg
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999
The answer is, "yes-and-no". The Kiev 88's have an aperture stop-down
mechanism while the 1000F does not. The lenses SHOULD fit manually but the
production tolerances at the Arsenal Plant can be, well, a bit creative, so
a given lens may not mount smoothly on a given camera body.
Marc
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999
Matias,
I have a Haselblad 1000F camera and I use some lenses and attachments from
the Kiev 88 with no problem. There is no need for modification. The mounts
are exactly the same.
Bob R.
Hasselblad says that the ground glass covers 91% of the film image. When
using a finder such as the PM5, you see 88% of what the film sees. The
unseen area is equivalent to what a slide mount will cover.
Jim
Wesley Loh wrote:
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999
A clean,good used Polaroid back should go for no more than 250.00; mint,
perhaps 275.00. NPC's usually go for around 150.00 or sometimes less.
It's difficult to say without looking to check the roller assembly for wear
and corrosion damage (common). ALSO: Beware that alot of the older
pack-style Polaroid backs are out there using a size that is difficult or
impossible to find. (Individuals and dealers alike are trying to pawn
these off on the unsuspecting.) I forgot the actual model number. It MUST
be a Polaroid 100 back or its newer, budget replacement. Of course, you
could just not deal with this character again...entirely. There is also
the quite nice but uncommon Arca-Swiss Polaroid back - all machined and
lovely - usually for less than a Hasselblad. Sorry about the problem
with the lens. I've been "taken" by a few old codgers who feigned
surprise when
faults in their descriptions were pointed-out. I just chalk it up to
becoming wiser myself....
Regards,
Peter Mattei
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999
Roller assemblies can be replace for under $20. This shouldn't stop you from
buying as it's an easy fix.
cheers Wilber
....
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999
I'd go for the Kiev knock-off, since they are $200 US, 45 degree, bright,
sharp and have a proper meter. Be sure to get a late model, as identified
by a serial number with the first two digits within the last couple of
years. There's even a fellow offering them all the time on Ebay.
Murray Milligan
Will someone on the list who knows these things, please explain the
differences between a PmE5 PME3, PM51 metered prism.
I'm looking for a prism finder with a 45 degree angle eyepiece I can
used on my 500C equipped with an Accumatte screen.
Murray wrote:
You want a PME3, PME5, or PME51 (or a recalibrated PME - there's a
sticker on those saying they were recalibrated by Hasselblad).
Steve
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
....
The PME-3 is factory calibrated for the Acute matte screen (original
PME/VFC6 was not but can be adjusted) The PM5 is similar but was designed
so the meter/data display at the top of the screen of the 200 series
cameras can be seen (of little value with your 500C) The PM51 is an
updated PM5. The PME51 got more up-to-date electronics, which brought
improved metering accuracy and energy saving. Also a practical detail, the
position of the battery check diode was moved to the scale window.
Rick
From Rollei Mailing List:
Those Ukrainian prisms are darned good. I've got one of the Kiev 88C
cameras with the non-metered prism and a friend used to borrow it to use
on his Hasselblad. Fits perfectly. Then he found a used older Hassy
prism and bought it and was disappointed to find that my cheap Ukrainian
one was brighter!!
I think all you would need to make an adapter is a junker folding hood
with the bottom intact. Take it apart and figure a way to attach it to
the prism. Shouldn't be much of a job for anyone good with their hands.
I was told that the older Kiev prisms were actually cut and polished (the
actual prism, that is) in Jena until reunification drove the prices up too
high.
One thing I have never understood is the prices charged for prisms for MF
cameras. I've watched the manufacture of penta prisms in camera factories
and there isn't all that much to it. I keep expecting some enterprising
person to have prisms made somewhere in the far east and sell the basic
prism and adapters for a bunch of different MF cameras. If the price was
right, someone could clean up doing that.
Bob
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
This is a simple and cheap fix: Call Hasselblad USA and ask for
parts. Ask them to send you the light traps for each one (they come
in 2 parts). The traps cost about $6 for each back. Install by
removing the mating plate from the inside of the back (don't be afraid
- just use a high quality screwdriver of the right size...and don't
lose the screws!). The replacement will be obvious with the plate
removed. It's real simple
Curt Miller
Miller [email protected] wrote:
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I strongly recommend looking through the prism and the 500mm lens at the
same time. I've had real problems with the combination of early
Hasselblad prisms and long lenses or tubes. There is a pronounced
tunnel vision effect at anything less than wide open.
Jim
[email protected] writes:
I picked up a mint
45 deg prism from Saljut (or maybe Kiev; it doesn't say so). It's the
non-TTL version and it's absolutely every bit as nice as a Hassy prism
(I'm actually surprised at how well its made).
From what I've heard the quality of the Ukrainian prisms is all over the
place. I had late-serial# samples of both the non-TTL and TTL Kiev prisms
and both had major internal reflections and you could see lines where the
pieces of the prism were joined together. In the TTL finder the meter
display is in a black rectangle that blocks about 1/4" across the top of
the screen. Both finders were also very rough sliding on and off the
body. I sent both of them back and went with the Hassy PM5...a major
chunk of change but a world of difference in quality. I was truly
disappointed, my hopes had been very high for the Kiew finders.
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000
[email protected] writes:
Please advice me on which body to choose, price may not be a problem,
the
following list my choice :
500C: least expensive, oldest (1957-1970). Doesn't have interchangeable
focusing screens and the OEM screen is quite dark (IMO). Like anything
that old, how much of a bargain it is depends a lot on how it has been
treated/serviced.
500C "transitional": (1971) marked 500C but has interchangeable screens.
Find one in good condition, it's a great buy. I have one in mint shape.
My backup.
500CM (1972-92 approx.): interchangeable screens. Try to find one with an
Acute-Matte and a crank rewind already installed, usually cheaper than
buying them separately. Again, price and value determined by condition.
501C (not listed above): 500CM without removable wind crank and without
indicator on body that it is cocked. I find the latter omission a (minor)
nuisance.
503 CX (not listed above) (1989-94): 500CM with TTL/OTF flash and improved
internal antireflective material. My favorite model, I own 2. More money
than a late 500CM but quite a bit less than CXi or CW, comes standard with
crank rewind and Acute-Matte screen.
503Cxi: 503 CX with provision for a motor-winder. Also has new-style
bottom plate (doesn't take some of the previous accessories), no "T"
setting on shutter release (need locking cable release for long
exposures), and no "body cocked" indicator. Unless a winder is your
dream, I feel the CX is a much better buy.
503CW: 503CXi with improved mirror system so no image cutoff at top of
finder with long lenses. If you're going to shoot longer than 150, you
might want this one. I use a 2x with my 150 occasionally, the dark band
on the older bodies isn't that bothersome at least to me. But it's a
consideration.
501CM: 503CW without TTL/OTF flash or provision for attaching a winder.
Good luck!
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Bernard:
Actually, the info that I have points to 40mm Distagon being about 21.5mm
in 35mm format. The "other" flat-field wide angle is the 800lb gorilla of
medium format: the SWC Biogon. After these thirty-some years there has
been no real improvement. I have nothing shorter than the standard 80mm
in Hasselblad. Last year I bit the bullet and purchased a 1979 SWC.
That spoiled me forever and I've never regretted it. The wrap-around
effect with architectural subjects is breath-taking...well, at least the
dogs think so.
Peter Mattei
BTW, the folks @ The f-Stops Here have one of those focal length
comparison charts on their site: www.thefstop.com
Date: 21 Jan 2000
Even the Polaroid 80 film back for hasselblad has film available for it.
This is the Type 87 and 88 Polaroid
Film packs. (I get them from various
local photography stores.)
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
There was much more interest in how to take 24 x 56 mm panorama pictures
with an ordinary Hasselblad than I could ever imagine So instead of
adressing each individually I'll use this forum if it is OK (and who can
stop me..... ;-) ). !)
Buy a roll of doublesided adhesive tape and a package of two-component
glue type Araldite or Super Epoxy.
2) You have a roll of protective paper from an film you have developed
yourself, else ask at your favourite photo firm. I suppose you have some
empty 120 film spool too - and a piece of film I hope.?
3)You need two pieces of wood, round, the diameter the same as the disks
in the end om the film spool, One should be 6 mm long, the other one 11mm.
Drill a hole approx 4mm through the midpoint of them both.
Now you have everything you need except the pair of scissors and a piece
of paper to mix the glue and a fine sandpaper..
3) Remove the disks from the film spool endings. This is easiest done if
you press the disk with an ange of approx 10 - 15 deg against a tabletop
and rotate it several turns. Be careful not to break the disks! Yo'll need
them. After some time the disks can be taken off. But the hole in the disk
is a little rough and so is the spool where they were attached, fix it
with sandpaper so the disks can enter the spool quite easily.
4) Glue the disks 35, 5 - 36 mm from each other (each approx 18 mm from
the middle) with the mixed glue. It is important to put some glue to the
spool ending BUT! protect the holes . This is to seal the spool, the plast
quality is poor and it could easily break if not reinforced in this way.
If you find this difficult it helps if you have two pieces of wood 35,5-36
mm wide to use as a jig.
5) Now take the filmholder out of the magazine. On the pressure plate you
attach two pieces of the doublesides adhesive tape vertically. Cut them
(before puting them in place!!!!) 5mm wide and 54 mm long. place one on
each side so that they dont interfere with where the film will run.
6) Attach a piece of protective paper to those stripes of tape (if this
can't be done you have forgotten to take the tape protection plastic
off......) this piece should be 55 - 56 mm long, the width is already
given.
7) on this paper you place two new stripes of double tape, not nearer the
middle than 20 mm.
8) now cut two stripes of film 10x 54 mm so that they cover the
perforation of the 35 mm film .
9)almost ready! Now put the two pieces of wood in place, place the 35 mm
cartridges between them. Your special spool - of course - as recieving
spool, lead the film under the stripes of film.
10) carefully place the film holder in the magazine. advance it until
unexposed film and start. How to place a masque of paper on the foc.
screen you have to figure out by yourselves.
NOTICE! the film counter counts correctly up till 12 where it stops. Then
go into your darkroom and release the filmholder pull it out a centimeter
(1/2 inch) until you hear the counter change. If this can't be done (go
home to the darkroom I mean) have a "darkroom bag" with you out. NOTICE 2!
Advance the film about 5 mm with the magazine crank between every
exposure.
I have a picture of how it all looks but that I can't add here.
If you want to see it, write me an e-mail and I'll send it to you (less
than 50kb)
Good luck
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
I thoght I had covered it all but - no. Of course you have to rewind the
35 mm film into the 35 mm casette and of course you have to do that in a
darkroom, a darkroom sack or in a dark room. Else you have little
enjoyment of all your struggle. Be careful not to put too fat fingerprints
on the film........
For those of us who shoot transparencies there are 7 x 7 cm frames with
an opening I think is 22 x 54 mm.
Ulf Sj�gren
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999
Greetings, Y'all!
good news if you are a hasselblad owner or future buyer, I think...
The rumored new Kiev cameras with hasselblad compatible backs and
viewfinders are now available, see http://www.dedal.cz/optics/
Sample Hassy Compatible Kiev Accessory Prices:
These prices and the low cost of hassy accessory compatible Kiev bodies
means you can buy a pentacon mount kiev 88 (to use those Zeiss and
Schneider lenses now) and invest in hassy compatible viewfinders and
prisms and extra backs with your Kiev.
Buying a hasselblad body/lens (focal plane shutter or leaf shutter
variant) will allow you to use these compatible backs/accessories from
Kiev to save major $$ to expand your system.
If you get a focal plane body capable hasselblad, you can use some of the
Kiev lenses which are available in that mount too (non-auto, I'm told,
however). Again, you save circa 60-75% off the price of similar hassy f/p
lenses.
Pretty interesting new options and it is certainly going to be nice to
have a lower price source of accessories. The Kiev meters have long been
used by knowledgeable hassy owners who wanted a lower cost alternative,
but the availability of these new backs is a nice addition to our options!
This should expand Hasselblad's market share too, as folks will likely
start out with an economy Kiev if they can't afford the entry level
hassys, but now they can afford a Kiev hassy accessory compatible body
starting out.
Later, their investments in hassy compatible backs and TTL meters etc can
be retained by upgrading to some of the hassy bodies.
the next logical step is to mount the Kiev lenses in a hassy focal plane
mount compatible setup with full auto-operation. This would ignite sales
of both these lenses (as third party lenses for hassy focal plane
cameras) and hugely increase interest in the dual focal plane/leaf shutter
hasselblad bodies. You could have a full lens range and affordable
accessories for your hasselblad 2xx/x and pickup that 150mm Zeiss leaf
shutter for portrait work and flash sync etc., achieving the best of both
worlds much more economically than is now possible.
regards to all bobm
Huggers, there's nothing more frustrating than a self inflicted
malfunction, especially when you had the best intentions at heart. Learn
from my mistake and DONT'T DO WHAT I DID!
It is critical when inserting & removing the dark slide that this be done
in an absolutely STRAIGHT manner. If you don't, you can induce a light
leak, and possibly damage the back. I know this sounds like obvious
advice, but let me sketch out the scene of the crime.
I recently built a rather nice looking and extremely comfortable left
handed "L" shaped grip for my 500CM. It was fashioned out of a generic
bracket I got in the junk bin for $2.00, a foam bicycle handlebar grip
($4.95), a foam camera wrist strap - $9.95 (new, for security) some
hardware store bolts, aluminum edge molding, and an old style Hassy quick
release bracket. My regular flash-rigged Stroboframe bracket was too
large for the hiking trip I was planning in N.Hampshire and I was too
cheap to shell out for a used Hassy bracket at the ridiculous prices
they're getting. I built the whole thing for under $25, it's light, small
and fits right into my Lowepro Off Road waist pack along with the Hassy;
perfect for hiking around.
What I had no control over when I built the thing was that the upright
hand part of the grip lines up pretty adjacent to the darkslide slot on
the magazine. Being offset somewhat it doesn't really block it, but when
you push in or pull out the slide, you have to very slightly BEND the
slide towards the back, to miss hitting the grip. This causes the
darkslide channel on the magazine to temporarily and slightly enlarge,
resulting in a momentary light leak. Everything springs back into place
once the slide is either inserted, or removed completely. However you've
just caused faint streaks of light to creep in from the side of the back.
This was obvious as soon as I got the negs back from the lab. I had a
momentary panic since I'd just shot two weddings back to back right after
the trip; I feared the worst. Fortunatly my Stroboframe bracket does not
interfere with darkslide movement at all, so there was no "light leak"
issue here. The good news was that I'd only inflicted the added ambience
on my vacation shots, to a minor degree. My wife won't sue me whereas a
bride might.
Moral of the story is be careful with innovative Hassy re-engineering 8-).
They've been doing it a little longer than I have. The easy fix for my
situation is to simply slide the camera out of the quick release bracket
BEFORE moving the dark slide. This moves it away from the hand grip. As
long as I do that, it's a very handy addition to my camera bag.
- Stu Pearl
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Stu,
Sorry to hear about your light leak. Good thing that it only occurred on a
few photos. If you are like most pros, you usually take more than one
photo for every setup. The likelihood of a client successfully suing you
over 2-3 photos is highly unlikely. Still, its good that this didn't occur
on a paying assignment.
Question, can you drill a secondary hole in the quick release plate to
give yourself some extra room? You can buy the screw inserts for penny's
so you won't have to tap the secondary hole yourself.
The other thing that you might want to do is see if you can find an old
Jones bracket. They made several versions, one of which is very
light-weight, in fact I may have one.....it is a fixed height with a
wooden handle. You can pick them up used for only a few dollars.
Jeff
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
By far the most popular body must be the 500 C-type, in all its different
guises (500 C, 500 C/M, 503 CX, 503 CXi, 503 CW, 501 C and 501 CM). Note
that the 500 C type first hit the market in 1957/1958, and had its first
"major" upgrade in 1989, some 30 odd years later, when the 503 CX was
introduced, offering TTL OTF-flash metering. The reason for the longevity
and popularity of the 500 C(...) model, i think, is the basic, rugged
quality of this body. Allthough i would now prefer a 503 CW
(non-vignetting mirror, flash-metering, and motorwind available as an
extra) to a 500 C/M, i am still using a 500 C/M body made more than twenty
years ago (Yes, even without regular servicing they can/might last 20
years or more. But don't push me on that... And there are many people who
use even older 500 C bodies.) without feeling i am missing out on
something. (Although i have to admit to using a focal-plane shutter,
large-mirrored Hasselblad body to do my macro- and micro-work.)
The Hasselblad 500 EL-series offers the same quality but, with its fixed
motordrive, is rather less convenient. And using an EL subjected you to
the "slings and arrows" of battery-use: something of a no-no in earlier
years. All in all, being bigger, heavier, and battery-powered meant
less-popular.
After being introduced in 1977, the Hasselblad 2000 FC rapidly acquired a
reputation of not quite being up to scratch, and nowadays even the
Venerable Company itself (i.e. Hasselblad A.B.) is said to advice against
buying a 2000 FC body... This reputation lasted, deservedly or not (I
certainly think not, but some people won't touch a 2000-series body with
the proverbial pole), throughout the lifespan of the 2000-series, which
ended in 1989.
Of course the newest 200-series Hasselblad cameras offer a great deal of
automation, but, although very convenient, you can do all nearly as
convenient, and certainly as good, with a simple 500 C/M and a couple of
good light-meters (Gossen Mastersix and Gossen Spotmaster for instance. By
the way, i suspect the 205 TCC/FCC's metering-electronics to be nothing
other than the innards of a Gossen Spotmaster... Can somebody shed some
light on this?). In fact i think using a separate spotmeter might on
occassion (multi spot metering, et al) be far more convenient than using
the 205 FCC (which, of course, does not mean that i would not want to own
such a machine! (Double negative? So be it!)). I think the 200 series
would be the most popular Hasselblad series by far, but for the arm and a
leg they charge you for the privilege (NASA for one, never in want of some
loose change, seems to agree. But do those rocket-scientists actually
consider anything else but the pricetag when buying new toys?).
Finally, to give a short answer to your second question: yes.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
[email protected] writes:
I'm planning on purchasing a used 50mm Distagon, with a 63mm screw-in
thread. Filters for this lens are no longer made by Hasselblad, and I
have
been unable to locate any independant manufacturer who makes filters in
that
size. In several weeks of browsing Ebay, and in checking in KEH's
catalog,
I've been unable to find any selection in that size. Does someone make
an
adapter that will connect the Hassy lens with a more standard filter size
(67mm, 72mm?) without causing vignetting?
50 C Distagon front threads will take any standard, off-the-shelf 67mm
filter and also a generic 67mm front lens cap. The "63" was the diameter
of the thread-less filter Hasselblad used to supply, which was held in by
a retaining ring similar to the Serie filters which Leica used on many of
their lenses. You will also find that some of the 67mm rubber lenshoods
specifically labelled "wide angle" will work on the 50C. A Cokin P-series
lens shade with the 67mm adaptor will also work. The Hasselblad screw-in
hood will *not* usually re-attach to the front of a 67mm filter, not
because there is a size or pitch difference, but because the hood's
threads have a small un-threaded lip that protrudes beyond the threads and
most filters aren't deep enough to engage the hood's threads before that
lip bottoms-out against the filter mount. Of course you can do what I did
(I used to have a 50C before I got a CF-FLE) which is to carefully grind
off the lip on the lens shade. Hope this helps.
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
Kelvin,
I have found that glues do not work well on the bodies of Hasselblad
cameras, this is because the chrome surface of the shell is so slick. The
factory uses a fish based adhesive that is to generally not available. I
have never been able to talk Hasselblad out of any of it. I have had very
good success with a good quality double stick tape. I can be found in hard
ware stores or in carpet stores (they use it to stick down carpet in odd
places).
Hope this is of some helps.
Ernie G.
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000
Derek
Three years ago, I had the same problem on my 553ELX body and a few months
later on an A12 back. Based on a recommendation from the Hasselblad
ServiceCenter, I glued the pieces back using a rubber cement adhesive
called PLIOBOND (tm). This stuff is magic. It provides a permanent
flexible bond for rubber, leather, canvas glued to wood, fibreglass, glass
or aluminium. It is used like contact cement by coating both surfaces.
Once the two parts are joined and dry any spillover on the edge of the
leather is easily removed. It just rolls of the edge as a small rubber
ball. Make sure you read the instructions. My three year old repair job
still holds. I bought the stuff at my local hardware store.
Rene
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000
Leo,
I assume that the lenses to be converted must at least be in Kiev 88
mount, NOT in Kiev 60 mount. How about the Pentacon 6 lenses? I was going
ot convert the CZJ 180mm and the CZJ 300mm. Are the Mamiya RB/RZ and
also the Pentax 6 X 7 lenses suitable for this conversion? I have a
Hasselblad 2000FC/M that I plan to use the lenses on.
On another note, how you seen or heard of any curtain conversion for the
2000 series bodies? There are alot of 2000bodies out there with dented
or torn rear titanium curtains. Is it possible to rpelace these older
curtains with the newer silk curtains of the 200 series? Who will be able
to undertake this job? Do you forsee any possible problem with this type
to undertake this job? Do you forsee any possible problem with this type
of conversion?
Thanks in advnace,
Evan Dong
"LEO WOLK" [email protected]
writes:
From Contax Mailing List:
They looked really good. I still have files of images shot in the
early 70s with 40, 80 and 150 Nikkors on a Bronica S2A. The longer
Nikkors from that era are much in demand since people have them
converted for use on Hasselblad 2000 and 200 series cameras.
Bob
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000
Look at http://www.micro-tools.com/merchant.mv and click on "Specialized
Tools".
Calumet, I believe, also lists one in their on-line catalog.
-Will
Carsten Bockermann wrote:
From Rollei Mailing List:
Total reliability??? You must be joking, right?
Have you ever used a Hasselblad 500 system?
This is the only system I know of in which knowing how to unjam
the camera and carrying a tool to do it is a requirement for any
serious use. When I teach my workshops it is not uncommon for
me to have to unjam the Hasselblads for the students using that
brand, sometimes more than once. When I wrote _Pro Guide: The
Hasselblad System_ for the company they agreed with me that including
instructions on how to unjam the camera was mandatory. There is
one company selling a special Hasselblad unjamming tool via mail
order, although a long screwdriver works nearly as well. Anyone
who has never had a 500 series Hasselblad jam on them is someone
who has not used a Hasselblad 500 series system much.
Now, I'm not down on Hasselblad. They do what they do well, which
is making an essentially 1950s camera with some modern add-ons
and making it very well. The basic mechanism of the camera body has
been refined, but never really changed. But to compare them against
Rollei 6000 series is to see the Hasselblad lose out on every point.
You can't buy a Hasselblad body with both spot and average meters.
You can't buy a Hasselblad with aperture priority, shutter priority,
and program modes. No Hasselblad has built-in flash metering.
And the list goes on.......... You can't even wind the film to the
first frame or wind off the backing paper with the motor on a
motor-equipped Hasselblad, you still have to use the bloody crank on
the film magazine. I told them ten years ago that this was
ridiculously antequated, and they agreed but said they couldn't
figure out how to do it.
They badly need a new camera redesigned from the ground up. Now
with the Contax 645 challenging every medium format maker , Hasselblad
needs a new camera more than ever. I'm anxious to see what, if
anything, they unveil at photokina this year.
Bob
----------
From Rollei Mailing List:
I like Hasselblads, although I don't happen to own one at the moment.
The bodies are light and small, lighter than most 35mm cameras. But
no one would accuse them of being modern mechanically. Because
Hasselblad has insisted on keeping as much lens compatibility as
possible they are stuck with a lens/body linkage which was devised in
the 50s by Compur to work with their shutters.
Anyone who has worked with a 500 series Hasselblad and never had the
lens and body get out of "timing" with each other is living in some
parallel universe to this one. Here it happens, and on some cameras a
lot more than on others. Symptom is that you can not take the lens
off the body, even though the body appears to be cocked, and you can
not trip the shutter.
Unjamming is relatively simple. Take the film magazine off the
camera. On the back of the body you will see the secondary shutter,
which is made of two metal flaps. When you take a photo one flap
goes up follwing the mirror and the other one goes down. These flaps
operate independently from the shutter in the lens which is why you
must hold the shutter release button on a Hasselblad 500 camera in
when the shutter is set for long exposures until you hear the shutter
close. If you release the button too soon the secondary shutter will
close right then and cut off the exposure too soon.
Anyway, if you gently push in on the bottom flap it will go down
against spring tension without hurting anything. It was designed
this way on purpose. Once you have it down you can look in and
just below the lens you will see a big chrome screwhead. With a
long screwdriver you reach in and turn this screw clockwise
until it stops. You will feel spring tension as you do so, since
you are cocking the shutter in the lens to get it back in synch
with the body.
Once you have cocked it, withdraw the screwdriver and let the
secondary shutter flap close. Now you can fire the camera. Do this
several times to make sure the body and lens are back in synch
and then put the magazine back on and continue shooting.
Bob
....
There is a Hasselblad Close Up Calculator (Part#59459) that includes guide
to convert EV values to corresponding shutter speed/aperture combination
and visa versa. It costs $4.95 from B&H Photo in New York (800-606-6969).
Item #HACCU, good luck.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
MDDESKEY wrote:
The recent 5th edition of The Hasselblad Manual (good book as it is,
describing the new cameras) is *not* as good as the 4th. You might want to
read both.
It seems Hasselblad would have us rather forget the 'old' products, than
give us complete descriptions and information about them. Their motto
being "forget the old, buy the new"
For instance: when first introduced, the modern 205 TCC (now 205 FCC)
camera was advertised as fully compatible with *all* lenses, old and new.
In advertisments it was even shown with a chrome barreled C-lens. Now they
would have us believe that these lenses should not be used on this camera,
and we are urged to replace them. A Hasselblad rep. once told me the
reason why they stopped selling filters, lenscaps and hoods for the C-type
lenses was that they hoped we would all abandon those lenses, and spend
some more money replacing them. I don't know whether or not this is true,
but i tend to believe it is...
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I have the 80CB which came with my 501CM kit. Later I purchased the 160CB
Tessar which I have found to be a comfortable and light weight lens to use
hand held. I like both of these lenses a lot and try to shoot 2 to 3 stops
down, rather than wide open, to maximize the performance. The CB lens line
shares the benefits of the updated ergonomic design and flare reducing
techniques with the CFi and CFE lenses. I often shoot Fuji Provia 100F and
view the results with a Rodenstock 3X loupe and Schneider 8X loupe. The
chromes are nice and sharp and have the subtile micro-contrast gradations
which Zeiss lenses are famed for. You can check out all of the Hasselblad
Zeiss lenses for yourfself at
http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/allBySubject/Launch+-+Zeiss-engl+NotesTemplate
I have not used the 60CB, it is the previous 60CF optical formula in CB
clothing. It is reputed to be one of Hasselblad's best performers.
Doug from Tumwater
From: Michael Tiemann [email protected]
I have both the SCW (901 CF version) and the 40 (CF FLE version). A
good picture with the Biogon is going to look about 2x sharper than a
good picture with the distagon every time. That said, the Biogon is
about 10x more difficult to master: manual focusing vs. SLR focusing,
the kooky framing device vs. SLR framing, a bubble level vs. SLR view of
horizontal/vertical convergence, pictures of the lenscap vs. pictures of
your subject, and, of you have an in-camera meter for your 40, manual
vs. automatic metering.
The biogon will give you _amazing_ results. You just have to be willing
to dedicate a lot of effort to getting them. Also, I find it more
convenient to change lenses than to change film backs, so if I'm going
to carry more than one lens, I'll usually take the 40. If you're just
going to take one camera, go for the SWC and have fun!
M
[email protected] (David Meiland) writes:
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Dear HUG and Mr. Olenberger,
Thank you for reading my message :-)
You are right but there are two experimental errors in your method:
a - the Hasselblad screen is 53,5 mm not 55 mm as the actual frame - so
much for the 100% coverage :-)
b - those 5 feet (distance to subject) are measured from the film plane
so you will have to subtract the focal length + the extension (179,4 +
27,5 = 206,9 mm) so you are left with 1317,1 mm = 4,32 feet
Now if we divide 206,9 mm (focal length + extension) by 53,5 mm (the
screen) we get
3,867. Using this to divide the distance of 4,32 feet we get 1,117 feet
= 13,4 inches which is really close to your measured value of 13.5".
In fact there are two triangles which meet in the optical center of the
lens - one from the film plane, the other from the subject. It would be
easier to demonstrate on a drawing but I am no artist in using the
keyboard to draw and I can't send attachments to the list. If you would
like I could send a .gif file to you or if more fellows from the HUG are
interested I can post it to my web site.
In fact this is the same formula:
M = e/f where e is the extension and f the focal length so:
f(M+1) = f(e/f +1) = f(e+f)/f = e+f like in my formula.
Speaking of calculations I designed a small and simple device which
gives the exposure compensation (in tenths of a stop) for close-up and
macro photography with the Hasselblad for the 80 mm C and 120 mm C
lenses. It can be recalculated easily for any lens. If any of you would
like to get it please let me know. I could send you a file which can be
printed and used right away.
Yours sincerely,
Radu Grozescu
From hasselblad mailing list:
Bruce McLaughlin wrote:
Let me quote Hasselblads original instructions (from 1965!):
"The new 220 film has no protective backing paper and, therefore, no light
must be allowed to leak in through the film window which must be made
light-tight. The manufacturer has therefore made a light-tight plug which
is fitted onto the film window, from inside the magazine, with the number
"220" facing outwards. The magazine can also be sealed against light by
affixing black tape across the film window. Like 120 film, the 220 film
has an arrow going across the first paper section. But 220 film has no
numbering system. It has, however, a dotted line, about 6" before the
crosswise arrow and this dotted line is very important in connection with
loading this film in the Hasselblad magazine.
To obtain the best possible results in spacing between the negative
frames,
the manufacturer has prepared three sets of instructions for the three
variations in construction of the Hasselblad Magazine 12 now on the
market.
LOADING INSTRUCTIONS
Magazine Construction 1 (Nos 001 - 19,999)
a) Thread the film in the usual manner onto the Hasselblad
spool-holder. The
protecting paper is drawn forward so that the dotted line comes to the
center of the receiving spool, (see photo).
b) After the spool-holder is inserted in the magazine, set the
exposure-counter window at 1.
c) Wind the film forwards 7 complete turns (14 half-turns).
d) Expose 12 frames (no stop).
e) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
f) Expose another 12 frames (no stop).
Magazine Construction 2 (Nos. 20,000 - 64,399)
a) Thread the film in the usual manner onto the Hasselblad
spool-holder. The protecting paper is drawn forward so that the dotted
line comes to the
center of the receiving spool, (see photo).
b) After the spool-holder is inserted in the magazine, set the exposure
counter window at 1.
c) Wind the film forwards, 10 complete turns (20 half-turns), or until the
framenumber 8 begins to appear in the mechanism of the exposure-counter
window.
d) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
e) Expose 12 frames (until stop).
f) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
g) Expose another 12 frames (until stop).
Magazine Construction 3 (Nos. 64,400 - )
a) Thread the film in the usual manner onto the Hasselblad
spool-holder. The
protecting paper is drawn forward so that the dotted line comes to the
center of the receiving spoof, (see photo).
b) After the spool-holder is inserted in the magazine, set the
exposure-counter window at 1.
c) Wind the film forwards 9 complete turns (18 half-turns), or until
framenumber 7 appears in the mechanism of the exposure-counter window.
d) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
e) Expose 12 frames (until stop).
f) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
g) Expose another 12 frames (until stop).
Loading in accordance with the above gives relatively good spacing results
troughout. In the older magazines, that is Construction 1 and also
Construction 2, it must be expected that certain frames, especially in the
film-section 8-12, can overlap by a few millimeters. But spacing is better
in the newest magazine, Construction 3.
Regarding the loading of Magazine 16 and 16S which have manufacturing
numbers below 204.200, these should be loaded in accordance with the
instructions according to Magazine Construction 2; from manufacturing
number 204.200 and above, according to Magazine Construction 3. In both
cases, the resetting of the exposure-counter window is to be done after 16
exposures have been made."
End quote.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000
I had a 500c with a 12 back and an 80 C lens. The body was OK but I
couldn't change the screen myself. The back was OK but there was no
counter and you have to look through a hole in the back to see the
starting point of the film. The lens was only so-so. It was not
multicoated. The aperture and shutter controls are fixed together and
to move on or the other you have to push on this funky little lever. I
did not like shooting that camera. I also figured it was old and would
need repair sooner.
I sold it and got a 500CM with an A12 and 80 CF. The lens is very easy
to use and takes stellar pictures. The back has a counter and winds
automatically to the first frame. The body has a new Acute matte
screen that I put in in about 20 seconds. Look to pay $1300-1500 for
an outfit in very nice condition. There are lots of them out there.
KEH is more but is the best used dealer I know of.
The insert number thing is hard to get info on. The insert and shell
are apparently adjusted together at the factory, to optimize spacing
and film flatness. People get them mixed up all the time and when you
see them without matching inserts, they are usually $50 to $100 less
than with matching. I don't get them non-matching because I figure
they are worth less if I want to sell them.
You can check film spacing by loading a roll and shooting all the
frames. Between each exposure, replace the slide, remove the back,
remove the slide, and draw the outline of the window on the film.
Check the roll for consistent spacing when done. Repair of the spacing
problem runs about $75.
Other things to check are of course the glass (do not buy a lens with
marks on the glass) and the shutter speeds. See that the slow speeds
sound accurate, or better yet have a shop test them. Also check that
the prefire control works.
They are great cameras. Go for it. Save your spare change for when you
want a wide or long lens.
Mike Simanyi [email protected] wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
I posted a while back requesting info on the relative merits of these
two for wide angle work. I've had a chance to use them both now, and
I've gotta say, the SWC is dynamite. The negs from it, as one poster
commented, look like they are *engraved*, they are so sharp and
contrasty. What a totally fabulous lens. I can only assume that there
are some optical tradeoffs in producing the retrofocus design on the
40 and 50 distagons.
The camera is a little challenging to use at first. It's easy to take
pictures of the lens cap, so I dismounted the finder and made sure to
look through the camera at each shot. The finder does not, of course,
inform you about converging lines when you tilt the camera. It helps
to have some view camera experience. I shot an event with the camera,
entirely without looking through the finder, just guess, aim, and
shoot. I got some great results just holding the camera at waist level
and watching the bubble level carefully. The lens sees what my eyes
see for near-field shooting.
I'm torn now. It seems like roughly the same money will buy the 40 or
the SWC. I certainly am not going to own both, so I have to decide
whether to go for SLR convenience with the 40 or fabulous optics with
the 38.
Thanks to all those who posted feedback on this question.
---
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Auxiliary Shutter
John Stafford wrote:
The auxiliary shutter is used every time a 500-series camera is
used. ;-)
You mean using this shutter as the only shutter? I did this when
using macro-lenses without built-in shutter. Older models had a
flash-terminal on the body to synchronize flash with the
auxiliary shutter. I however fired the flash manualy after
opening the shutter.
This works fine, but i use a 2000 FCW with built-in focal plane
shutter to do this now.
Shutterspeeds depend on how long you depress the shutter
release. The shutter closes only when you release the release.
Precise timing is possible only as far as you are able to time
depressing and releasing the shutterrelease, so only multi-
second times are feasible.
Bruce McLaughlin wrote:
The 503 CXi (1994-1996)will accept the motor of the 503 CW. The
503 CX (1989-1994) will not.
The original 500 C cameras (1957-1970) were planned to be used
with an add on type motor. To make this possible, the winding
knob had to be detachable. However, though it was mentioned in
early Hasselblad instruction manuals, this motor was never
produced.
The idea of an add-on motor was dropped in favor of the built-in
motor in the EL models (1963/1965- ).
The detachable winding knob could be replaced with a winding
knob with built-in selenium-cell (Gossen) light meter, or a
rapid wind crank. Because of this, i guess, all subsequent model
version have a detachable knob/crank, except for the latest
models 501 C and 501 CM.
Since these cameras come equiped with a foldable winding-crank,
and the metering wind-knob is no longer available, and they can
not be used with the Winder CW, there is no need for the crank
to be detachable.
There was a third party motor-wind available that could be used
on the 500 C(/M, etc.) models. I don't remember the brand, and
it apparently was not a succes.
From: JIB [email protected]
What I did for my El I got a wiring diagram for the camera and I
use a Quantum 6 Volt battery pack to power my camera. Once you have the
diagram you can use almost 6 volt dc power supply to drive your camera.
You can use 6 volt lantern batteries, or 4 AA, C, D cells in a holder.
The male plug that you need to attach to the camera can be had from radio
shack.
Hope this helps
Warren Jones wrote:
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
And not just on the X-Pan.
It started (forgetting about the Schneider zoom) with the teleconverters:
the Zeiss Mutars were replaced by non-Zeiss converters.
The new 60-120 mm zoom is not by Zeiss either.
And the lenses for the Arc-Body are supplied by Rodenstock.
The X-Pan does not use Zeiss lenses perhaps because the X-Pan is not a
Hasselblad (Fuji!) camera... ?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Robert Monaghan wrote:
They already did!
The Zeiss Telephoto Power Pack f/2.8 200 mm was developed by Zeiss on
their own initiative, not because Hasselblad asked them to! And they were
sold by Zeiss (for DM 29.900 + VAT + shipping and handling), until
Hasselblad decided to buy up all lenses and spares, and market the TPP
themselves. (Zeiss reported: "Hasselblad Has Bought Them All!")
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
[email protected] writes:
Could you compare the 500C and a 501 CW. The 501 CW, I understand,
has the new mirror system -is that a big improvement? (I do have a 250mm
5.6 that I have used up to now, not knowing that it could get better.)
The new screen, is it much better than the old 500C screen? I have the
occasion of getting a 501 CW form Cayman Camera for about $1366, is that a
good deal? (I see that HarrysProShop in Canada is selling it for
US$1283.60.)
Thanks
Paolo
I wouldn't spend $1200 or more on a new 501CW. A mint used 503CW which
gives you TTL flash, winder capability, and the long mirror, and should
sell for about the same as a new 501CW. I use a 150 with 2x Mutar and it
does black out the top 1cm of my 503CX finder, but which is usually sky or
out-of-focus background, so for an extra $300-400 it wasn't a priority for
me to get the new mirror. The Acute-Matte screen, however, is a real
advantage. My mint used 503CX cost me $900, which I felt was more than
enough to spend for basically an empty box with a mirror and some gears.
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
I found it.
Point about Hasselblad drifting away (are they?) from Zeiss is not about
whether European products are better than Asian products at all. No
Euro-snobbery.
Victor Hasselblad built a great company around his equally great camera.
Decisions about changes to his product-line always seemed to be governed
by the wants and needs of photographers and photography.
Ever since the sad demise of dr. Hasselblad though, perhaps most strongly
during the Incentive period, the company appears to have been reduced to a
money-making toy of some investors, putting the demands of photography
back, in favour of marketing considerations.
Abandoning Zeiss products in favour of products of unknown origin, and
introducing a new zoom-lens of equally unknown origin gives food for
thought. After all, a very important selling point (not the only, mind
you!) of the Hasselblad system are the fabulous Zeiss lenses. If there is
a trend moving away from Zeiss, where will it stop?
Yes, it says Hasselblad on the new lens, but remember, Hasselblad never
was known as a producer of optics. So we are asked to trust the, in this
field, unproven Hasselblad name to tell us that this is a good lens, worth
the small fortune they are asking. And this happening against the backdrop
of the before-mentioned shift in company policy, giving marketing goals
priority... It all makes me wonder.
(For instance, is there really a photographic need for having 6 SLR bodies
in the Hasselblad line-up? How about just building the best of each type,
and forget about the rest. That's what Victor Hasselblad did.
Now we get questions on this newsgroup about the hidden differences
between the many available bodies. Differences that do not add anything to
photography, but only to market-share.)
On the other hand, introducing an completely new camera, the X-Pan, that
obviously is a, japanese, Fuji camera with Fuji optics, despite the
Hasselblad name displayed prominently on it, does not worry me in the
least.
All that matters in the end is that you get a excellent product, made by
who-ever, where-ever. And this alliance with Fuji will not affect the rest
of the product range, or will it?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
H. Gunnarsson wrote:
Hasselblad has never shown itself to be a great manufacturer of optics. In
fact they have never shown to be a manufacturer of optics at all, so they
are a unproven name in this field. One of the most important assets of
Victor Hasselblad AB is the, well deserved, reputation of being a
non-compromising manufacturer of top-quality photographic equipment.
Perhaps half the value of the company is in its name. Investors know
that...
Given the impact the Hasselblad name alone has on marketing, it would be
easy to market sub-standard products by stamping the Hasselblad label on
it, and asking us not to question this, but to rely on the reputation of
the company (like you do above).
Why would they do that? To save money on manufacturing and thus increase
profits, of course. Or is there a valid photographic reason to do this?
So can we trust VH AB not to do this type of thing? Apparently not (cf.
the 80 mm Planar CB lens Robert Monaghan mentions in his reply. And how
about the 2x teleconverter? Was it replaced by an anonymous product to
improve upon some poor quality of the Zeiss Mutar? Or, again, to increase
profits?).
If Sigma makes better zooms than Zeiss, of course Hasselblad should let
their zooms be made by Sigma. Just as they did with Schneider. But if so,
why not put the Sigma name on the zoom? Why break with tradition and try
and pass it off as a Hasselblad lens? Hasselblad in the past never has had
any problem telling us who made their excellent lenses. In fact, as i
mentioned earlier, the Zeiss name has always been extremely helpful in
selling Hasselblad cameras. There might be another reason for Victor
Hasselblad AB to ask Sigma to make their zoom lens: manufacturing costs
and profit margins. Nothing wrong with increasing profits. Unless this
compromises what the Hasselblad name stands/stood for. Making up loss of
quality by attaching a quality name will not work in the end. By the way,
i am not implying that the new zoom is a sub-standard product. I don't
know that it is, or is not. But producing a lens of unknown origin (it
wasn't Hasselblad who told us it is a Sigma lens (is this confirmed?)),
set against the relatively turbulent years following the change in
ownership of VH AB somehow does not help install, or restore, confidence.
But what standards are they setting: commercial gain or photographic
quality?
It would help knowing what way Hasselblad is planning to go when making my
decision.
And the prejudice of the customers is linked to the policies of Victor
Hasselblad AB. If Hasselblad show themselves to be, again, a photographers
company, as opposed to an investment opportunity, we can all live happily
ever after. If they show themselves to be more sensitive to maximizing
profits, at cost of photographic quality and integrity, i believe they
will find that their reputation will erode very quickly.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
H. Gunnarsson wrote:
Yes, but still not proven as the best supplier of optics themselves...
So what does the label "Hasselblad" on any lens tell me? That they
suddenly learned to make lenses that surpass Zeiss quality?
It's a *very common* thing *not* to happen with Hasselblad optics. In
fact, it has *never* happened to Hasselblad optics before!
So why not put Sigma on a Sigma lens? Is there something to hide?
No, it's not about a prejudicial attitude towards anything that is not
Zeiss.
The thing is that if Hasselblad does not want to share who makes their
lenses (which they have allways done before) perhaps there is a reason for
this "cover up". And what reason could that be? If Sigma has built a great
zoom lens for Hasselblad, why not yell out "look what a great lens Sigma
has made for us!"?
Victor Hasselblad AB sadly has shown itself to be more interested in
financial gain at cost of photographic/product integrity. The question
raised by this zoom of 'unknown origin' is whether or not this is part of
a cost-cutting exercise, aimed at maximizing profits (that after all is
what shareholders like to see) compromizing quality, and with it the well
earned Hasselblad name.
Perhaps all doubts about the new Hasselblad zoom are unfounded and
undeserved. I do not know, yet. But the fact that we even speculate about
this, means that something's rotten in the state of.. well, Sweden in this
case ;-) Something in Hasselblad's policies has made us doubt Hasselblad's
uncompromising stance on quality. A dangerous thing to do.
But profits do spell survival. So decisions have to be made how to
increase profit. (And by the way, i of course do think that making profit
is a very valid goal for any company, Hasselblad AB included). I'm just
afraid that they will not make the right decision: at least as far as i
can see, they have done some questionable things to date. Maybe stranger
things will follow.
And to be absolutely clear about this, i won't be the one dancing on their
graves: i will be in mourning for a long time should anything ever happen
to this great brand. But i am still confident they will be around for a
very long time to come. I just hope they will continue putting photography
first.
That, after all, is what made Hasselblad great in the first place.
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000
Robert Monaghan wrote:
It took a while, but here is what Hasselblad has to say:
"We can still repair the 2000 FCW and 2003 FCW but there are problems with
the 2000 FC and FC/M as there are some main spareparts which are no longer
available."
With regards.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
As a Hasselblad distributor myself, I would like to offer my 2 cents:
Yes, I agree with Jim 100% - the 40 CFE is indeed a very common lens. It
sells in large numbers and for every 903 SWC I sell, I sell as least ten
40 CFE. Some may say the Biogon 38mm of the SWC is a better lens, but
many shooters prefer reflex viewing when using something so wide. And of
course, the 40 CFE is a lot cheaper than the 903 SWC.
Cheers,
Joseph
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Aren't you a Leica M user?
Funny enough, since the optical formula hasn't changed a bit since its
inception...no matter what the age (aside from coating and user-control
preferences) they are all the same. You can buy a used SWx complete for
the same as a used 40 lense!
Personally, I like the later model finders to the early ones, since I am a
glasses wearer, and the early ones with the knurled viewing end really
make a mess of my glasses...the later ones are rubber tipped...
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Marc James Small wrote:
Bay 50 and bay 57 are both the same animal. There is no difference in
them.
Dick
Eduardo Aigner wrote:
This is a one-off, special design lens, with an angle of view of 300
degrees. It was made in 1984 by Zeiss on special order from a client in
the rubber tire industry, and was meant to help inspect the inside of
tires. It is a f/3.5 lens, with minimum aperture of f/5.6 (1.5 stops !),
and it is in a shutterless mount, though not a F-mount, but rather a
modified CF-mount (It still has a (useless) shutterspeed setting ring
(without markings), and a (also useless) pc-flash terminal). Some are said
to be fitted in a full functioning (shutter!) CF-mount. Close focusing
limit is 10 cm. It has 9 lens elements, one of them being a special yellow
filter, making this lens unsuited for general colour photography.
Apparantly 50 were made, and some might still be available (you might want
to contact Hasselblad ;-) ).
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy 24mm f3.5 lens question
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003
mishka wrote:
> I am looking for help.
> I have a question about this lens, 24mm circular fisheye, someone called it
> veing "rare as hen's teeth". From what I know it seems to be a 300 deg.
> fisheye with built-in blue filter and shutterless CF mount.
> What I don't know is:
> is it T* ?
> has anyone had any experience with it? is it worth owning?
> what is a fair price for it? KEH has been offering one "Like New" for $7K --
> this is steep, but is that a reasonable price?
> I like fisheyes and have an opportunity to buy this one. I am not sure how
> useful this much coverage really is, but at the moment I seem to be able to
> afford it and opportunities like this don't come about too often (the only
> alternative I can think of is Kowa 19mm, which is probably as rare)
> I would appreciate any input whatsoever!
This lens (if you can find one) is not worth owning unless you are willing
to restrict your photography to black and white because of the permanent
yellow, not blue, "filter".
The aperture range is somewhat limited too (1.5 stops, 3.5 - 5.6), but i
guess with this lens you will not be worrying about DOF.
This lens generally is not worth owning unless you are a collector of rare
(and odd) Hasselblad bits and bobs.
If you are, go for it!
From: Manu Schnetzler [[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 3/24/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 24mm f3.5 lens question
Here's some info about it from Q.G. de Bakker:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/fishlist.htm
Interesting lens: no shutter, yellow filter (but you say blue?),
aperture range of 3.5-5.6...
manu
From: "mishka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: HELP: Hassy 24mm f3.5 lens question
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003
Hi all:
I am looking for help.
I have a question about this lens, 24mm circular fisheye, someone called it
veing "rare as hen's teeth". From what I know it seems to be a 300 deg.
fisheye with built-in blue filter and shutterless CF mount.
What I don't know is:
is it T* ?
has anyone had any experience with it? is it worth owning?
what is a fair price for it? KEH has been offering one "Like New" for $7K --
this is steep, but is that a reasonable price?
I like fisheyes and have an opportunity to buy this one. I am not sure how
useful this much coverage really is, but at the moment I seem to be able to
afford it and opportunities like this don't come about too often (the only
alternative I can think of is Kowa 19mm, which is probably as rare)
I would appreciate any input whatsoever!
Best,
Mishka
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 21mm for MF
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003
[email protected] (J Stafford) wrote:
> Reality check, please. Has anyone seen a 21mm (F5) lens for 70mm square? I
> have a picture that alleges to show one built for aerial work, but I
> cannot read the printing on the lens. Supposedly is is not a fisheye.
Are you sure that shouldn't be 21cm? 21cm or 210mm is a very common LF
focal length. (plus, a medium tele is mostly used in aerial photography.)
can you scan the picture and put it on-line somewhere?
I have used the zeiss 24mm fisheye once, but this already gives a
circular image on 6x6.
Lourens
Just a little prospective on 'commonality' of Zeiss lenses:
These are the numbers for the C lenses, from "The Hasselblad Compendium".
There really aren't any numbers for most of the CF lenses, but these
numbers were just for a prospective on what is 'common' and what isn't.
Perhaps, there has been a surge in sales of the current 40, and its trend
does not follow the production figures of the earlier C lenses...
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Approximately 100
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Hasselblad/Germany offers NiMH-Batteries with the same voltage and size
of the older NiCd-batteries which are 100% compatible with older
chargers etc.. Cost for one battery is ~70 US$. This is much cheaper
than a conversion though not as cheap as the 9v block method I have not
tested. NiMH batteries have advantages as the so called "Memory Effect"
from not fully discharging the batteries is less pronounced than in
NiCd-batteries. They hold enough voltage to operate the camera for
several months. If you work only in a studio you can built a cable power
supply from a mains adaptor and a plug for the side socket (its a
standard part)for 15 $.
Ulrik
Austin Franklin wrote:
Rick Nordin does devote an appendix of his "Hasselblad System Compendium"
to the problem of finding out dates of manufacture of Zeiss lenses.
Basically, there is no date code in the serial numbers, and, as he
mentions, both Hasselblad and Zeiss themselves do not have access to this
information, i.e. they too don't know... (though Zeiss could find out, if
they wish to. But they obviously don't :( ).
Serial numbers were allocated by Zeiss in blocks and per job. Any type of
lens is produced per order, in different batches, in different years, each
batch having their own block of numbers, the size of which was determined
by the size of the order. The next, contiguous block of numbers would be
allocated to the next job: which could be a completely different product.
Rick Nordin says he compiled his tables by collecting data on as many
lenses as possible to match numbers with possible dates. I'm afraid some
research will be needed to determine this one too. As you say, the lens
was introduced in 1990, but production must have started some time before.
The earliest picture of this lens i could find has the number 7147317 (It
appears in Nordin's book, as well as in several other books, and in
Hasselblad publications). It was discontinued in its CF form in 1998. So
it must be somewhere in between :-)
What we must do to answer this is either to ask everyone who owns this
lens (and preferably has bought it new) to give the number and year of
purchase, or/and find published pictures of this lens on which the number
is legible and match this number with the date of publication (though the
lenses depicted of course can be older than the publication, it will still
set a boundary because it obviously can not be later than the date of
publication).
Anyone?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
This was Rick Nordin's post on this subject:
The codes on the CF lenses are a great help to the data obsessed among us!
I had been trying to compile a table for CF lenses similar to the one for
the C and older lenses that are in the Hasselblad Compendium - for the
second edition. I spent a lot of time compiling CF serial numbers and only
recently realized the significance of the ink stamp on the light baffle on
the back. Unfortunately, I never routinely recorded those numbers as I
didn't know what they represented. There are 4 digit codes on the later C
lenses (at least mid seventies and later) that I've not deciphered. The
last two digits seem to be a month code - never seem to be higher than 12,
but I have no idea how to interpret the first two digits. Any
suggestions??? Anyone want to contribute serial numbers and baffle numbers
and we can do a group code breaking exercise?
I don't know what the significance of the last letter of the code is on
the CF lenses. I think that Ernie G's explanation is probably a plausible
as anything else I've heard. If anyone else has information, I'm sure
everyone (who are interested in this sort of thing!) would like to hear
more. As Ernie says, and Marc Small has reiterated, it is very difficult
to get answers to these kind of questions from Zeiss or Hasselblad. They
are hesitant to reveal too much about production and manufacturing matters
(understandable).
----------
I remember there is a way to tell the age of a CF lens from the code
stenciled onto the light baffle by the rear element or rear lens mount.
Perhaps somebody remembers how to decipher them.
[email protected]
says...
In short: The CB 160 is not as good as the CF(i)180 due to a less
sophisticated Tessar lens design, the CB 80 is not as good as the CF(E)
80 due to fewer lens elements which in this case affects the sharpness
in the corners of the image; the CB60 is an excellent lens and optically
identical to the late CF60. You would probably be satisfied with either
lens. If I were you I would buy a used 500 C/M and a CF60 to start with.
--
h dot gunnarsson at ebox dot tninet dot se
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
[email protected] wrote;
The leaf-shutter in the CF lenses can be disabled, facilitating the use of
these lenses on focalplane-shutter (that's what the 'F' in 'CF' stands
for) bodies (2000 or 200-series). The leafshutter in the CB ('B' standing
for 'Basic'. 'Budget' would have been better) lenses can not. When using
CB-lenses on focalplane-shutter bodies, the lensshutter must be set to B
(for Bulb), and you will not have the benefit of the instant return
mirror, the viewfinder image will remain dark until the camera is cocked
and the leafshutter is opened (as on any 500-series camera). Hasselblad
however now says this should not be done (though they have always said it
could). When using both the leafshutter on B, and the focalplane shutter
to make the exposure, timing/synchronizing of the two shutters is
critical. Perhaps this can not be done with the required accuracy with all
lenses/leafshutters combinations, depending on manufacturing tolerances.
The design and performance of the Distagon 60 mm is the same in CF and CB
version.
The Tessar CB 160 mm is of a new, less sophisticated design, and has no
equivalent in the CF range. The Sonnar CF 150 and, especially, the Sonnar
CF 180 mm do perform better. than the Tessar CB 160 mm. Both CF lenses are
somewhat faster too (1/2 stop).
The Planar CB 80 mm too is of a new design, and it too does not perform
quite as well as its CF equivalent, the Planar CF 80 mm.
Is it worth getting a CF Planar? It depends, how important will the
standard 80 mm lens be in your photography?
What prism are they giving for free?
From: Fred [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Identifying CB lenses
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003
The CB lens does not have the orange button to put the shutter in "F"
mode, the EV numbers are white instead of orange, it does not have the
orange T* on the front of the lens, says "CB" on the side of the lens
as in "CB 80mm" the CB lens, does not have the CFE electrical contacts
on the back of the lens.
A CFE has all of the above and says "CFE" instead of "CB"on the side
of the lens.
sitck with the old design?? as in not a CFE or CFi lens?? or what?
"Christopher Bush" [email protected] wrote:
>Is there a way to identify a Hasselblad CB lens from a photo?
>Distinguishing physical features vs CFE? I'm thinking about upgrading my
>chrome 80mm, and want to stick with the old design.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Austin Franklin wrote:
What was Ernie G's explanation?
I had a look at the one letter and two digit number code on the baffle of
my CFs, and it seems plausible that the letter would indicate the month of
manufacture, and the two digit number could be a backward representation
of the year of manufacture (e.g. F 28 would be June 1982, L 68 would be
December '86, etc.). It seems to be correct on all my lenses, but that, of
course, could just be co�ncidence.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
you wrote:
Below is an extract from Hasselblad UK News issue No. 29 January
2000. Perhaps list members may find the information useful:-
"How old is yours?
In the case of Zeiss lenses this information was not made available until
the release of CF type lenses in 1982. From this date, the year of
manufacture can be found printed as 2 numbers within the rear barrel and
adjacent to the rear optic. These numbers are reversed resulting in 28
representing the year 1982 and are accompanied by a letter, which simply
represents further manufacturing data."
Regards,
[Ed. note Digital back hasselblads...]
[email protected] writes:
[email protected] writes:
[email protected] writes:
I think Hasselblad will be around for a long time. It doesn't take a great
deal of insight to realize that Hasselblad understands that digital
imaging will be an important element for professional photographers in the
immediate future. Not INSTEAD of silver based film; in ADDITION to it. I'm
happy to see that they are configuring the new cameras (555ELD, and in all
likelihood, all 200 series cameras) for compatibility with digital backs.
And, by the way, the 555ELD is compatible with all CF, CFi, CFE & CB
lenses. As are the 200-series cameras.
We are in a period of dramatic improvements in digital backs, and
companies like Hasselblad are waiting for standard interfaces to evolve
(or perhaps working behind the scenes to help establish them). When I
recently upgraded my Hasselblad system to a 203FE (instead of a 500c/m),
one element in the decision was increased compatibility with digital
backs; and the inevitability of $1000-$2000 digital backs within a few
years.
Film in the 120/220 format will be around for a long time. If people like
us start using digital film INSTEAD, it will only be because it has
surpassed the quality of silver based products.
David G.
From hasselblad Mailing List:
[email protected] wrote:
How so? Last time I checked this out with an electrical engineer, he felt
we were perfectly safe in using a slightly greater DC voltage (9v versus
7.5v) to drive the motor. I don't know all of the theory, but he felt that
the motor's design specs should be able to tolerate a 20% excess voltage
without untoward effects.
Of course, if the issue is driving the gears faster than normal, then
perhaps a potential problem could arise. I'd love to hear Hasselblad's or
Wildi's discussion on the matter.
...gregg
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Xavier wrote: "I am new to the list and I'm thinking in getting into the
MF:-) I am a Leica M user and EOS user (for tele-lenses). I would like to
complement my 35mm system with MF (I do not do studio). What is the
Optical difference between a CB and CFx lense, if I got it right there is
no difference."
Xavier this is how I would state the CB/CFx differences:
- The 60 CB Distagon is the same design and performance as the 60 CF lens
(which is discontinued). This lens is equivalent to a 35 mm for your Leica
and so you may feel an immediate affinity with it. The 60 CB is a strong
performer, even wide open, and is in the top grouping of Hasselblad lenses
for MTF performance.
- There is an optical design difference between the 80 CB Planar (6
elements) and 80 CFE Planar (7 elements). Suffice it to say the two
designs are closely matched until the far edges of the frame are reached,
at that point the CFE performs a notch better.
- The 160 CB Tessar (4 elements) does not have a direct CFi equivalent.
The closest match is the venerable 150 CFi Sonnar (5 elements) which is
one of the original lens designs introduced with the Hasselblad 500
series. The 150 CFi has better MTF performance wide open. However how
often you will want to shoot wide open is an open question. Depth of Field
for Medium Format lenses are substantially reduced compared to the
equivalent focal length in 35mm. At F:8 the two lenses are equivalent in
performance at the most important 10 cycle MTF measurement.
The CB lens line shares the ergonomic and flare reducing improvements of
the CFi and CFE lenses. I personally own the 80 CB and 160 CB lenses and
find them to be tack sharp, well made, and good value for the money.
Check out for yourself all of the fine Hasselblad lenses at the Hasselblad
or Zeiss web sites for specific design details and MTF performance graphs:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/
http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/allBySubject/Launch+-+Zeiss-engl+NotesTemplate
Doug from Tumwater
From Leica Mailing List:
Calumet in San Francisco is having "Leica Days" Sept 14-16 and will be
discounting all new and used Leica equipment. They claim that they are
bringing in much of the used Leica equipment from their other stores
throughout the US.
I personally buy at Keeble and Shuchat in Palo Alto. I've had a store
account there for 25 years and have always been treated more than fairly.
On the west coast, they are second in sales of Leica and Hasselblad only
to Sammy's. They sell Hasselblad at net. Less than B&H or any other US
dealer.
If you go there for Leica, see Jeff Alford. If you go there for MF or LF,
see Tim or Ernie.
Jim
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
Try used!! Hassy is quite expensive new!! I just got a Transition 500C-C/M
with an Acute-Matte screen for $250.00!! I got it from a fellow I know, It
needs a little work, so I sent it to hassy in NJ for a complete CLA along
with the ELM I got last June for $270.00!!! You see, you can get bodies
DIRT CHEAP!!! They might need a little or no work, but try used!!
Y
SnowMan wrote:
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000
Yamil R. Sued wrote:
It's a 1977 (UU) EL/M (E) body.
EL and EL/M bodies had an extra 'E' added, and the SWA/SWC bodies had an
extra 'W' added to the two letter code upto 1979.
In 1977 only a third letter, 'C', was added to the two letter code on 500
C bodies, and an 'F' to the code on 2000 FC bodies.
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000
David Meiland wrote:
For one, when using special lenses, like macro-lenses without built-in
shutter. High magnifications will ensure the need for long exposure, so
precise timing of the auxiliary shutter is of no importance, and the
exposure is made using the flash, triggered by the camera's auxiliary
shutter, synched through the body's pc-synch. Sort of 'open-flash' method,
but a little more convenient. I have done this a lot, using the, now
discontinued, Zeiss Luminar micro lenses. I have done this too with a 500
C/M without the body synch contact, triggering the shutter by hand. It is
of course more convenient to do this with a focal-plane shutter body, but
they were not available yet when the 500-series had this synch.
I'm sure one could think of other applications of auxiliary shutter
flash-synch. (Notice how people always say something like this when they
indeed can't think of anything else ;-)) It will not be any good when your
lens' synch is burned out: it has to synchronize with the lens shutter,
and it will not do that, it will fire too soon. But your lenscap/pinhole
flash-exposure suggestion is good, if you can find a flash powerfull
enough to be of any use.
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
David Meiland wrote:
David, as owner of the only non-vignetting 500 C/M in the world, you
should know what he's talking about... ;-)
Jim, this is nothing to worry about. It's only very annoying. The mirror
in the older 500 C-series (upto the very latest 503 CW and 501 CM models,
both having a larger, sliding mirror) is too short to project the entire
image onto the focussing screen when using lenses longer than 100 mm and
when focussing close (using extension tubes or bellows it will show even
when using short lenses). The mirror is intentionally made too short, so
it will not hit any parts of the lens protruding into the body on its way
up. The vignetting is in the viewfinder only, so you will have to
'guestimate' what will appear on film in the part blacked-out in the
viewfinder.
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
David Meiland wrote:
Not to split hairs or anything, but wouldn't that be items *not* included
in the composition (i.e. not visible in the viewfinder) that *are* visible
on film? ;-)
Mainly because Jim mentions having this problem using the 150 mm lens and
in close-ups, and not when using the shorter 80 mm lens, i felt confident
to hazard the guess that what he is experiencing is the well-known (to
most of us!) nuisance caused by the too short mirror.
But apropos your 500 C/M: have you ever done a direct comparison between
your camera and any other 500 C/Ms? And have you never noticed any ill
effects accompanying this a-normal behaviour?
(I'm sure you have answered this already, but i just can't understand...
-( )
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Jim White posted:
I recently purchased a used 150mm f4 Zeis lens. It is a chrome so it's
one of the older lenses. The lens takes good pictures, but I have noticed
that what I see in the viewfinder isn't what I get back. ie items I shoot
as "close-ups" in the viewfinder don't appear as such on the film.
Jim if you are using an older 500 series body (sans
the glidding mirror) with your 150 close-up, the viewfinder is likely not
showing the top of the image.
This image cutoff does not happen on the film plane so maybe that would
explain why you are getting more image on the film than what you see when
composing the picture.
--
From Contax Mailing List:
FWIW, and I have never used the Hasselblad 350, the guys from Seitz who
gave the presentation on panorama photography at the PPA show in August
claimed that the 350 for Hasselblad has serious flare problems and they
found it untsuitable for use with their cameras. This came as a real
surprise to me, but they were emphatic about it.
Bob
From hasselblad Mailing List:
I noticed that Hartblei is peddling 12 and 16 backs that supposedly work
on the 500 series Hasselblads. They've got the old "manual" style and the
"automatic" style as well (US$140 and US$160, respectively).
Anyone have any experience with these? I've got 5 backs, already, but I'm
from the "more is better" school and thought these might be interesting to
try.
-Mike
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000
Kevin Barrett wrote:
It should be possible to mound the 'blad to a to the back of a view
camera. A Sinar (and I suppose, other cameras) will take a lensboard as a
back. A hacked lens reversal ring or some-such would then be attached to
the 'back' and and 500C attached to the reversal ring.
Then, any good 150 mm standard 4x5 lens would work.
You can get a good Speed Graphic w/ 152 f4.5 Ektar for about $250-350.
Spend another $100 getting the 'blad stuck to the back and away you go.
A double cable release would release the blad and the shutter in sequence
- reverse the use of the cable so the camera fires first and then the lens
fires.
The prices for 'Blad lenses are pretty ridiculous. If ole' Kiev would
come to their senses they'd go after making third party lenses for 'Blads.
--
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000
john wrote:
There was *no* version with internal focussing! Only the latest CF 500 mm
Tele-Apotessar has internal focussing, but it too is focussed using the
normal focussing ring.
All 500 mm Tele-Tessars were focussed using the standard C-lens focussing
ring. Most, not all, were equipped with a, detachable, focussing wheel,
that was mounted on the foccusing ring.
The 'rearset knob' you noticed is the tripod attachment!
You must have seen at least one picture showing the bottom side of this
lens with its round tripod attachment socket. (Though its quite possible
that what you've seen is a picture of the Dallmeyer 508 mm that was
available for use on the 1000 F in 1956 and 1957. It too had a round
tripod attachment socket, but on this lens it features rather more
prominently than on the 500 mm Tele-Tessar.)
[Ed. note: postscript followup post:]
Just a short addition, to be perfectly clear:
The design of the Tele-Tessar did *not* change from 1961 to 1982, when it
was replaced by the Tele-Apotessar.
The CF Tele-Apotessar too is a 500 mm lens, but, as the name suggests, is
a completely new design: apochromatic, and using internal focussing. It
can not be considered a version of the Tele-Tessar. It is a replacement.
Sorry you can't seem to get any useful replies from actual Xpan owners, so
I'll kick some in.
I have the Xpan with the 90 and 45 mm lenses. I do not have the center
filter for the 45mm lens, but it is on my shopping list. You really need
it at wider apertures, despite the fact that Hassleblad implies you need
it only when shooting transparency film. If you are shooting transparency
film, you need it bad.
Here are some observations:
The off-the-curtain meter is not very accurate but is typical for these
types of meters. Try to hand meter if you can. The very wide frame and
the light drop-off towards the sides tends to cause severe underexposure
towards the sides and correct exposure in the center. If you are using
print film and need shadow detail on the sides of the frames, use the
center filter or overexpose by about 1.5 to 2 stops.
The lenses are pretty sharp and crisp, but I'm getting color fringes on
sharp lines towards the sides of the frame with the 45mm lens, even with
the aperture in mid-settings. Only visible if you look really close.
If you are used to a automated camera like so many current SLR's, don't
forget to check your exposure mode and remember to focus and set the
aperture. Honest, I have forgotten to set one or the other at times, or
was shooting in manual mode and though I was in aperture-preferred mode.
The wide aspect ratio enhances distortion if the camera is not leveled
both for tilt and rotation. I've had gotten some really excellent results
with a carefully leveled tripod but also with faster films and a fast
shutter speed. I tend to get my fingers in the way of the right-hand
rangefinder window when focusing, which makes the double image disappear.
No excuse for an old Leica user like me-- I just have big meatball
fingers.
Don't forget the lens shade at all times. The lenses are quite good when
it comes to flare resistance-- the 45mm seems excellent--- but anything
will flare or loose contrast if not shaded properly.
The film sometimes doesn't like to wind properly-- I often must reopen the
back and reset the film... The culprit seems to be the long, twisty leader
and it wanting to move to one side when the back is closed. I've had a
couple instances where it pulled the film out several inches and started
slipping, forcing me to open the back and pull the film back into the can
to try again.
Don't forget that if that happens. your LAST few (not the FIRST few)
frames will be ruined since the camera pulls all the film out then feeds
it back into the can. I just keep shooting but skip the last few frames.
The batteries seem to hold up well. Certainly take spares but this camera
doesn't seem to be a power hog.
Hope that helps. I shoot with several panoramic systems but really love
the Xpan-- it's a nice combination of wide format, standard format and
rangefinder.
I've had great luck with the Hewlett-Packard S20 film scanner. It can
scan panoramic shots up to five 35mm frames wide, and works great with the
Xpan frames. I get a 38MB scan at 2400 DPI.
[email protected] writes:
I have been toying with changing the lineup of my optics. I have a
50FLECF, an 80CF, a 100CF and a 150CF. I know of a new 120 Macro-Planar
CF that is sitting on a dealer shelf and was thinking of selling one or 2
of my lens to get it.
I've used the 120 but I wasn't overly impressed with its performance at
infinity which is where I do 99% of my shooting. I have almost the same
lineup as you, minus the 100 but plus a 60CF, 2x Mutar and a spare 80.
Since I can crop 50% and still have an image larger than a 35mm neg I can
get up to an effective 600mm (150 + Mutar + 50% crop/enlarge) if anything
I'd want to add on the wide end. I've been toying with the idea of
something wider, tried an SWC and hated it, don't like the filtration
situation with the 40CFE. In your case you might sell the 100 and look
for a Mutar. Used with the 50 you would get the 100mm length back, a
"spare" 150 from the 80, and a 300 from the 150. The image quality is
fine, it's just the light loss that can be a problem if you shoot indoors
a lot. I don't so the Mutar is my favorite "lens".
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Rich,
While it would depend on my needs, I'd stay with the 100/150.
The 150 is a classic portrait length. The 120 is used by some who have
small studios. My finding is that the 150 at f4 is a little easier to
focus than the 120 at f4, though this is hard to describe with theory.
I've used both.
The 100mm lens, while pretty close to the 80mm you have, is, none the
less, a nice length for a full length shot outdoors. The working distance
is comfortable, and the 100mm lens has a reputation for being quite sharp.
About the only reasons I'd consider using a 120 would be to lighten my rig
and make close-ups a little more convenient. If I had your rig, I'd
probably go for a 60, 250 or 40 before I'd get the 120. But again, it
depends on what kind of work you do.
my $0.02,
Peter
...
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Which lens is best, the 100 mm Planar, The 120 Planar or the 150 Sonnar.
Even though I have only used th 120 mm Planar I miss some basic
information in this discussion.
The 120mm Planar is a lens corrected for close ups and needs at least
stopping down 2 stops for shots at infinity or medium distances. Its a
faboulous lens for close up and copywork, no distortion and corner to
sharpnes, good contrast. At large appertures and long distances the most
noticeable flaw is that it looses contrast. That was from experience.
The 100 mm Planar is corrected primarily for Shooting at infinity. It also
provides images with practically no distortion, as youy would require in
arial mapping work etc.
The 150 mm sonnar is very good all round lens.
John Dancke
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Markus Nagl wrote:
Good lens. I use mine a lot, and it never has disappointed me.
The newer 180 mm Sonnar is better though, and close (well, somewhat) in
length and use, but not enough to stop you (or me) from enjoying the 250
mm.
It's only f/5.6, so a fast film might be in order, especially when
handheld.
It's superb at f/5.6 though, you may never want to stop it down (i seldom
do, unless it's just too bright, and i have to).
A 32 mm extension ring should be the constant companion of this lens (ever
at the ready), enabling you to do great close-up portraits etc.
And keep in mind that the 250 mm lens alone loses approx. 0.5 stop when
focussed close, and even more, of course, when using the 32 mm tube.
You'll feel the full brunt of viewfinder-vignetting using this lens,
unless you got a Hasselblad with a better mirror arangment, like the 2000-
and 200-series, the 500 ELX and newer EL-models, or the 503 CW or 501 CM.
But see if you can find a 18 years old (or younger still) Sonnar 250 mm.
The CFs are more convenient to use!
No difference apart from that.
The usual caveats apply: look for any signs of damage and misuse, etc.
And ask if you can test before you buy.
Date: 12 Oct 2000
John,
I bought a Komura converter over a year ago, with the hope of pushing my
250 mm Sonnar C telephoto up to about a 500. I did a variety of
comparisons at different apertures, subject distances and with or without
added filters.
As I shoot only B&W and do all of my own processing, I found that under
all conditions, I could merely enlarge the straight 250mm negative up to
the same image size as the one with the converter, and get at least equal,
and often better sharpness/accutance/what have you. So my converter stays
at home, in its little box. One less thing to carry.
Pete Schermerhorn, in the glorious Berkshire hills of western
Massachusetts
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000
H.=- wrote:
It's a matter of convenience: it was far easier to do it they way they
have chosen to do it. Just take a normal 500 camera mechanism (after all,
the ELs must function as a normal camera, i.e. trip the release, complete
the cycle, and reset the camera, mirror and all), add a motor to take care
of the physical act of rotating the gears, and you're (almost) done. If
you want prerelease, just add an extra release mechanism that will trip
the camera as normal, but include a catch that will stop the release cycle
at the right moment. The difference between the normal release and the
prerelease is that the normal release does trip this catch as well. A
simple thing to do. And you'll need it anyway, motorized body or not. And
remember, this mechanism was included in the non-motorized cameras, so
there was no extra work involved.
Now, having a camera with motorized wind
offers the opportunity to introduce a sequence mode (as a matter of fact,
the "sequence" ("Repeat") mode was the simple thing you got after adding a
motor: there was a need to add a catch to *prevent* the camera to start
the release cycle again and again while the release was depressed, i.e. to
achieve a "single" mode. This is the first *extra* feature (obviously
apart from the motor and the mechanical coupling between motor and camera
gears) that was necessitated by adding the motor. So now you're done: you
can stop your design efforts right here.
But if you stop here, you'll end up with a rather peculiar prerelease
mode. In "single" mode it operates as usual: first tripping the release
and start its cycle until it catches, and then tripping the catch,
completing the cycle. The motor will subsequently reset the camera (and
mirror!). In "sequence" mode, since there was no effort made to add a
mechanism to disengage the mirror, we end up with a rather silly sequence,
returning the mirror to its down-position and quickly flipping it up again
between exposures. The difference between the normal "sequence" mode ("A"
mode) and the prerelease "sequence" mode ("AS" mode) is only the state the
camera is in *after* the sequence of exposures has terminated. Both modes
put the mirror through a full down-up-down cycle between exposures...
But talk about silly: the "off" position ("lock") on the ELs does not
actually disconnect power to the circuit. It just blocks a clutch arm,
preventing camera operation. So if you'd keep the release depressed with
the camera in the "lock" position, eventually your battery will run down.
Camera bodies and film backs use the following code for dating...
Thus, a camera body or a film back with serial number "EH 123XXX" would be
from 1992.
Lenses are a different story. The best resource that I know of is Richard
Nordin's "Hasselblad System Compendium" (Hove Books).
RL Demsey
From hasselblad Mailing List:
[email protected] wrote:
CF lenses can be dated (as we have seen before on this list) by the one
letter + two digits code printed on the rear baffle: The letter would
indicate the month of manufacture (not quite sure about this), 'E', for
instance, being the fifth letter of the alphabet indicating May, the fifth
month, etc.
The two digit code is a backwards representation of the year of
manufacture (and this is certain), "28", for instance, standing for 82,
i.e. 1982.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
In the Ernst Wildi Hasselblad book he states that the shutter should be
left in the cocked state. As he works closely with Hasselblad I guess he
should know.
Simon
From Contax Mailing LIst:
I got into some trouble when I reviewed the CB lenses for Shutterbug
because the Zeiss folks had told me that they did not perform as well and
did not have the full T* multicoating. Hasselblad hit the ceiling when
the review appeared and I quoted the Zeiss information. I still do not
know the truth about the lenses since they are marked T* and Hasselblad
insists it is the same T* coating used on all their Zeiss lenses.
Optical designs of the 50 and 150 seem to be identical to the CF versions.
Basically, Hasselblad is attributing the lower prices to a simplified lens
barrel construction. But I have Roger Hicks as a witness to the
statements from Zeiss at photokina two years ago, since we were there
together and his recollections and notes agree with mine.
Bob
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
[Snip]
I must add a small post scriptum:
In his post to the Contax Mailing List mr Shell erroneously mentioned he
believed the "Optical designs of the 50 and 150 seem to be identical to
the CF versions." This, of course, is only true of the 60 (not 50) mm
Distagon. There is no 150 mm CB lens. Both other CB lenses, the 80 mm
Planar and the 160 mm Tessar are new/different designs from their CF
counterparts.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Perhaps the CB 160 mm Tessar lens is not a "bad" lens, but it is not
good enough either. It is a lens that should not be in the Hasselblad
line-up. It, and the CB 80 mm Planar, is damaging to both Hasselblad's and
Zeiss' reputation. Both Hasselblad and Zeiss now seem to think so too.
Well the gentleman from Zeiss (his name escapes me, Dr. Kornelius
Flescher?) who posts on this group from time to time said nice things
about the 160 CB last year. He mentioned that the 160 CB had higher
contrast and better stray light characteristics than older versions of the
150 lens. I think that the 160 CB is a fine lens to consider for portrait
work and I have been very happy with mine. Isaac's point, which I agree
with, is that the 160 CB would be a very good second hand value for the
original poster of this thread. I think those Hasselblad users who will
value a good price, respectable MTF chart performance, and reduced weight
will give this lens a try and be happy with their choice, I know I was.
After all the 160 CB is very much in the same MTF performance zone as the
120 CFi (in non closeup mode) and the 250 CFi.
Doug from Tumwater
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
DBaker9128 wrote:
Fleischer
He would wouldn't he. But listen/read carefully: better than old versions
of the 150 mm lens. The 150 mm lens has remained unchanged since it was
introduced in 1957. What older version? He must mean the single coated C
lenses. Coating was changed to T* multicoating in 1973. Now what did mr
Shell say about the T* coating on CB lenses...?
And contrast and stray light characteristics is not the only thing to look
for in a lens. Not at all. A good lens shade can take care of that.
The second hand value of the CB 160 mm lens will be low. There are *very
many* better 150 mm lenses to be had used. Second hand vale of CB lenses
will be as a rarity/collectors item in many years from now, not as a lens
to use.
You're carefully avoiding to mention the 150 mm and 180 mm lenses. The 160
mm is only marginally better than the 250 mm, and only at 10 lp/mm, i.e.
it has slightly better overall contrast, but is not sharper. The 120 mm
lens at infinity is better than the 160 mm too, but admitedly, only in the
center, performance falling off towards the corners. At typical portrait
distance however it easily outperforms the CB 160 mm.
All this is very easy to see in the published MTF graphs, and has been
mentioned in several public forums, like this newsgroup, before. If you
don't believe that, just take a hint from Zeiss and Hasselblad: they don't
want to sell the CB 160 mm lens anymore.
Hasselblad's David Jeffery (Customer Support, Victor Hasselblad AB,
Sweden) had this information about the availability of the CB 120 mm lens:
Quote:
"The CB 4/ 120 mm lens is only available in special product combinations
and then only to certain markets, though it appears (to special order) in
my UK catalogue, for example. [...]
It seems unlikely that they will be made as freely available as the other
CB lenses just yet. There have been some items occasionally in the past
that were country specific but at present it appears to be just this lens
you mention and a Polaroid back in the US. I am not aware of any
restrictions about any other items from the Hasselblad program."
End quote.
He's not saying much, is he?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
Ain't gonna happen, I'm afraid. Plus, if you think about it, the whole
reason for BUYING a 'blad is so that you can use the glass. The body and
backs are nice and solid, but it's all about the glass.
Until your wallet gets fat enough to buy that 120, 150 or 180 portrait
lens, you might consider buying a 2X teleconverter to turn your 80 into a
160mm. When you calculate your exposure settings, remember that you're
losing 2 stops of light when the teleconverter is in place.
-Mike
"Kevin Barrett" [email protected] wrote
[Ed. note: okay, how about hasselblad lenses only available in certain
countries, but not the USA - esp. bargain variants?..]
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
The product code for CB120/4 Makro is "20055" and it is listed in the
Hassleblad product catalog distributed in Hong Kong. This lens is
identical to the CFi version except for the lack of the "F" setting and a
couple of minor cosmetic differences. It is definitely a bang for the buck
for 500 series users as it only costs about USD1280 here.
Chris
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
The CB120/4 has been around for 2 years and it is mainly designed to
compete with Mamiya RB/RZ in the wedding photo market in China. This lens
shares the same optical design of the CF/CFi versions. However, only a
limited quantity of this lens have been made and once they are sold out,
there will be no more CB120! I gathered the above information from my
friend who works for the distributor of Hasselblad here. Are you
interested in this lens?
I believe most Hasselblad items sold in HK are also available in other
countries. The only difference may be the price which is about 25%
cheaper than that of the US:-)
Chris
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
[email protected] wrote:
The 120 film 6x6 back, that can be used on the 500 C and newer models, had
the model number 30015. Serial numbers start at CC 20000 (1955),
corresponding to "Magazine construction 2" in the Hasselblad instructions
on how to use 220 film in non-automatic 12 backs. They were first made for
the 1000 F and SWA cameras.
In the late 1950s the 500 C was introduced and with it (?) a new submodel
("Magazine construction 3"). There was no change to the model number. The
serial numbers of this 3rd construction magazine start somewhere round
35000.
There were two earlier subtypes intended for use on the 1600 F and 1000 F
cameras. They will not (?) function properly on 500 C and newer models.
They would be "Magazine construction 1". I don't know their model number.
The A12 had a fixed, foldable film wind crank, and it introduced an
automatic (hence the 'A') stop, making film loading that much faster.
After loading the film onto the insert, and inserting it in the back, it
only takes 10 full turns of this crank to put frame 1 into the gate: the
wind will block automatically when frame 1 is reached. No more peeping
through a small hole in the back of the magazine to see when frame number
1 was reached.
Lynda B wrote:
Absolutely!
I have both, but only use the old, non-automatic one.
The automatic bellows protrudes in front, colliding with your subject,
making it very awkward when you're not using full bellows draw. The
non-automatic bellows extends to the back, underneath the camera, out of
harm's way.
If you're in no particular hurry, you don't have to use the double cable
release on the non-auto bellows (which can be a pain to synchronize). A
single cable release will do. You will have to work in a large format
camera style:
1) Use the cable release, attached to the front standard of the bellows,
to close the lens shutter and diaphragm(not pushing it all the way).
2) Prerelease the camera, using the prerelease button on the right side of
the body.
3) Wait for all vibrations to die away.
4) Expose by pushing the cable release all the way, releasing it after the
exposure is completed.
5) Cycle the body: press the body's shutter release, and rewind the
body/film.
6) Rewind the lens using the rewind knob on the bellows' front standard,
opening the shutter and diaphragm.
Works fine.
From hasselblad mailing list:
I'm using the non-automatic one and I'm very happy with it. I totally
second all good advice already provided by other group members. Some
additional info if you want to buy a used non auto bellows :
Check that the double cable release is sold together with the bellows.
If not, I think the double cable release still on catalog for the
PC-mutar shifting device might work. Otherwise you would have to use
two separate cable releases and you'll miss the "quasi-automatic"
operation.
Another useful item is the open-L shaped connector. I think it is
still on catalog as new. Even if it is mandatory only for a 500
EL/ELM/ELX camera, I find it very useful with a 500 series camera.
When I bought my bellows, the previous owner had rotated the bellows
bayonet by 90 degrees to be used with a 500 EL camera. For a 500C/M I
shifted it back to the standard position. Be careful then not to loose
any of the 8 small screws. Incidentally when buying a used non auto
bellows check that all 8 screws are actually there. A good quality
screwdriver is strongly recommended to prevent damages to the heads of
these screws.
For this bellows there was a dedicated compendium. It was still
mentioned on the Hasselblad price list of the French distributor until
1998-1999, old stock. If the second hand bellows comes with the
compendium and if you intend to do 1:1 copying work, take the
compendium also since beyond its regular sun-shade use this device is
very useful for 1:1 repro work and very difficult to find alone.
As fas as the lens is concerned, results obtained with a non-macro 80
or a 150 are very acceptable when stopped down to f/16-f/22 like in a
view camera. A 150 is convenient since it will give you a more
comfortable working distance to the subject.
I also got a used lens mount adapter (discontinued) ref #40037 on one
hand and a used 100 mm Schneider componon enlarging lens mounted on a
Prontor-Press shutter on the other hand. For both items I spent about
US$ 140 and in combination with the bellows this yields a good
macro/repro lens at an affordable price.
Of course with item #40037 you could also use shutter-less lenses but
with a 500C/M you'll be limited to non-synchro, open flash (early
500C bodies had a flash sync plug) or long exposure times using the
rear auxiliary shutter.
--
From hasselblad mailing list;
[email protected] wrote:
You don't need it on EL(...)-type bodies at all! Only when using a 500
C(...) or 2000/200 series body the shutter release is that close to the
bellows that you might want to use the L-connector (and even with these
bodies you can do without).
L-shaped connectors can be bought new from Hasselblad and several other
manufacturers of photographic accessories. You'll need an extra adapter
(46213, still listed) to use a mechanical cable release on a EL-type body.
The lens shade for this bellows can only be fitted to C-lenses with the
bayonet 50 mount. There are no adapters to make it fit other lenses.
Peter,
Here is the text of an article that I wrote for a camera magazine in
Singapore after I toured the Hasselblad factory last year:
QUOTE
For many years, I had been interested in taking a trip around Scandinavia
in the summer. Well, this year, that dream came true. With my wife and
son, I spent 3 weeks driving through Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
Scandinavia turned out to be as photogenic as I had thought - I shot over
160 rolls of 120mm film. Whilst this number sounds high, you must
remember that Scandinavia in summer has 20 hours a day of glorious
sunlight
Being a Hasselblad owner and knowing that Hasselblad is based in Sweden,
before leaving Singapore, I explored the possibility of visiting the
Hasselblad plant. Through an email contact in the product research team,
I communicated with the marketing and public relations team.
Unfortunately my visit to Sweden coincided with the main summer holiday
time when almost every company shuts down for 3 weeks. However, if I was
prepared to delay my visit by a week, they would accommodate my request.
Hasselblad is based in Goteborg (Gothenburg) in southern Sweden. It is an
industrial port city, the home of Volvo, another Swedish company renowned
for its quality. On the appointed hour, I showed up at the Hasselblad
head office, to receive my first surprise of the afternoon. Hasselblad's
office and factory is located in the very centre of town - like having a
factory in Orchard Road. They are based in four buildings, right next to
the harbour and near the central railway station. The corner building is
ancient with strong architectural lines and is protected by a government
preservation order. The other three buildings get progressively younger,
through to the last one, which is an ugly 1970's brick building. Inside,
the buildings are all interconnected by a confusion of passageways, ramps
and stairs. Even my guide, who has worked there for 30 years, took a
wrong turn twice during our tour. Later on, I learnt that Hasselblad are
planning to move to a more modern building outside the city area,
obviously a good business decision but I believe that staff will be sad to
leave their historical, downtown buildings.
My second surprise was that I was on the tour all by myself. Whilst they
have the facilities to bring groups of people through the plant, because
of the holidays, my visit was to be a special one, led by the head of
international marketing team, a Mr. Torbjorn Eriksson.
First stop was the museum and audio-visual centre. In the museum is the
entire history of Hasselblad cameras, including the original wooden
prototype fashioned by Victor Hasselblad in 1948 (the basic shape is still
unchanged). On show are some of the NASA cameras and some of the special
cameras made to commemorate special events, such as the golden jubilee of
the reign of King Bhumibol of Thailand, himself a keen photographer.
Photographs on the wall include shots from previous Hasselblad visitors
including the Queen of England, the King of Sweden and Warren Beatty - I
was walking in famous footsteps!
Using a massive bank of computer-controlled Hasselblad 6x6cm slide
projectors, Torbjorn then ran two audio-visual shows of impressive
quality. The first showed the history of Hasselblad and the second was
compiled from the millions of space photos taken by Hasselblad cameras -
stunning!
Next we took a walk around the plant where more surprises awaited me.
Hasselblad do not use the ubiquitous assembly line approach to
manufacturing. Instead, all the components and sub-assemblies are placed
on one of the high-tech workbenches of their skilled craftsmen, who then
build the camera and test it. By having complete responsibility for each
camera in one person's hands, quality is improved and pride of work
enhanced. By reading the serial number from the base of my camera and
looking in a computer database, Torbjorn was able to introduce me to the
women who had actually built my camera! I was able to assure her that her
work had been successful and that the only times the camera had failed, it
had been my fault
I met "Victor", a high-speed industrial robot who machines the camera
bodies and his younger girlfriend "Victoria", who does some other messy
part of the machining process. Around the manufacturing area are many
large photographs from some of the many users of Hasselblad cameras, the
idea being that the staff always keep in mind that they are not making the
end-product, but are making a tool for photographers.
Finally, after the two hour tour, we visited the Hasselblad boutique,
where a range of Hasselblad fashion accessories is on sale. I came away
with a black Hasselblad baseball cap, a key ring and a very fashionable
Hasselblad silk necktie.
In finishing, I must say that the Hasselblad tour was one of my personal
highlights of our Scandinavian holiday. The warm welcome was wonderful,
the tour fascinating. Now I understand even more why photographers
proclaim the quality of Hasselblad service. If you are ever passing
through Sweden, I can heartily recommend a visit to Hasselblad.
UNQUOTE
A rather sad after-note to this article is that Torbjorn Eriksson, the man
who kindly led me on my tour, died of cancer earlier this year.
As I indicated in the article above, the tour is daily but closed during
the summer holiday. One phone call or email to Hasselblad would ensure
that you were going at the right time to be able to book into a factory
tour.
And, yes, it is expensive in Sweden. Everything from hotels, food, car
hire, petrol (gas) seemed to be way more than I am used to in Asia...
Regards
Email: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
No , you cannot mount an K-8 Lens on a Hassie 2000. The depth of the lens
will foil the body.
Any P-6 to Hassie or K-8 to hassie adaptor, unless being a re-mount, can
only work on Macro / Close focus.
For register, K-8 is 82.1mm , P-6 is 74, as such, there is K-8 Lens to P-6
Adaptor. I believe the P-6 to Hassie Adaptor require you re-mounting it
replacing the base plate of the P-6 Lens. I've seen this done and similar
re-mounting for Pentax 67 also.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Hi:
I have shooting with an old "C" 250 mm SA lens for several years - it's
really sharp and extremely well color corrected. I can use it with a
1.4X Mutar with absolutely no color fringing. I sold my 350 mm
Tele-Tessar because the 250 mm SA + 1.4X is much better for my work. The
250 mm SA also works well with the 2x Mutar - in fact much better than
the 500 mm Tele-Tessar - so I sold my 500 mm too!!. In my experience,
the Tele-Tessar lenses have color fringing - not a problem in black &
white photography but not good for my chrome work. The 500 mm
Tele-ApoTessar is a very good lens with no color fringing problems.
Go to my web site at http://home.pacbell.net/fotophil to see some 250 mm
SA shots.
I don't think the 250 mm SA has changed optically over the years, so an
older "C" lens may be a bit cheaper than the newer versions. None of the
lenses are T* coated.
The lens is a bit expensive - I paid around $2100 for mine - of course
then I found one for $1700!! but it was too late.
You'll enjoy the lens if you can find one!!!!!!!!!
If you can afford the 350 mm SA go for it - I have never used one but
everything I have ever heard about the lens says it very good - maybe
even better than the 250 mm SA?
Phil
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
I got a 350 SA which I primarely use to take aerials.The sharpness of
this lens is incredible.With a heavy gyro stabilizer
and Portra 160NC I have reached 120-130 lp/mm. To obtain maximum
sharpness in the prints I use a Zeiss 105 S-orthoplanar for enlargement.
With this I can get sharp prints with 16-18x linear enlargements.And
with sharp prints I mean sharp from close wieving distance. However,
areas with low contrast get unsharp. This is due to the fact that you
exeed the resolution of either the lens or the film in low contrast
areas. From the experience with this lens I suspect that it is the film
who gives up.
Only "problem" with this lens is that the focus of the lens is depending
on the temperature of the lens. When shooting
aerials I focus the lens on the ground , lock the focus, and pray that
the temperature do not change too much.
Ragnar Hansen
Robert Monaghan's posts reminded me of this.
Hasselblad 50/60 lens shades are priced on the moon. If you are not a
collector, then an excellent substitute is a good old 67mm lens shade
(aka Series VIII) cut to the proper length. The most common shade is
the Kodak Series VIII available for a few bucks (I pay $6 each for
them) at any place that has old stuff.
You do need a Hasselblad (but not necessarily Hassey Brand Name) bay-to-
series adapter, but that is not a big expense. Then you can use the
hoods and Series VIII and 67mm filters.
To cut the shade I use a simple Dremel tool with cutting wheel mounted
in their mini-drill press. Place the shade on the platform with the
threaded end flat on the platform. Set the height of the Dremel to the
proper depth and lock it. Then cut the shade by rotating it carefully
against the wheel. Carefully! Let the wheel do the work. If you press
too hard, the Dremel's shaft will tilt, ruining the symetry of the cut.
Be safe, wear eye-protection.
I've made such hoods from Kodak hoods for the 50mm, 80mm and 150
Hasselblad lenses, and using the same technique I modified a Vivitar
67mm shade for the 38mm. (Ever priced a lens shade for the 38?) The
Vivitar shade has the proper taper to make it a super wide-angle shade.
From hasselblad mailing list;
I believe the new "F" zoom lens is made by Fuji...
(it's listed in the catalog as a "Hasselblad FE 4.8/ 60-120mm. All other
lenses are listed as a "Zeiss xxx").
-David Gerhardt
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
Depends on which Hassy body you have!!
If you have a 500c,C/M, or any kin of non moorized body, the NPC will
fit!!
The NPC won't fit the EL, EL/M, EL/X, or EL/D
Y
Ash13brook wrote:
From: [email protected] (DaveHodge)
One of the points that Wildi makes in his Hasselblad Manual is that C
lenses, used with the proper hood, should give good results. I have one C
lens and two T* lenses, and I can't see any poorer results with the C
lens.
If I hit the lottery, I might upgrade some of my system. But probably to
add a 30mm C lens, not to upgrade C lenses to T*.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001
....
You do know that most black C lenses do have the T* multicoating? And that
most, but not all, chrome C ones don't? (There are transitional models:
the change from chrome to black was not made on all types of lenses at the
same time, and it did not happen quite at the same time T* multicoating
was introduced).
So you might not be able to see poorer results because the C lens has T*
multicoating as well.
I guess you probably knew this already, but it would be very confusing to
someone who didn't, to suggest that being a C lens means not having T*
multcoating, as very many do. So i feel you shouldn't use the "C"
designation to distinguish between single coated and multi coated lenses.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
[email protected] (Ash13brook) wrote:
Check the Hasselblad section of KEH.com. They have a category...
prisms/prism accessories, something like that. The eyecups are sold
there, quite cheaply relative to anything else Hasselblad.
---
Hello Daniel,
The 202FA cannot use 'C' lenses and can only use the 'CF' and 'CFi' lenses
in 'F' mode. It can use any of the 'F' and 'FE' lenses without problems.
IMHO, Hasselblad should never have introduced this model and I saying this
as a loyal Hasselblad user for over 33 years! I love their other 'stuff .
. . just not the 202FA! I still love my 2000 series and 200 series bodies,
so I have no bias against bodies with focal plane shutters...and most of
my lenses are of the 'C' type.
An E back allows the user to preset the ISO rating of the film loaded in
it. This film speed is then transferred automatically to the 202FA, 203FE,
205TCC and 205FCC bodies ONLY. On any other body, this feature is not
used. You can still use any E back on any Hasselblad body that DOES NOT
HAVE A ROUND 1.5mm (approx) PIN that 'juts' out of the body during the
film advancing cycle . . . that is when you advance the winding lever or
know. This pin is positioned on the body just above the exposed gear the
mates with the film magazine's wind gear. This includes 1600F, 1000F,
Supreme Wide and the original Super Wide cameras.
ANY A series or the old manual wind backs may be used on any of the
automatic bodies (202FA, 203FE, 205TCC and 205TCC) but you would have to
program the film ISO speed into the camera manually. The only backs that
CANNOT be used on the later bodies are the backs that require that
'jutting pin' on the camera body I described earlier.
I hope this answers your questions . . . but IMHO, it's best to 'pass' the
202FA and get a clean-previously owned 203FE (or new if the $$$ are not a
problem). With the 203FE, all 'C,' 'CF,' 'CFi,' 'CB,' 'F,' and 'FE' lenses
may be used to their fullest extent!
Best regards,
Tsun Tam
"Daniel K. Lee" wrote:
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
[email protected] wrote:
Another question. What is the minimum extension of the hasselblad
bellow?
63.5 mm. It extends up to 202 mm.
[Ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted photographer and photobook author, as well
as being an engineer developing AF and digital camera systems etc...]
Daniel K. Lee wrote:
Simple. Older model used lenses will be CF. All new lenses are CFi and
CFE. You don't have a choice between CFi and CFE. The CFE is a CFi with a
databus. You cannot get a 40mm CFi, it is a CFE. You cannot get an 80 CFi,
it's a CFE.
So forget about CF, CFi, CFE. Get the focal length you want. And whether
it's CF, CFi, or CFE, will make no difference other than the mechanics of
the CF vs the CFi/CFE is a little different. You might want to get all
lenses of the same type. All CF or all CFi/CFE. CB lenses are the same
mechanics as the CFi/CFE.
So, if you want the latest model lenses, get CB/CFi/CFE.
Jim
[Ed. note: long sold, but for info on this long lens option...]
500mm F/5.6 Kilfit/Zoomar mirror. With Hasselblad adaptor. and
case. Lens
has been milled out to be trip with Hasselblad gun grip. Like new, very
nice. $850.00 or trade, for Contax, Rollei,or Leica.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Have you all heard the good news? "The manufacture of the CB lenses has
been discontinued and the availability will cease during 2001". The very
nice f/3.5 60 mm Distagon has returned to the CFi line up.
Will this be a return to a more sensible marketing policy, i.e.
concentrating on only building the best they can, and forget about the,
substandard, rest? I like to think so.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Frank Filippone wrote:
Hasselblad Catalogue 2001.
[email protected] wrote:
They do indeed exist. I have a fake T* 250mm chrome. The red T* is
indistinguishable from the genuine, but the front element clearly lacks
the dark greenish blue cast of a real T*. If you are in doubt, just
compare the front element of the lens in question with both a T* and a
C. The difference is obvious.
Max Perl wrote:
Yes, with a little courage, you can. You only need to take the back's
front plate off (the one with the serial number on it. Take care nothing
jumps or drops out when its off). You can ask your local Hasselblad
representative to supply a replacement seal.
"Q.G. de Bakker"
I was under the impression that the flaps are magnetic and seal
together when the slide is removed. Is this not so? [Ed. note: not
so..]
As far as replacing them yourself, I believe you can. You may be able
to get the seals from Hasselblad in New Jersey, and change them with a
very small screwdriver. Caveat emptor, etc. I just had mine done by
[email protected]. Overhaul is $65 plus parts, I think...
---
From: jjs [email protected]
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:
I ordered new traps for my backs last year (about $17 each), and they
were just as you describe. And for the do-it-yourselfer, they are easy
to install, but as Q.G. said - NO GLUE. Very important!)
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
daniel wrote:
The obvious advantage is the built-in leafshutter, giving flash-syncspeeds
up to 1/500.
There are no disadvantages having a CFE instead of a FE. That's why the 80
mm FE lens is discontinued, and the CFE will be the standard lens for all
Hasselblads.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
daniel wrote:
Oh... You have the 202 FA... :-(
The FE lens is ever so slightly less expensive than the CFE (about US$ 2
less. Yes, two.)
The CFE would be the (obvious) better choice. It is the same lens
optically, but has the added bonus of a built-in leafshutter, leaving you
the choice what shutter to use... if only you were using it on any other
focal plane shutter Hasselblad but the 202 FA! With the 202 FA you're
stuck using the body's focal plane shutter. So unless you're planning to
use this lens on a different type Hasselblad as well (now, or in the
future), there's no point in having the leafshutter CFE. (Note however
that Hasselblad has discontinued the 80 mm FE lens, making the CFE the
standard lens, even on the 202 FA).
By the way: the only disadvantage of the CFE is that its minimum focussing
distance is a bit longer than the minimum focussing distance of the FE (90
cm/3 ft vs 60 cm/2 ft). For any other Hasselblad, I would pick the CFE
nevertheless.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Henry Posner wrote:
Hey, i hadn't noticed that. Bad news, in my book.
It's not a new lens. It is the old, well known and much loved C and CF
f/3.5 60 mm Distagon, at one time banished to the CB line, but brought
back to the proper line up now the CB lenses are discontinued.
Some more news:
The Schneider Zoom is discontinued.
So is the PCP80 projector. Only certain "key accessories" will be kept
available.
And all the Hasselblad filters, except the polarizer, the UV filter, the
Softars, and the Soft filters.
The magazine A32 (32 6x4.5 frames on 220 film) will be discontinued during
2001.
The Proxars were dropped during 2000.
So were E magazines in black.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
With all the items being dropped from the Hassy line... another one?
I think I remember seeing that the 135 Makro (for bellows) was also slated
to be dropped sometime during 2001.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
daniel wrote:
Oh... You have the 202 FA... :-(
The FE lens is ever so slightly less expensive than the CFE (about US$ 2
less. Yes, two.)
The CFE would be the (obvious) better choice. It is the same lens
optically, but has the added bonus of a built-in leafshutter, leaving you
the choice what shutter to use... if only you were using it on any other
focal plane shutter Hasselblad but the 202 FA! With the 202 FA you're
stuck using the body's focal plane shutter. So unless you're planning to
use this lens on a different type Hasselblad as well (now, or in the
future), there's no point in having the leafshutter CFE. (Note however
that Hasselblad has discontinued the 80 mm FE lens, making the CFE the
standard lens, even on the 202 FA).
By the way: the only disadvantage of the CFE is that its minimum focussing
distance is a bit longer than the minimum focussing distance of the FE (90
cm/3 ft vs 60 cm/2 ft). For any other Hasselblad, I would pick the CFE
nevertheless.
From: jjs [email protected]
"max_perl" [email protected] wrote:
Yes, indeed, there are such adapters. I haveb one for every Hasselblad
lens I use. You might find that using the adapter to 67mm (aka Series
VIII) to be helpful because there are good quality filters in that
size, and especially because you can also use Series VIII lens hoods
(with the filters as well) which are far more cost effective than the
Hasselblad brand. For example, the good old aluminum Kodak Series VIII
hood can be had for a few dollars, and there are some excellent steel
Vivitar and Zeiss 67mm hoods out there too. (I had great luck cutting
down a Vivitar 67mm hood for the 36mm Biogon, too.) I have several of
these hoods, and I think I paid $15 for the most expensive one. You can
even cut them down to use for shorter lenses such as the 50mm. I can
provide a How To and pictures on that if you like.
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
[email protected] (Ash13brook) wrote:
Check the Hasselblad section of KEH.com. They have a category...
prisms/prism accessories, something like that. The eyecups are sold
there, quite cheaply relative to anything else Hasselblad.
---
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Keith [email protected] wrote:
Not at all.
The chrome C lenses are all coated, and very occasionally you see one
that has T* coating.
---
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Hi all,
Recently, you were discussing about the better method for shootting
portraits with a 150mm lens (extension tube vs Close-up filter). I have
a 250 mm C T* lens (bay 50). I love portraits and the lens is very
sharp but I have the same problem. A lot of the film is "lost" and only
can do head and shoulder portraits.
According of the calculation of some member of the list:
using a 16mm extension tube..... 250/16 * 56.5= 88 cm of
coverage
using a 32 mm extension tube..... 250/32*56.5= 44cm of coverage
I have been looking for extension tubes on e-bay but is not easy.
There is a lot (8,16,21,32,55,56,etc.. but I don't know if them fit on
my 500 CM camera.
I have a 50-52mm converter ring and I am wondering if is possible to
use a B+W close-up filter (52mm) and which would be better 0.25, 0.5, 1
diopter. Is there any formula for close-up filter as for extension tube?
Thank you in advance, Rafael Alday
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
....
According of the calculation of some member of the list:
using a 16mm extension tube..... 250/16 * 56.5= 88 cm of
coverage
using a 32 mm extension tube..... 250/32*56.5= 44cm of coverage
These caculations are correct, but you forgot to add in the extension
already available in the lens barrel itself. The coverage you calculated
is for a lens with focussing ring set at infinity. The 250 mm Sonnar has
approximately 32 mm (!!! The 32 mm tube is the perfect companion for the
250 mm) of built-in extension, so the minimum field of view will be 30 cm
using the 16 mm tube, and 22 cm using the 32 mm tube.
You will have to compensate for light loss when using tubes (and even
without tubes: the 250 mm lens at its closest focussing distance of 2.5 m
loses slightly over 0.5 stop. Using full extension and a 32 mm tube
slightly over 1 full stop compensation is needed.
I have been looking for extension tubes on e-bay but is not easy.
There is a lot (8,16,21,32,55,56,etc.. but I don't know if them fit on
my 500 CM camera.
The 8, 16, 32, and 56 series tubes, as well as the old 10, 21 and 55 mm
tubes wil all fit the 500 C/M. The 8, 10 and 21 mm tube will not fit any
of the 2000 and 200 series cameras directly.
I have a 50-52mm converter ring and I am wondering if is possible to
use a B+W close-up filter (52mm) and which would be better 0.25, 0.5, 1
diopter. Is there any formula for close-up filter as for extension tube?
Thank you in advance, Rafael Alday
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
[email protected] wrote:
I have a 50-52mm converter ring and I am wondering if is possible to
use a B+W close-up filter (52mm) and which would be better 0.25, 0.5, 1
diopter. Is there any formula for close-up filter as for extension
tube?
The effect of a close up 'filter' (it isn't a filter really, it's a true
lens) is to reduce the maximum and minimum focussing limits. The maximum
focussing distance, when the prime lens is set to focus at infinity, is
equal to the focal length of the supplementary lens: 1 meter for a 1
diopter lens, 2 meter for a 0.5 diopter lens, and 4 meter for a 0.25
diopter lens.
These distances are true subject distances (i.e. meassured from lens to
subject, not from filmplane to subject, like the distances on the lens'
focussing ring).
The 250 mm lens at infinity setting combined with the 1 diopter close-up
lens will have a field of view of slightly over 17 cm, only almost 40 cm
when combined with the 0.5 diopter supplementary lens, and approx. 85 cm
when combined with the 0.25 diopter lens.
You can use the lens' focussing ring to focus closer.
From Hasselblad Mailing List
Guys,
One thing I have done for years is to put a small silk cord on my
darkslide's wire loop which I use to hang the slide from the camera or
tripod during exposures. This cord also REALLY helps pry the loop from
the folded down position so it can be removed from the magazine.
Rich
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
David Meiland wrote:
No. The light trap is (or was, i haven't looked in any of the latest style
backs) a foam (part no. 13067) in a plastic foil backing/envelope (part
no. 13508). It is placed in a shallow recess underneath the outer plate.
No glue.
You can do it yourself, yes. It is not that difficult, and not a lot can
go wrong: the sprung (!) exposure lock (the thing that pops up when a
slide is inserted) can come out, but is easy to put back in (don't drop
and lose any parts, like the small spring, though), and so can the sprung
locking arm mechanism (the one that locks the backs release when the slide
is pulled out), but it too is easy to reset.
It's always a good idea when you disassemble something to take a polaroid,
or video, so you will have a reference telling you where everything must
go.
But if these things mentioned above do fall out, you can easily figure out
how they go together again, even without pictures.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
If your Superwide has a C-lens you can either use the screw in lens hood
for the 38 or the 50mm C-lens. They replace the filter retaining ring. I
use the lens shade for the 50 mm lens which is 2mm longer, does not
produce visible vignetting and is more common on the used market (though
still expensive, one German dealer has it in stock for 129,-DM ~ 60 US$
at http://www.hassi-foto.de/)
Ulrik
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Robert Monaghan wrote:
Have you read the news?
"Victor Hasselblad, Sweden and Carl Zeiss, Germany on 24 January 2001
signed a cooperation agreement to further strengthen the Hasselblad medium
format camera system's leading position in image quality and versatility.
Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss both share a committment to photographic
excellence. They will continue to explore ways to improve on excellence
without breaking with the tradition of compatibility. The concept by which
any new and improved lens or camera will maintain compatibility with older
cameras and lenses. The relationship between Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss
started in 1950 with a handshake agreement between Victor Hasselblad and
Dr. Sauer in Gothenburg. The choice then, as today, was motivated by Carl
Zeiss proven excellence in lens design and state of the art manufacturing
in Oberkochen in the south of Germany.
Since then Carl Zeiss have designed 8 distinctive lens series for
Hasselblad, over 80 different lens models and sold approximately 1 million
lenses to photographers worldwide. The most recent introduction in 1999
was of 10 new lenses in the CFi and CFE series which have led to record
sales in the year 2000. "
Notice the "record sales in the year 2000"?
Niche product, yes. But doing fine with their 'first tier', despite their
pricing policy.
Good riddens to the budget line.
More can be found on Hasselblad's website.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
andy wrote:
No. The 150 mm lens has a minimum field of view of approx. 40 cm, the 250
mm lens has a minimum field of view of approx. 45 cm. You need to use
extension tubes on both lenses to get closer.
Beautiful!
There is more vignetting in the viewfinder when using the 250 mm lens than
when using the 150 mm lens, yes. But only slightly more.
No problems whatsoever. Just take care to observe the correct procedure in
attaching and removing tubes and lenses. Firts fix the tube to the body,
then put the lens on the tube. In removing, use the reverse order: first
take the lens off the tube, and only then remove the tube from the body.
The ideal tube to be used in conjunction with the 150 mm lens is the 16 mm
tube. The ideal companion to the 250 mm lens is the 32 mm tube.
The 16 mm tube used with the 150 mm lens will take you up to a minimum
field of view of approx. 23 cm at a (film to subject) distance of approx.
95 cm.
The 32 mm tube with the 250 mm lens will have a minimum field of view of
approx. 22 cm at a distance of 153 cm.
No question is redundant, ever. Unless you already know the answer.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The 500 series started with the introduction of the 500 C in 1957. It is a
full mechanical camera.
The 500 C was replaced by the 500 C/M in 1970, the difference being the
interchangeable focussing screen in the new C/M(odified) version. It is
fixed in the 500 C, but can be replaced by a service center.
In 1989 the 500 C/M was upgraded and became known as the 503 CX. Major
change was the introduction of TTL-flash metering electronics in the
camera.
In 1994 the CX model was changed again and was now called 503 XCi.
Only minor changes, or so we thought at the time. Later it became clear
that one major change was made too: the 503 CXi will accept the Winder CW,
introduced in 1996.
Although superseded by the 503 CX, the 500 C/M was still available,
renamed in 1990 "Classic".
The Classic (which was an unchanged 500 C/M) was replaced by the 501 C in
1994. Changes made included the rewind crank, that was exchangeable on the
500 C and later models, but fixed on the 501 C), and the omission of the
body cocked signal.
In 1996 the 503 CW was introduced, replacing the 503 CXi. It offered the
ability to attach the new winder CW, plus it has a better, i.e. larger and
thus non-vignetting, mirror.
In 1997 the 501 C was upgraded to include the better mirror arrangement
used in the 503 CW, and was renamed 501 CM.
They are all good cameras.
Lenses for the 500 series were introduced in 1957, obviously, together
with the 500 C camera.
The first series lenses were the "chrome" (it's not chrome, but aluminium)
C lenses. They hace a single coated, no T* multicoating.
During the 1970s, the "chrome" finish on the C lenses was replaced by a
black finish. This happened not at the same time for all types of C
lenses. Around the same time the single coating was replaced by Zeiss' T*
multicoating. So there are single and multi coated chrome and black C
lenses. However, most black finish ones have T* multi coating, most chrome
finish lenses do not.
In 1982 the CF series replaced the C series. In this upgrade most, but not
all, optical designs remained unchanged. The major improvement was in
ergonomics. Plus the CF lenses' new shutter (Prontor, replacing the Compur
in the C series) offers an F mode (hence the CF designation), disabling
the lens' leafshutter, for use on a 2000 series focal plane shutter body.
The 120 mm Makro-Planar gained one stop (f/4 instead of f/5.6) in this
transition, and the 500 mm Tele-Tessar C lens was replaced by a new design
500 mm Tele-Apotessar CF lens.
In 1999 the CF series was replaced by the CFi/CFE series. Again optical
design stayed unchanged, and improvements were made to the ergonomics plus
shutter.
The CFE lenses (40 mm and 350 mm) also have the electrical contacts needed
to be fully integrated into the 200-series metering automatics.
The 501 C was sold with a "C" 80 mm lens. This C lens however is a CF
version lens, minus the F-mode.
In 1998 Hasselblad introduced the CB series, B standing for Basic. Budget
more likely. There were 4 CB lenses: a 60 mm Distagon, a 80 mm Planar, a
160 mm Tessar, and (in only a few markets) a 120 mm Makro lens. All, but
the 60 mm Distagon, were distinctly poor lenses, comared to their CF
counterparts.
The 60 mm Distagon was not, since it *was* the CF version in a new mount.
The CB series is discontinued now (good riddens to them!), and the 60 mm
Distagon is back where it belongs, in the CFi series.
Usually people on this list *will* answer questions, and not just refer
you to books. ;-)
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Q.G.,
Nice brief history. One minor elaboration is that late in the run of the
500C, they added the interchangeable screens. After making some of these,
then they later decided to label them 500C/M. The late 500C with the
interchangeable screens is sometimes referred to be dealers as the "500C
Transition" to distinguish it from the 500C. In practice, the "500C
Transition" is more similar to the 500C/M than the 500C.
Peter
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I've found both lenses to be super sharp. The 250mm is the designed to
be the sharpest at wide open (f5.6). These lenses are sometimes too
sharp for they're own good, therfor difusion is needed. Either way you
can't go wrong.
Lance
From: "Leen Koper" [email protected]
....
Have a look at the 180...
But if you buy either the 150 or the 250, consider buying a B&W +0.25
close up lens. I am using one for several years nowin my portrait studio.
It's much cheaper than anything else and it allows me to work within any
desired distance.
Leen
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
I agree with MP. Before I owned any, I rented the 120, 150, and 180 at
different times and finally bought the 150. I have heard that the 180
is a tad sharper but it's a lot more money used and I don't think it
would help me sell any more photos. The 150 has the perfect working
distance for portraits.
"M P Brennan" [email protected] wrote:
...
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Isaac posted:
As a tessar, I would think that the 160mm would be quite a decent
performer, and undoubtedly the best value second hand. It is not a "bad"
lens...
Yes I agree. When Bob Shell of Shutterbug magazine reviewed the Hasselblad
CB lens line (March 1999) he stated "I found all three of the CB lenses
handled very well. Balance was good when on the camera, particularly with
the 160 because it is lighter than the older 150." Also in that article
Bob wrote "The CB 160 is a classic four element Tessar design, a high
quality design that Zeiss has used for many years, and also simpler to
manufacture. Because there is less glass in this lens than in the CF 150
it is noticeably lighter."
Doug from Tumwater
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
It is actually a series 63 but a 67mm will fit it but be careful at very
small apertures as you will get vignetting.
you wrote:
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Hasselblad used to sell a conversion kit (cat.no. 44059). I doubt they
still do, but you can ask at [email protected].
You could do the conversion yourself, but it entails dismanteling quite a
lot, including the lens. So i wouldn't try it without the proper
instructions (10 pages, 22 steps), which should be available if not from
Hasselblad from (someone on) the net somewhere. And you have to trust
yourself being able to put the dismantled thing back together again.
The kit contained (among others) a shim to raise the viewfinder socket
(which you might make yourself), a shim to lower the tripod coupling plate
plus plate (ditto), and a tooth wheel and matching crank plate, allowing
the crank to do a ratcheting action, winding film and recocking the
shutter in several short swings instead of the full 360 turn the old SWC
required. It would perhaps be difficult (but not impossible) to make these
parts yourself.
The kit also included a new name plate, saying "SWC/M", so not all cameras
bearing this name have started out as such. Look at the serial number too:
any SWC/M having a serial number below 142112 started life as a SWC.
From Medium Format Mailing List:
--- In medium-format@y..., info@r... wrote:
> I've just bought a 40mm HB T*, and there is a locking device which
> stops the focus ring between 0,9m and 1,0m. What is the purpose of
> this device?? Any links to info about the HB T* lenses is appreciated.
> "Medium Format Camera Reviews by Danny Gonzalez" doesn't contain
> usefull info about the above matter, but is otherwise a good source.
>
> R.B.
I sent a mail to Hasselblad in Sweden about the above matters, the
purpose of this locking button is to remind users about the fact that
the lens needs to be stopped down if focusing closer than 0,9m...
R.B.
PSsquare [email protected] wrote:
i think only the older "C" lenses (pre 1982) have the self timer.
the older Cs were single-coated, the later Cs have multi-coated
optics and are described as T* lenses. i believe (not 100% certain)
that all black lenses are T*, but that there exist some T* chrome lenses.
In addition to the self timer, the Cs also had mechanical depth of field
indicators on the barrel which moved when you changed the aperture.
the CF lenses did away with both these features.
the C lenses had the often annoying interlocked shutter-speed and aperture
rings, which would allow you to change aperture and have the corresponding
shutter speed change too. you had to pull back on a tab to unlink them.
the CF lenses allowed you to do this if you wanted to, but the default
state was unlinked.
the C lenses have a depth of field preview release on the lens
which stops the aperture down to your setting, but to
get it back open, you had to move the ring up to full aperture.
(which was especially annoying with the aforementioned interlock--
often you couldn't dial out to full aperture because the shutter
speed was beyond 500, so you had to unlock the rings).
the CF lens has a single lever which you can stop down and then release
(or lock into stopped down mode).
the CFs have more modern rubberized focusing rings. the Cs had thin metal
focusing rings which on smaller lenses like the 80 can be hard to get to,
hence the proliferation of those quick focusing handles for the C lenses.
if you have a focal-plane camera, the CFs allow you to use the focal plane
shutter using the "F" setting.
to use the self timer on the Cs, you had to first prerelease the camera
via the side prerelease under the winding knob. this popped up the mirror
and opened the rear baffles. i guess you could also use a locking cable
release too, but i always did it the former way.
then you had to move the tiny and sharp little self timer lever on the
lens
down a few millimeters against what seemed like healthy tension.
when you pushed the shutter release, the self-timer
started whizzing away for 10-odd seconds and then made the exposure.
you can also get one of those mechanical self-timer gizmos which screws
into the cable release socket. on the hasselblad, you will need a
cable-release elbow, since the release is so close to the lenses.
then you can use the self timer with any C or CF lens (or an M6 or other
mechanical camera lacking a self-timer.
regarding C vs CF, i never was convinced if the CF's were--as hasselblad
claimed--more reliable, or if they took out the C features (self-timer,
depth of field indicators) to save money.
there's talk on this newgroup that the Cs as a group are getting harder
to repair since they've been out of production nearly 20 years.
the C lenses appear to be a couple of hundred dollars less than their
identical-optic CF counterparts and they are physically quite a bit
smaller (C's generally standardized on the bayonet 50 size while CFs use
bay 60).
monaghan's url on hasselblad lenses:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/hassylens.html
-rei
Patrick Bartek wrote:
There never was a "chrome" finish 100 mm C lens. It was introduced in 1968
in black finish already. T* multicoating was added in 1975. All lenses,
chrome and black, having T* coating are marked as such.
Not all lenses changed to T* at the same time, and the change from
'chrome" to black and the change from single to multicoating, though
happening during the same period, did not happen at the same moment in
time.
That is possible, yes.
Not so. They didn't get the black barrel at the same time, yes, but having
a "chrome" or black barrel is not a mark of having T* coating or not. T*
coated lenses are all marked as such.
30 mm F-Distagon - introduced 1972, in black finish - only a few early
ones have a single coating;
38 mm Biogon (SWC) - introduced in 1959, in "chrome" finish - changed to
black in 1969 - T* coating added in 1973;
40 mm Distagon - introduced 1967, in black finish (first one in black) -
T* coating added in 1973;
50 mm Distagon - introduced 1964, in "chrome" finish - changed to black in
1973 - T* coating added in 1972;
60 mm f/3.5 Distagon - introduced in 1976, in black finish, having T*
coating;
80 mm Planar (latest version) - introduced in 1960, in "chrome" finish -
changed to black in 1975 - T* added in 1971/1972;
100 mm Planar - introduced in 1968, in black finish - T* coating added in
1975;
120 mm S-Planar - introduced in 1964, in "chrome" finish - changed to
black in 1973 - T* coating added in 1975;
135 mm S-Planar - introduced in 1967, in black finish - T* coating added
in 1975;
150 mm Sonnar - introduced in 1957, in "chrome" finish - changed to black
in 1973 - T* coating added in 1975;
250 mm Sonnar - introduced in 1957, in "chrome" finish - changed to black
in 1973 - T* coating added in 1975/1976;
250 mm Sonnar-SA - introduced in 1973, in black finish - no T* coating at
all;
350 mm Tele-Tessar - introduced in 1973, in black finish - a few early
ones have a single coating;
500 mm Tele-Tessar - introduced in 1961, in (partly) "chrome" finish -
changed to all black in 1966 - T* coating added in 1976;
I must say again: Richard Nordin's "Hasselblad System Compendium" truly is
an excellent book.
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] MXV lever on old, Zeiss 40mm T* "C" lens
Beau wrote:
> Thanks, Tim! Can you or anyone else tell me the procedure for using the
> timer on my old, 40mm?? It seems that I read somewhere that the camera must
> be pre-released first (mirror-lock), then, with the MXV lever set to "V",
> press the shutter and you've got 10 seconds or so . . . Does that sound
> right?? I haven't tried this yet.
Sounds right, yes.
> I might as well sneak in a couple more questions here . . . Does anyone know
> of a way to determine the date this lens was made by the serial number? Did
> Hasselblad or Zeiss work that in there somehow?
Yes, but not in the serial number.
Turn the focussing ring all the way to the close focus limit, and have a
look at the rear of the lens, more specifically inside the tube the rear
lens element moves back and forth in. There should be stamped in red ink a 4
digit code. The first two digits indicate the year the lens was made in, the
last two the month of the same. To decode this, add the number formed by the
first two digits to 1957. So a code saying 1208 would translate to the 08th
month, i.e. august of 1957 + 12 = 1969.
There may be more than one code stamped on the lens. the earliest one will
be the date of manufacture, the later one(s) the date of the lens being back
at the Zeiss works for major repairs.
If there is no code on your lens, or if it is illegible, you can use the
serial number and look it up in Richard Nordin's most excellent book "The
Hasselblad System Compendium" (Hove Books, 1998, ISBN 1 897802 10 2). If you
don't have that book already, go out and buy one. ;-)
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Astrid Janke schrieb:
as I know the T*-coating of C-lenses was introduced in 1973 to all
lenses, while the change from chrome to black finish came in 1967. But
some lenses, especially the C80, was available in chrome-finish with
T*-coating.
This actually is not true.
Not all lenses received T* coating at the same time, and out of the
Zeiss/Hasselblad range only two did get T* coating in 1973. And again, not
all lenses became available in black finish at the same time, and out of
the line up only two were available in black in 1967.
The two lenses that were at one time available in "chrome" finish but
having T* multicoating already were:
50 mm Distagon - T* coating in 1972 - black finish in 1973
Black finish C lenses without T* coating were:
From Hasselblad Mailing LIst;
Dennis Reggie claims he uses an 80 for most stuff.
The 150 will give you the tight ead shots and blur your background enough.
I started with an 80 and added a 150.
Later I added a 50.
Probably the 50, 80, 180 is the best combanation.
waldo
from [email protected] 03/21/01
Here's one...I'm about to plop about 4k on a 503cw kit...it comes w/an
80mm lense...is that going to be enough to shoot with? Fashion or
weddings? I'm a bit concerned that' I'll have to drop another 2k on a 150
or a 180 before a medium format is worth getting...
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
I'm not sure what you mena by limitations, but the CFE contains the
electronic contats for the 200 series cameras, and the CFi designates the
CF improved. The Hasselblad website states the improvements as:
The CFi/CFE improvements include:
a.. New internal design and new anti-reflection materials reducing
stray-light to a minimum, thus enhancing the image contrast even more.
b.. Improved design and a new main spring made of the specially
durable material NIVAROX, which prolongs the life and increases the
lasting
precision of the leaf shutter.
c.. A new PC-socket with a positive lock, which secures the flash
contact even better.
d.. A redesigned focusing mechanism, which runs even smoother.
e.. A new reinforced and integrated rear bayonet plate providing
more rigidity.
f.. A new front bayonet in a durable non-metallic material, which
withstands wear substantially better than previous designs.
g.. A new external design providing increased handling comfort and
is styled to fit the Hasselblad cameras more pleasingly.
...
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
JL wrote:
1974. Zeiss nor Hasselblad has this information, or at least they keep it
secret, for whatever reason. Richard Nordin has compiled a list (alas not
fully correct, as is manifest by the number you mention, but a very
remarkable and laudable achievement nonetheless) in his excellent book
"Hasselblad System Compendium". On CF and F lenses a two number and one
letter code can be found printed on the inside light baffle at the rear of
the lens, adjacent to the rear element. The numbers are a backward
representation of the year the lens was manufactured, i.e. 28 would
indicate (19)82. The letter might indicate the month of manufacture (for
instance, E being the fifth letter indicating May the fifth month, etc.)
but i'm not sure about that.
The optical design of the C version of this lens is the same as the later
CF and CFE version. It will have T* multicoating too, so no difference
there either. Only difference is in the ergonomics (better on CF and CFE
lenses) and the shutter used: it uses the Compur, while later models have
a Prontor shutter. On CF and CFE models, the lensshutter can be disabled,
allowing this lens to be used on focal plane shutter Hasselblad bodies as
a shutter less lens (giving instant return of the viewfinder image).
Zeiss uses names to denote the different types of lenses:
Biogon lenses are true short focal length lenses (i.e. symetrical, non
retrofocus). Excellent design, showing very little distortion.
Distagon lenses are wideangle lenses employing a retrofocus design (the
lens is further away from the film plane than its focal length, even at
infinity).
The F-Distagon is a fisheye lens, hence the "F". Planar lenses are
relatively symmetrical double Gauss type designs. "Standard" lenses. They
offer great correction and excellent flatness of field (hence Planar).
The Makro-Planars (former S-Planar, "S" for Special) are corrected to
perform best at close range.
Sonnar lenses are short telephoto lenses employing
few, but rather thick elements.
Tessar lenses are derived from the classical triplet design, mostly used
in telephoto lenses. Tele-Tessars are further elaborations of the design.
The terms Apo and Superachromat are used too. They denote the degree in
which colour aberration is corrected. An apochromatically corected lens
will bring three colours to a common focus (it has the same focal length
for three colours), the othe colours in between these three will be very
close.
A superachromat will bring all colours to a common focus (at least close
enough), and will produce a very high resolution as a result.
The original "C" lenses were named so because they had the "C"ompur
"C"entral shutter, i.e. the Compur between the lens leaf shutter.
The F series lens was introduced with the 2000 FC focal plane shutter
camera. The "F" stands for "F"ocal plane. These lenses do not have a
built-in shutter.
In 1991 the 2000-series focal plane shutter Hasselblad bodies were
replaced by the 200-series focal plane shutter bodies. The 200 series
cameras have a built-in meter, requiring info about the aperture set on
the lens. Therefore the F lenses were equiped with electrical contacts to
convey this info to the body. They were renamed FE, the added "E" standing
for "E"lectronic. There was no change in optical design.
The C lenses were replaced by the CF lenses in 1982. The changes made
include better ergonomics, different front mount (bayonet) and a
different, Prontor, shutter. As mentioned above, this shutter can be
disabled to allow use on a focal plane shutter body, functioning just like
a F-lens would. Hence the addition of "F", making the new designation
"CF". There were no changes made to the optical designs, except in the 500
mm Tele-Tessar, which was replaced by a new design 500 mm Tele-Apotessar.
The CF lenses were further improved (again mainly ergonomics) in 1999, and
the "I" was added, standing for "I"mproved. A few of the CF lenses were
not only improved but were also given the electrical contacts needed to
integrate them into the metering system of the 200-series Hasselblad
cameras. These were named CFE.
Again, no changes to the optical design.
In 1998 Hasselblad introduced the CB series, B standing for Basic/Budget.
There were 4 CB lenses: a 60 mm Distagon, a 80 mm Planar, a 160 mm Tessar,
and (in only a few markets) a 120 mm Makro lens. All, but the 60 mm
Distagon, were distinctly poor lenses, compared to their C/CF/CFi
counterparts.
The 60 mm Distagon was not, since it *was* the CF version in a new mount.
The CB series is discontinued now, and the 60 mm Distagon is available as
CFi lens.
From: [email protected] (Mr500CM)
I'm looking for the Hasselblad Repair Manual for "C" lenses (older
series). I have the following manauls to trade:
Hasselblad 500C/CM Repair and parts manual
E-mail me directly.
Lance
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
"Artur Mrugala" [email protected] wrote:
A couple of things... you cannot get the C lenses new. They are
probably at least 15 years old and go for somewhere between $350 and
$500 on the used market, depending on condition. There is a preference
for the black barrel and the T* coating, which is said to reduce lens
flare somewhat and improve contrast and color rendition. I've never
compared a T* lens to a non-T* lens, so I can't tell you to what
extent the coating is worth the money.
The CF lens is the most common of the more recent models, but it is
not current production. I think these were phased out around 1997.
They are easy to find used and should cost maybe $700 in nice shape.
The CB lenses and the CFE are current models (maybe along with the
CFI?). The CB seems like an attempt by Hasselblad to introduce a
standard lens at a lower price--there has been some discussion here
about whether or not they are as good optically. The CFE has a few
improvements and is compatible with the electronics of the newer 200
cameras.
You can use any one of these lenses and get great results (bearing in
mind that the 80 is not the sharpest Hassy lens). I have never heard
anyone say that there are huge improvements in the optics of the newer
80mm lenses. My only suggestion is to get the CF lens because the
shutter is MUCH easier to use. The C series have a rigid interlock
between shutter speed and aperture which is a complete hassle to use,
especially if you bracket exposures. I have one C lens and I don't
like using it much for this reason. The CF are quite simple to use and
that's what I'd get.
Where's Q.G. when we need him?
---
From: "M P Brennan" [email protected]
"David Meiland" [email protected] wrote
One small point, Artur, the 80/2.8 C uses the Bay 50 filter.
[Ed. note: see correction below...]
I differ with David on this but, probably, because I don't do a lot of
bracketing of exposures. I like the interlock between shutter speed and
f/stop because it makes it quicker and easier to take the same shot with
varying depth of field (which is something I DO do quite a bit of).
It would be best if you could borrow or rent the various lenses. I don't
think there are significant optical differences between the lenses you
mention, but you may find one easier to use than another.
You have the luxury of being able to choose from the historical line of
lenses (something that Hassy photographers couldn't do in 1965) and pick
what work's best for you. David's and my difference of opinion is part of
the reason Baskin-Robbins makes so many different flavors of ice cream.
One flavor doesn't, necessarily, suit every taste.
-Mike
[Ed. note: Thanks to Q.G. de Bakker for this correction update!...]
Hi,
I noticed you added two postings to this page that both suggest that the
f2.8/80 mm C lens mentioned in the first post has a bayonet 50 mount,
while the original poster expressely mentioned it having a bay 60 mount,
thus identifying it as the 1994 f/2.8 80 mm C lens that was supplied
together with the Hasselblad 501 C. (It basically was a CF lens without
the F function, so rather different from the old C lenses.) The, no doubt
well meant, comments made in these postings about C lenses therefore miss
the mark.
I'm sure there were replies in the same thread these postings came from
that pointed out the mistake made in the two postings you elected to put
up. Perhaps you should add one of these too?
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
....
First try Hasselblad's web site. They may have online reference
charts. If not, try to locate a copy of EYE ON CLOSEUPS, A Practical
Guide to the Hasselblad System, published by Hasselblad. Lists for
$7.95 US, but I got my copy for free at a recent photographer's trade
show. It has exposure correction, field size, and depth of field
charts & nomograms for all the lenses for bellows, extension tubes and
proxars.
--
From hasselblad mailing list:
I just heard back from Schneider... the lens was never made in Hasselblad
(200/2000) Mount.
So there is and never was a Tilt and Swing Hasselblad (200/2000) lens made
that can be identified.
Frank Filippone
David Meiland wrote:
There is absolutely no optical difference between the early C version of
the 250 mm lens, the CF or even the CFi version. Same design all the way.
Same performance too.
There is also no difference in design between the C and CF versions of the
350 mm lens. The CF 350 mm lens was discontinued however, because people
favoured the newer Superachromat 350 mm.
The 500 mm lens was completely redesigned, so the apochromatic
internal-focussing CF version is a very different lens from the earlier C
version.
The performance of both the 250 mm and 350 mm lenses are on par. The old
500 mm was a bit less, but still a very good lens, the new apochromat is
their equal.
The 150 mm lens should be (according to MTF curves) a bit better than the
250 mm, but not enough so that i have noticed. I like them both, and don't
hesitate to use the 250 mm. In fact, i use it more than the 150 mm.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
db1 wrote:
They are just less popular than the 150 mm. Always have been.
The 150 mm is a very fine lens, both in performance and in use. The 250 mm
is a very fine lens as well, but a bit too long, and one stop slower, to
allow the same ease of use as the 150 mm (longer working distances, and,
above all, needing faster shutterspeeds when used handheld (no slower than
1/250 or 1/500), while it's a full stop slower).
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
the 12 back (no "A") is supposed to work that way. there's a little trap
door in the back which lets you see the numbers on the paper backing. i
recall you roll up the film until the number "1" shows up in the peephole,
then the camera advances film from then on. when you get to "1", you do
something like turn the opening key backwards to reset the film counters
to "1". the camera advances the counter from then on. being able to do
all this my itself is why the "A12" is called "automatic".
it's been 15 years since i last used one, so others will
undoubtedly have more specific advice.
-rei
Jos. Burke [email protected] wrote:
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] C, CF, CFi, CFE, CB???
Folks,
I was reading about lenses in Wildi's Hasselblad Manual when I came across
the following at the end of the paragraph describing CF lenses (pg. 9):
"With three exceptions -- the 40mm Distagon, the 120mm Makro Planar, and
the 500mm Tele-ApoTessar -- the lenses differ [from C lenses I assume] in
operating controls only, not in lens design." .... "The CFi lenses are
optically identical to the CF types." ... "The interior behind the lens
elements [on CFi lenses] has been opened up to reduce possible light
reflections on the interior wall."
If this is true, then the lenses haven't been updated optically since 1957
-- which I find somewhat unlikely. Are the only changes to these lenses
really only on the shutter and features? Or did Wildi smoke some bad crack
the day he wrote the sections I quoted from above??
Thanks,
Tom
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] C, CF, CFi, CFE, CB???
Tom,
many lenses have not changed in their fundamental optical design since their
introduction. According to Mr. Fleischer from Zeiss there happenend a lot of
small changes over the years we did not notice. Reasons may be improvement
of optical quality or the use of different optical glass. A Biogon from 1955
may not be the same than one from 1980, though they look identical.
Other known changes happened, as the change from 50 CF to 50 CF FLE or, as
Rick Nordin reports, a change of the rear element of the 250 C in the early
70s, there have been many different 60 mm C-lenses and so on.
Ulrik
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] C, CF, CFi, CFE, CB???
Dr. Ulrik Neupert wrote:
> Tom,
> many lenses have not changed in their fundamental optical design since their
> introduction. According to Mr. Fleischer from Zeiss there happenend a lot of
> small changes over the years we did not notice. Reasons may be improvement
> of optical quality or the use of different optical glass. A Biogon from 1955 1955
> may not be the same than one from 1980, though they look identical.
> Other known changes happened, as the change from 50 CF to 50 CF FLE or, as
> Rick Nordin reports, a change of the rear element of the 250 C in the early
> 70s, there have been many different 60 mm C-lenses and so on.
Most, if not all, of those small changes must have been very small though.
And are, as you mention, not to be considered a change in fundamental
design. They would have told us if they had achieved a major improvement at
some point, wouldn't they have?
I have wondered too about the 250 mm Sonnar you mention.
I can't see a difference at all when comparing a 1950s cross section diagram
to a present day f/5.6 250 mm cross section (But then, they are not meant to
reflect minute changes in lens element curvature). Nor between how my 1956
250 mm Sonnar performs, compared to my 1982 CF version of this lens. Soi
like to think of this lens as one that is not changed since 1954.
I think Tom's disbelief at how lens designs could have remained unchanged
for a long, long time is understandable, but mistaken. Though increasing
computer power and new materials have made a significant change to what can
be done, a lot of good lens design still depends on skill and insight. After
all, you must first have an idea of what it is you want the computers to
refine until it is 'good enough'. And that (the 'art' of lens design) hasn't
changed at all. While doing the math never was a real obstacle, given
sufficient time.
So many "old" lenses are still able to compete with the best that modern
lens design can produce. Easily.
The Biogon is a good illustration of this: the new, "905" version isn't an
improved one, despite new materials and computers.
(Having said that, the Superachromats show how computers have made a change.
The 'original', 250 mm SA, was done the old fashion way. And it remained an
unique lens very probably because of the work involved. Now we have
computers, and two more Superachromats. A co�ncidence? I like to think not.)
Anyhow, Wildi was not doing crack when he wrote what he wrote; basically
most lenses are still the same as they were many years ago. And if minute
changes were made, like Fleischer said, i think we would be hard pressed to
see the difference in the results they produce.
Austin Franklin wrote:
The 205 has a narrow spot meter and the 203 has a larger, more general
circle, meter coverage. The 205 supports a zone system back (12 exp only)
that adjusts the meter reading to compensate for +, N, or - development.
The problem is that anyone using a 205 and the zone system will be on a
tripod. A spot meter in useless on a tripod. You need to measure the
highlights, shadows, middle grays, etc. This means moving the camera
around to do this. Not exactly the easiest method. Hasselblad should make
a hand held spot meter that plugs into the camera body via a three foot
cord, so that after setting up and composing, the appropriate spot meter
readings can be made without disturbing your setup, often painfully
attained.
This is why I bought a 203 instead of a 205. The zone back is basically
useless as what it does is a no brainer. The meter in the 203 is far more
useful for general photography and I find it amazingly accurate. I use a
hand held Pentax Digital spot meter for zone type work and difficult
lighting situations. A technique applicable to both LF and MF work. No
need to have a special limiting version of a remarkable camera to do what
a more versatile setup can accomplish more easily.
The 203 is remarkable. The 205 is remarkable but limiting.
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
I believe that the older 40 without the floating element design has the
poorer repution. I've heard only good things about the new version. In
fact, I heard somewhere that the older version will physically prevent you
from using wide apertures when focusing close, in order to protect you
from poor performance in the edges of the frame. Please correct me if I'm
out to lunch on this one. :-)
dan c.
Jim Brick wrote:
[snip]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
...
S Gardner wrote:
I used a friend's 40C for numerous jobs and a few serious tests,
before getting the SWC. And except for the weight, size and the fact
it couldn't take 75mm gel filters, I was pleased with the results. My
friend preferred the 40 mostly because it fit the 500 series bodies
and had reflex viewing. That wasn't a major consideration for me: I
found the SWC viewfinder adequate, if though difficult to use, at
first. For critical work like copying, I used the ground glass
accessory.
Today IMO, the optical quality differences between the 38 Biogon and
the current 40s makes these comparison virtually null as far as
photography is concerned.
--
Patrick-
I agree with your summary comments on the 40c compared to the SWC
(included, below). The more important difference (today) is how you intend
to USE the lens, rather than the fact that the 40 is tragically "flawed"
in some manner. It appeared that the comments being made in the thread
were often regarding the 40 "C" lens. I purchased the 40 "CFE" lens about
a year ago, and have been extremely pleased with it. Particularly how well
it handles flare under high contrast situations, or when the sun (or a
specular highlight) is within the viewing angle.
One other thing to realize about the 40mm lens. It has changed
DRAMATICALLY over the years... much more than the 38mm Biogon.
Here's a couple of metrics:
1. Late 60's 40mm Distagon-
2. Late 60's 38mm SWC (Biogon)
3. New 2000 40mm CFE Distagon-
4. New 2000 903 SWC (Biogon)- 8 elements, 12 inches close focus, 875 grams
(includes 903 body, no magazine)
In summary, the 40 CFE is a completely new design, provides correction for
close focus, and now focuses much closer; to the same distance (12") as
the SWC. And the new 40 is DRAMATICALLY lighter in weight compared to the
"C" version of the 40mm lens (almost 40% lighter!). Finally, although the
40 CFE is not "cheap" (~$4200, USA), it is still about $1200 cheaper than
a new 903SWC.
The intent of this was not to start a "40 vs 38" thread; simply to
indicate that conclusions drawn using a 40mm "C" lens might not apply to
use of the newer 40mm CFE optic.
~ David Gerhardt
Bradley Martin wrote:
It is a very simple fix. File each side out (evenly on each side), such
that you have a 645 back. Before filing, mike the little lip on each
side such that you can put an equal size spacer in, after you have
opened it up. It is done very often, as you can get the 16S so cheap.
Repair shops normally charge about $50 to do this job.
--
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I can answer on the 50 mm issue. I've bought as new a black 50CT*
distagon, one of the last ones made before the CF series was
introduced in the early 1980's. The first 50CF were exactly the same
optics as the previous 50CT*. Then Zeiss redesigned the 50 with a
floating element "FLE" for improved close-range sharpness.
So if price is an issue get a 50CT* or a 50CF both are optically
exactly the same. The 50C has a synchro-compur shutter wwith
self-timer whereas the 50CF has the prontor CF shutter, more modern
but with no self-timer. Both are purely mechanical. There is an
advantage of getting a CF since it takes now standard 60 bayo hassy
filters and shades. The 50C uses a drop-in filter known as 'hasselblad
63 mm' or series VIII, 63,5 x 5,6 mm, an old standard of the 1960's
that you can however attach to a bayo 60 through an adapter. Series
VIII / hasselblad 63 filters can be found either on the used market or
as new from (at least) Heliopan, Germany.
Now if your budget is more comfortable you can go for a CF FLE with
floating element or of course the more recent CFi with improved
shutter and rear bayonet milled in a solid block instead of being an
additional screwed part like in the C/CF series.
Hope this helps.
--
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Mr 645 wrote:
I'm afraid it does (!) work on all models you mention. Just not on the 202
FA, which lacks the "C" setting.
Again, quite the reverse.
It is distinctly less than the typical Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. It was
meant to be a cheaper, entry level design lens. Neither Zeiss or
Hasselblad kept its poorer results a secret.
They lauded it for its excellent contrast (nothing else), compared to the
ancient single coated C lenses... The better contrast was achieved by
applying the same stray light reducing measures that were applied to all
CFi and CFE Hasselblad lenses.
Its resolution isn't a secret either: all equivalent focal lengths C, CF,
CFi and F/FE lenses perform better. So...
Oh, i almost forgot: it weighs a bit less than the 150 mm. A redeeming
feature?
By the way, it, and the other CB lenses have been discontinued. They're
sold only as long as stocks will last. The reason why they were
discontinued is because very few people elected to buy this (or any other)
CB lens. And that again was because very many people knew the CB lenses
were not typical Hasselblad optics.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
The 60 f5.6 was also made "in shutter" for the 500C, when it debuted,
replacing the 1000F system. But it was only around for a year or two,
IIRC. The 5.6 was discontinued when the 50 Distagon came out. The 60
was later reintroduced as an f4, and finally as a 3.5. At least, this
was what I was told by a Hassie tech at a PMA convention years ago.
I have one of those original 60 f5.6 shuttered lenses. It is my
most used lens and is still in Mint to Like New condition. Quite
compact -- about as deep as an 80, but viewing is dim and in dim
light, focusing is almost impossible, unless you have an Acute-Matte
screen.
--
From: [email protected] (Mr500CM)
No, not really. I watched my repairman repair both lenses and there's
too much plastic in the CF series. Plastic is fine, but not in certain
area's, such as the depth of field preview lever. I watched he replace
contless parts that snapped because or what they were made of.That is
just one example of many. I do belive that the Pronto shutters are
better since they were redesigned and have less stress on the
mainsprings compared to the older compur shutters.
Lance
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
If you are near a professional camera store that rents Hasselblad
equipment, I would recommend renting tubes first so you can experience the
magnification and depth of field for each. If not, I would recommend
buying only one first, and using it for a while. The 16mm extension will
fill the frame with an object about 9 inches across. The 32mm extension
will fill the frame with an object about 4.5 to 5 inches across. I have
rented a 56mm (used with the 80mm lens) but found the narrow focussing
range and tiny FOV at this magnification to be very limiting in its
application. You can always use lower magnification, crop the image, and
enlarge when you print.
-Fritz
....
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Hasselblad introduced a 55mm tube in 1957, but it was discontinued in
1982. (You may be interested in obtaining a copy of Richard Nordin's
"Hasselblad System Compendium" which has this kind of information, and is
a great book for browsing).
DOF is dependent on only magnification and aperture. Thus, for a
given magnification, the best lenses for use with the extension tubes for
obtaining maximum DOF are those with the smallest aperture. The 80 can be
stopped down to f/22, but others can be stopped down to f/32. The CF 135,
which can be used only with bellows, can be stopped down to f/45. The 250
can also be stopped down to f/45, but you wan't get much magnification
with it using tubes.
-Fritz
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Just a word of caution with 8 mm extension tubes and a 501cm or 503cw ...
the milled edge of the ring scrapes against the collar of the newly
designed shutter release. As a result of this new design the older 10 mm
tubes won't even mount on the bodies. I've considered filing the offending
tube edge, but haven't gotten around to it. Other than an obviously
overlooked design flaw, I can't discern a reason for this anomaly. Once I
have carefully files the edge, does anyone know how to properly re-blacken
it? Thanks in advance for any ideas, suggestions.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Jim Brick wrote:
Jim
You da man! I've borrowed and used both the older and newer
tele-extenders and the Zeiss is clearly superior. Shame on Hasselblad for
cheapening the breed!
Marc
I was looking for an attractive solution to plugging the peep hole in my
manual 12 exposure Hassy backs (so I can use 220 film in them instead of
120) and didn't care to spend $15 on eBay for a simple rubber plug.
I found the perfect solution for 55 cents.
Go to your local Ace Hardware store and purchase their Item # 40206. It's
in the plumbing department and is called a "Ballcock Coupling Nut Washer".
They'll probably be in a pull-out drawer (they come in bulk, so they're
loose in a drawer), but the Ace employee can help you find them.
It is a fiber washer that is a **perfect** fit in the peephole.
I then cut two squares of black electrical tape and placed one on each
side of the fiber washer and trimmed off the corners.
You'll be amazed at how good it looks.
Remove the insert from the magazine and pop it in from behind. It fits as
good as the factory plug (it actually "pops" in).
That's it.
If you have any questions about this highly technical project, feel free
to ask.
-Mike
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I agree too. I did a comparison test of Zeiss Mutar vs. third-party. The
third-party converter gave me a small ghost image, whereas the Mutar did
not.
Bernard
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
A cork from a wine bottle works fine. Shape it and press it in. Any
bar will give them to you.
Lance
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
The problem is the new style release button. It is too wide.
You can solve the problem by first attaching the 16 mm extension tube to
the camera, and then attach the bellows to the tube.
You are right! The new style release button is the problem. I wonder
why Hasselblad has no mention of this in any literature that they put out
with the 501CM. Even Richard Nordin did not mention this fact in his
"Hasselblad System Compendium." Only question I have regarding your
suggestion is how can you focus the 135mm macro lens on the bellows to
infinity with the 16mm extension tube in place?
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I just put the following note on another board and was thinking that it
may be of some help to you fellows as well.
You do not need a repair shop, you just need to fix one of the many
Hasselblad engineering glitches. You would think that they would know
more by now, but evidently not.
What happens on a lot of the CF and CFI lenses, is that the little hex
nut that covers the flash contact, is not grounded. In all of
Hasselblads wisdom, they put the black coating on the barrel and did not
burnish the area where the flash contact is. GREAT ENGINEERING. Anyone
that has ever worked with electronics, knows that you have to clean the
plating where you want a good electrical contact.
Anyhow, just put some masking tape (so that you do not mar the finish)
on the hex portion of the flash sync, and unscrew it. From there, use an
exacto knife blade and clean the black plating from this area. You may
find a gold colored nut in here as well. Loosen it enough to get
underneath and clean the plating there as well. Put it all back
together, and you will now have a good ground and your flash will sync.
Any idiot that has worked with electronics knows what should be done in
an area like this, but unfortunately, Hasselblad does not have that
knowledge.
This will all be covered in the upcoming lens repair manual.
The best,
http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/manual.txt
Per �fverbeck wrote:
Almost. Assuming the shortest built-in extension in Zeiss/Hasselblad
lenses is about 8 mm, the logic is that this 8 mm extension remains
constant. So we musn't double the extension (no "factor 2" or cheat
involved), but build 8 mm steps.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Sure, 32 + 16 = 48, and 48 + 8 = 56, but if you have the complete set (8,
16, 32), you�ve still one more trick up your sleeve before acquiring
anything more: 32 + 16 + 8 = 56, and 56 + 8 = 64.
So with the 80 C(F) and the three first tubes, you have the complete range
from 0 mm up to 64 mm, and the next tube should really start there. It is
all simple binary mathematics: you need 8 mm multiplied by the consecutive
powers of 2, and 56 = 7*8. 7 is not a power of 2. The old bellows did
start at 64 mm (63.5 really), and I suppose the newer, automatic one does
the same. 56 is simply out of line with the rest of the system! My guess
is that it is primarily intended for getting a bit closer with, say, the
500 mm, not as part of a close-up set for shorter lenses.
Per Ofverbeck
...
[Ed. note: the hassy is a great camera, but requires care and attention in
use...]
I walked on the beach once, taking shots of dunes, when the wind whipped
up. I protected my Hassy by quickly tucking it inside my jacket but some
fine, airborne sand had already found its way inside. It took a
professional to clean and restore it.
Sepp Meier
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Frank Filippone wrote:
Frank,
The Hasselblad www site
http://www.hasselblad.com/products/cameras/flexbody.html
gives coverage data for Hasselblad lenses.
Jim
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
On their view cameras, Sinar offers an attachment to use a Hasselblad
body in place of a regular 4"x5" international back. The only thing is
that you'll never be able to make tilted/shifted *wide angle* pictures
since the minimum focal length of the view camera in front will be
something like 100-120mm to accomodate for the reflex mirror space.
However you can do all kind of Scheimplug stuff as well as any amount
of shift you like.. but with a focal length longer than 80 mm. You'll
need a double cable release like on the old no-auto Hassy bellows. Now
if you want spectacular shifts and tilts with a wide angle lens in MF,
you'd better go for a hasselblad Flex- or Arc-Body or a small 6x9cm
view camera (Linhof, Cambo, Horseman, Arca-Swiss...) or any 4"x5" with
a rollfim back.
-- Emmanuel BIGLER [email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
The roller assembly is completely replaceable for $10 or less. They snap
out, new one snaps in.
You can also snap out the whole assembly and clean it under warm water and
mild detergent. Finish with alcohol.
Jim
Bud Schoener wrote:
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I thought only one person was interested in my contacts but looks like
there are many so I will post them on the list.
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
The first was is poon, I have been dealing with him for almost two years
and I bought all my Hass equipment from him (203,250,110,150,50,903swc)
and most of my Leica m6 stuff. He is very trust worthy. he sells regularly
on ebay, his ebay id is etefore. also if u live in the us, items will
arrive @ your door via us mail express and there is no duty tax. his email
address is [email protected]. I usually email him with what I want
and emails the price, we negotiate a little (if i think there is room) and
then i wire the agreed amount. about 4-5 days later, everything shows up @
my door. if you decide to work with him, please let him know I referred
him to you.
his ebay items are
The second one is Tony rose. Tony use to be the supervisor in the Bel Air
camera store in westwood, CA. He is very nice and knowledgeable now he is
on his own and sells on ebay and his clientele. Last I talked to him, he
was liquation an state sale with tons of new hass and other stuff. He also
has access to far east and matter of fact I ordered a leica m6 from him.
his email address is [email protected]. once again if you deicide to work
him, let him know i referred you.
his ebay listing
I am referring both of these people because i want both of them to prosper
and for you all to get more for your money.
Thanks, Mehrdad
[Ed. note: attachment from hasselblad mailing list]
I can recommend two source in in hk and one in us that can give even
better prices than cayman camera. contact me off list if you are
interested
Thanks, Mehrdad
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Lens Resolution Chart
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9?Open
Barry S.
"Thom Tapp" [email protected]
wrote:
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001
Zeljko Kardum wrote:
Hmm... Would perhaps depend on what you consider to be new.
The only new product is the Distagon 60 mm CFi lens. Yes, after being sent
down to the minors, i.e. the CB line, this nice lens is back where it
belongs. The other CB lenses too have been returned to where they belong:
they are no longer made. Good riddance.
All Hasselblad cameras now are sold fitted with a Acute Matte screen with
microprism and split-image rangefinder (cat.no. 42215), in stead of the
plain Acute Matte screen..
The rest of the news is made up of all the items discontinued:
The Schneider Zoom has gone. So has the PCP80 projector. Only certain "key
accessories" will be kept available. And all the Hasselblad filters,
except the polarizer, the UV filter, the Softars, and the Soft filters.
The magazine A32 (32 6x4.5 frames on 220 film) will be discontinued during
2001.
The Proxars were dropped during 2000. So were E magazines in black.
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001
db1 wrote:
It works great. It allows you to keep your distance when doing tight
facials.
But be sure to keep a 32 mm extension tube at the ready.
And remember that the lens alone loses about 0.6 stop at its closest
focussing distance of 2.5 m (field of view approx 45 cm), 1 stop when
fully extended and combined with 32 mm tube (field of view approx. 22 cm
at 1.5 m).
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Robert Monaghan wrote:
No, they weren't. They wouldn't work used in this way.
In fact, these backs were not a Hasselblad product at all. They were
produced by Cine Mechanics, from Los Angeles, California (at least they
are marked as such).
There is a nice picture of Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham taking
notes while such a back is floating in front of him.
From Bronica Mailing List:
We discussed this some time back on the Kiev88 list.
For that camera, we can go to a stationary shop and buy
those plastic binder spines which are sold seperately from
the file. Cut it to appropriate size, and stick it with double-sided
tape to the back of the filmback.
I received an e-mail yesterday from B&H's Hasselblad rep. He advises that
the price of the 203FE body will be lowered. MAP, which was 5732.00 will
become $3,175.00.
I do not have an effective date, but I expect it to happen within a week
or two. I do not yet know what the new "street" price will be.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Henry-
Wow! Great news for 200 series users... maybe this will convince more
folks to use the focal plane cameras (and perhaps further reduce the
LENS prices).
This certainly makes the 203 more competitive with other medium format
offerings... and might also be an indication that Hasselblad is about
to introduce a new high-end camera. Would anyone like to speculate
about either: (a) a Hasselblad focal plane AUTOFOCUS camera?... or (b)
a focal plane camera with an integral motor drive unit (that doesn't
make the camera as bulky as an add-on winder, or a 555ELD type
camera)?
Normally, when manufacturers make this dramatic of a price reduction
it means either a new model is about to be released (ie, clear out old
stock), or that they are making a strategic decision to increase
market share. If this new price actually is implemented on the current
203FE (and not just another stripped down version), it would make the
camera a compelling option to all of the 500 series users that don't
even consider the 203 now. An increase in the number of 203 users
would also inspire Hasselblad & Zeiss to be more innovative with the
"data bus" cameras and lenses.
Thanks for the good news... even if it is currently just a rumor!
...
From hasselblad mailing list;
Not serious, I unjam mine every couple of months, there is even a tool
available from large pro camera shops called the unjammer, (B&H $29.95).
Important not to try to remove the lens while the body is jammed, instead
remove the back, open the rear curtains with your fingers, reach in with a
small screwdriver or the unjamming tool and carefully turn the silver
screw,(the one on the left) 1/2 turn clockwise until it stops. The lens
can also jam, in which case the lens shutter will remain closed, but the
lens can be removed. Cure is the same, turn the screw on the lens about
1/2 turn clockwise until it stops.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
By the way: save some money and *don't* buy the unjam-tool. A simple
small
screwdriver does the same. Just take care not to let it slip.
If you want to actually save even more ... I used the quarter to
resolve the problem. And while trying to "cock" the lens please
turn the lens up and the quarter down and then "cock" the lens.
If anything happens, the quarter will at least fall straight down
and NOT into the lens. (just prevention). I got this tip from
a good fellow. Once you mastered it (very easily) you can now
tip the lens at 45 degree and make it easy to cock with little
fear of scratching the lens. Same thing with the body.
My camera bags do contains quarters and spare battery for the
body (if needed).
(Oops, I used the quarter liberally ... the quarter is a 25 cents
coin in USA which happens to be the right thickness to "cock"
the lens and body. And has enough "thumb" space on the coin to
turn. The dime and nickel is relative small in "thumb" space and
may give more damage to the lens and body.)
KS
Well Bach,
I'm not sure if this would work correctly, but I might have a solution for
you. The Hasselblad 40mm FLE lenshood is actually a 86mm screw-in hood
that has a front filter retainer size if 93mm, HENCE their own proprietary
filter size. I believe that you can buy into the 86mm stepup to 95mm ring.
That way you have the 86mm screw-in into the lens, and then you can attach
either standard 95mm filters OR use the Lee filter system. Either way, you
will save more money in buying a standard size filter of 95mm. YOu can
always bring your Hasselblad 40m lens and try out the Rollei 40mm
lenshood, which is the 86mm screw-in to 95mm filter. Good luck and let us
all know if this works.
Evan Dong
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000
BachSD wrote:
Not sure, if my solution is usefull for you, but anyways:
I made my own adapter to make the Sinar filter holder (100mm)
fit the 40mm Distagon. I will send you a scetch in postscript-format
if you are interested.
Harald
--
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000
jjs wrote:
Hi,
my experience is with 350mm + 2x Mutar and 'regular' Hassi screen
(old type) vs. acute matte.
The acute matte is significantly brighter (1-2 stops subjectively).
But you will have to keep the 'right' viewing distance when you
use the acute matte in conjunction with 'long' lenses.
Otherwise you get funny 'rainbow colours' on the screen.
With some practice this is not a problem.
To summarize: I recommend the acute matte.
Harald
--
Here is a little advice that will give you approx 1,8 :1 magnifaction with
the equipment you have, but you have to invest $2 or so in a roll of tape.
This is NO joke. Attach the 150 mm lens to the camera. Turn the 80 mm
lens front to front with the Sonnar and tape them together that way. Two
turns of nontransparent tape is enough. Now you have a very good macro
lens, constructed as those lenses generally are. The Planar
shutter/diafragm shall not be touched, that is leave the f at 2.8, all
exposure corrections are made on the Sonnar lens. The planar "steals"
approx. 2 steps but so does the ext. tube.....
Use this 2 step reduction as a "rule of thumb. If you have a finder with
built-in metering it is of course no problems.
Of course this can be made with all kind of combination but older Distagon
lenses must be avoided as the front lens can get scratched.
Good luck
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Patrick San Agustin wrote:
Two extension tubes will get you to 1:1 using the 80 mm: you will need 80
mm extra extension, taking into account the approx. 8 mm extension of the
80 mm lens, tubes 16 and 56 will take you there. The 80 mm Planar design
is very well suited to do macro-photography.
Using both 50 mm and 150 mm lenses is not a good idea. The 150 mm will
need 150 mm extra extension, so you would definitely need the bellows. The
50 mm lens needs less extension (yes, 50 mm :-)), but, it being a
retrofocus lens, you will find there is very little working distance left,
the subject almost touching the lens. But it can be done. And the
retrofocus design also means less quality at close range (even with
floating elements).
I don't know about the Proxars, but generally, using close-up attachments
will degrade image quality, getting worse with increasing
strength/magnification. Though some might disagree with this.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Mark Rabiner wrote:
Yes, because it will give you 72 mm of extension, leaving you only 8 mm
short from the 80 mm you'll need to get to 1:1. The lens itself can
provide this extra extension.
Extension and magnification can be easily calculated without slider by
multiplying the focal length by the desired magnification. For instance
1:2 magnification using a 80 mm lens will need 1:2 = 0.5 * 80 = 40 mm
extension.
And a 32 mm extension using a 80 mm lens will give 32 / 80 = 0.4 (1:2.5)
magnification.
The variable extension tube had a maximum extension of 63,5 mm, far too
short to give you 1:1 using a 150 mm lens, even when using the 21 mm added
extension the lens will give you. You'll need the bellows, or an
additional stack of extension tubes.
Using a bellows and 80 mm will start you off at 1:1.25 (0.8x)
magnification, so you'll miss the very usefull range upto this
magnification.
That's because using anything wider is not a good idea.
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
David Meiland wrote:
Lens-vignetting. Quite normal. Hasselblad's solution is buying another
lens, like the 300 mm Superachromat or 350 mm CFE Superachromat plus 1.7x
and 1.4x converter.
From: [email protected] (DaveHodge)
I've got both C and CT* lenses and I don't see any significant difference.
I am sure you are aware that it is especially important to use shades with
C lenses. Best regards--
Date: 23 Jul 2001
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
I believe it was I who years ago first posted that information, and
the tip on how those filters pop perfectly into the stock lens shade
for the Pentax 55mm F3.5 (old style) lens.
The 'blad 500mm guys need 86mm. Like something that fits inside the
lens hood.
But it's a good tip for anyone who wants some large pieces of
genuinely beautiful, thick glass. I have an orange filer that's what,
like 12" across, maybe larger. I use it as part of a sun-mobile. :)
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
"cyclist2"@strato.net wrote:
Darkslides have two indents along the side where the handle is to help is
"lock" into position when inserted. Any other dent is "extra" ;-)
Light streaked photos usually are caused by a worn light seal. You can
have that replaced.
Clear, or unexposed film (assuming it is negative film we're talking
about) can have several causes, but in this case perhaps is linked to you
forgetting to pull the darkslide before exposing film, coupled with a
faulty blocking mechanism.
The camera should not be able to operate when the darkslide still is
inserted. This mechanism is operated by the darkslide itself, so maybe the
slide is to blame?
On old, non-automatic backs, the darkslide needs only to be pulled out a
small amount to unblock the camera while still covering the film gate,
making it possible to get an entire roll of blanks.
Q.G. de Bakker,
I actually went to Hasselblad USA nd they told me the 2001 catalog was
never made. At the Photo Plus Show in NYC in Oct. 30, 2000, they were
using up the 1999 and 2000 catalogs. At B & H Photo, they told me that the
2001 was never made. SO probably in Europe it is available.
As Robert Monaghan mentioned in his thread, its going to be lean times for
most of the medium format manufacturers. Hasseblad has discontinued the
Proxars, and other equipment that Robert mentioned. A salesman told me,
that alot of the dealers has been giving back some of their unsold
inventory to Hasselblad. Hence, the recent demo, refurbished, and leftover
equipment from the Repair Dept. where some people abandon their equipment
due to the prohibitive cost of repairs. I probably will take some of the
remark with a grain of salt, but hey you never know what goes on inside
Hasselblad.
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001
Hasselblad 2001 catalog is available in Europe. I have one. Nothing new,
except cover page although.
Kardum
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
This gets asked repeatedly.... yes there is (was) a 35mm back. It loaded
film the long way, and therefore took vertical pictures, of size.. I
think... 24x56mm. Vertical Panorama. There is/was also a 120 back that
used a 4x4cm exposed film area that was used for 35mm slide projector
sized superslides. The 4x4 backs are cheap.
Frank Filippone
Date: 5 Jun 2001
Yes, get the traps from Hasselblad USA. I called them about 18 months
ago and got an anwering machine, however I simply left the message
that I'd like three sets of light traps, then gave my credit info and
delivery address and the package showed up on my doorstop in ten days.
That is good service. As I recall, the traps were $12 a set back then.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001
I thought only one person was interested in my contacts but looks like
there are many so I will post them on the list.
The first was is poon, I have been dealing with him for almost two years
and I bought all my Hass equipment from him (203,250,110,150,50,903swc)
and most of my Leica m6 stuff. He is very trust worthy. he sells regularly
on ebay, his ebay id is etefore. also if u live in the us, items will
arrive @ your door via us mail express and there is no duty tax. his email
address is [email protected]. I usually email him with what I want
and emails the price, we negotiate a little (if i think there is room) and
then i wire the agreed amount. about 4-5 days later, everything shows up @
my door. if you decide to work with him, please let him know I referred
him to you.
his ebay items are
The second one is Tony rose. Tony use to be the supervisor in the Bel Air
camera store in westwood, CA. He is very nice and knowledgeable now he is
on his own and sells on ebay and his clientele. Last I talked to him, he
was liquation an state sale with tons of new hass and other stuff. He also
has access to far east and matter of fact I ordered a leica m6 from him.
his email address is [email protected]. once again if you deicide to work
him, let him know i referred you.
his ebay listing
I am referring both of these people because i want both of them to prosper
and for you all to get more for your money.
Thanks, Mehrdad
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
Alec Jones wrote:
To clarify matters: there are more light traps in Hasselblad film backs.
The light trap commonly referred to as "the light trap", is a foam
plastic, except on very early non-automatic backs. They tried a number of
solutions before coming up with the present one. From the first halve of
the 1960s onwards a foam plastic strip was used, first a simple strip,
later (1967?) a strip in a protective plastic envelope. It is this light
trap that is commonly referred to as *the* light trap, because it is this
light trap that needs replacing every once in a while.
The second light trap are sealing cords glued in the rim along the mating
edge of both the shell and the insert's outer plate. It never causes any
problems, so most people will not know it even exists. But it is visible,
so we can have a look and actually see it. It isn't felt though. I believe
these strips aren't present in the very early backs.
A third light trap is situated underneath the magazine lock key. It indeed
is a felt ring. Nobody ever encounters this seal unless some serious
dismantling is undertook. So, in my humble opinion, nobody should be
snubbed because they do not know this one even exists ;-)
According to Lisle-Kelco, Hasselblad will be discontinuing supplying parts
for "C" type Hasselblad lenses as of September 2001. Something to think
about!
Dan C.
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
Ms. Finn wrote:
Well, I'm not feeling too happy about the responses I'm getting to the
160CB versus 180CFi. Okay, okay, so it was sacrilege to compare the two -
and I think I was more comparing the 160CB to a 180CF; I am told this is a
legitimate comparison in which the 160 boldly holds its own.
You comedian, you... !
There is *very* little difference between the optical performance of CF
and CFi lenses. The only (optical) difference after all is that CFi lenses
have a somewhat improved baffling, reducing stray light, thus increasing
contrast a bit, and only in certain lighting conditions (harsh backlight).
So even a CF 180 mm would beat a 160 mm with one hand tight to it's back.
I had never seen a 160 until I ran my small Hasselblad arsenal down to
the local shop several months ago when they were offering free CLA
services. A cat there had the lens on his 501CM and I asked him if I could
play with it while we waited in line (see, Stein, how I can be?). I could
NOT believe how manageable a lens it is! My mind seized on it and I began
to envision all sorts of hand-held opportunities presented because of this
lens...
Try a 150 mm for size.
I currently do not have a studio space and work outdoors or in other
people's homes or in very small spaces where my 120 serves me well.
There's another fine lens. In small spaces.
I've seen John Woodward use a 350mm in a space smaller than 8x8 with
the judicious use of an extension tube...and I dug the results.
But, if I am truly going to get images that can't be displayed next to
those taken with the 120...well, obviously I need to re-think the
purchase, no matter the savings.
I use a 150 mm to get those images a 120 mm isn't that well suited for.
After all, i must be fair: a 120 mm lens used at infinity isn't all that
good too. It (according to MTF graphs) still beats the 160 mm in the
center, but is less good in the corners.
I do find it interesting that the team who puts together the
Hasselblad literature chose to not include photos taken with the 160 in
their "Lenses" brochure.
In a way, i found the entire CB-episode quite amusing. Zeiss' dr.
Fleischer saying things like: "With the Tessar 160 we got less of the
very fine details compared with the pictures taken with the Sonnar CF 150
and Sonnar CF 180, but more than you would need - sometimes even want - in
a portrait."
You see, the other Hasselblad lenses are too good! That's why we need CB
optics! In Zeiss Camera Lens News 14 (out today (www.zeiss.de/photo)) an
anonymous Zeiss spokesman (perhaps dr. Fleischer himself) said when asked
about the quality of Zeiss lenses: "The risk of being too good only exists
in the eyes of those who expect mediocrity"
So what he's saying is that the 160 mm CB lens is a lesser performer, no
more, no less. Now can we trust a high ranking Zeiss official saying that
their latest product isn't as good as the ones they made before? He could
have reasons to lie to us, couldn't he? After all, he was Zeiss camera
division's head of "Strategic Marketing"... ;-)
Dr. Fleischer further said: "However, the Tessar 160 was our first
portrait lens to incorporate the new straylight control measures, now
offered with the new CFi/CFE lenses. So portraits of people against bright
white backgrounds, taken with the Tessar 160, show considerably better
saturated colors and overall contrast compared to CF lenses and even more
so, compared to old C lenses."
"Compared to old C lenses"... He means the ones without even T*
multicoating. All other lenses do at least as well.
So the two good things said by Zeiss about the 160 mm lens are that it
isn't as sharp as other lenses, and that it handles strong backlight
better than old, single coated C lenses. No wonder it and the other CB
lenses are so popular they had to stop building them... ;-)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
Dan Cardish wrote:
Real world experience. I have and use both lenses. The 150 mm really is
better at long distances. Enough so you can tell, not enough to worry
about. Yet, knowing that, i do prefer to use the 150 mm for longer
distances.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
you wrote:
Choices include: Leaf, MegaVision, Phase One, Sienna, Sinar, Jobo,
Jenoptik, Eyelike. Kodak & Heidelberg. See
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/digital/digital2.htm
See
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsProBack/proBackIndex.jhtml
for the kodak DSC ProBack.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video wrote:
And i.
But a nice tight facial using a 250 mm lens is done from about 1.5 m
(about 1/1,000th of a mile ;-)). Film to subject distance that is; lens to
subject distance is, of course, even less. So no huge barns are needed.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I was at a meeting at the factory in Goethenburg six weeks ago and I asked
them about the US price reduction on the 203 . They replied that this was
done in US to bring the price there to the approx same level as the rest
of the world. They had no intention of reducing the price elsewere and
production on both 203 and 205 would continue. Ragnar Hansen
From hasselblad Mailing List;
Dan Cardish wrote:
Yes. It has been discontinued for a couple of years now.
Next to drop out will be the 500 mm Tele-Apotessar.
Date: Mon Aug 06 2001
The Bogen Code# is 3048H. It fits Bogen heads 3047/3055/3038/9. It has a
slot which holds the Hassy plate, so there's no way it can twist.
Alec
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
I love my Op/Tech strap with Hasselblad lugs. It really makes the cameras
3 times more comfortable to wear.
Mark Rabiner
[email protected] wrote:
"The difference in performance remains unchanged under similar conditions.
The 180 mm and 150 mm will still be better lenses no matter if you
handhold
them or not."
This is not correct. The 160 CB sits better in the hand than the 150 CFi
and is much lighter than the 180 CFi. These factors alone will reduce
muscle fatigue and improve steadiness when handholding. Therefore, the 160
CB is better adapted to minimizing hand held camera shake which will
degrade high MTF numbers. Also, having a lighter camera/lens combo will
encourage more creativity and lengthen the photo shoot and it's
enjoyment/productivity because of superior comfort as the hours pass.
Come on! It's only a bit lighter than it's nearest CF(i) equivalent, the
150 mm! And you seem to forget that hand held camera shake is reduced by
*increasing* the mass, not by reducing it.
The 160 CB is a good little Tessar Telephoto deserving of the name
Hasselblad.
No it doesn't. And that's why it isn't sold by Hasselblad anymore. Trying
to get more 'budget' oriented customers by lowering standards (which,
again, they made no secret of doing) in the end would have cost them more.
They know that: exit CB lenses. Simple as that.
It gives me outstanding chromes in terms of detail and micro contrast.
I have enjoyed using mine for over two years and have never been left
yearning for something sharper. It is a really comfortable lens to use out
in the field when handholding and I recommend it!
Just imagine what bonus in quality carrying a tiny bit more weight would
have given you... And how much better your hand held results would be...
Or what greater savings you could have had if you would have opted for
another brand that has sub-standard optics as their regular offering.
BTW, Dr. Kornelius Fleischer's comments on the 160 CB have been
positive and well balanced IMHO. I would invite those who are interested
to log into Photo.net and look at his statements, unaltered by partial
quotes or second hand interpretations:
My qoute from dr. Fleischer was verbatim. No trying to make him sound
other than he really did. So reread it and see what else you can make of
it. I'll even repeat it for you: ""With the Tessar 160 we got less of the
very fine details compared with the pictures taken with the Sonnar CF 150
and Sonnar CF 180, but more than you would need - sometimes even want - in
a portrait."
You see, we all spend that much money on Hasselblad equipment and Zeiss
lenses because we don't need all that fine detail... ( We might as well
have bought [fill in your favourite mediocre medium format brand here].
And it would have been cheaper to do so too.
Let me explain why i feel so strongly about the CB lens. It is not just
about a lesser lens or two, to be ignored at will (after all, there are
better ones available still, so why worry?). No. What we're talking about
isn't just the (poor) quality of a particular lens, we're talking company
politics.
The Hasselblad name is *not compatible* with having a low-end product
range. It is the Hasselblad reputation that makes people want to pay more
than they perhaps should, just to be able to get the benefits of an
uncompromising system. It is this reputation that makes people want to buy
Hasselblad. What they have done in introducing the CB lenses is like
putting a Porsche logo and race-trim on a Volkswagen Polo and hoping
people will start believing it's a high-end sports car and pay more than
they would for the original Polo, just because of this. It says Porsche
after all, and it hails from the same manufacturer, so how could it be
lesser quality?
To show you from what reasoning, and what change in company policy the CB
line originated, and why it was a bad idea, let me first quote what Jerry
�ster, President and C.E.O. of Victor Hasselblad AB (at that time) had to
say about this in 1991:
"Those of us who took over from the founding generation had and still have
the guiding objective of developing the company and its products, with
our actions based upon an unaltered set of basic principles - with focus
on the customer and with the maximum possible quality down to the most
minute details. This is an element in the explanation of our success.
Another important element is niche strategy. What is then meant by a niche
strategy? Well, it means that we at Hasselblad have concentrated upon a
small niche of the market and have not leered after the large mass market.
[!] Our products are directed towards those customers who, for quality
reasons, require a larger picture format than that given by 35mm film and
who wish to have a camera of the absolute highest quality [!]. [...] What
does it mean to focus on the customer? Well, it means to do whatever is
best for the customer, whether it is a matter of product development or
marketing. We are convinced that what is good for the customer is also
good for Hasselblad."
Jerry �ster, evidently, hasn't been at the helm of Hasselblad AB for some
time now. And look how policies have changed, compare this with what the
then new President and C.E.O, G�ran Bernhoff had to say in 1997:
"Hasselblad is one of Sweden's most well-known companies with a great
potential in its trademark [!!!]. The primary goal for the company will be
to develop this potential into further volume growth [!] through
intensified product development and marketing [!]."
You see? Developing the potential in the trade mark. Could be a good
thing. If you do it right, i.e. keep in mind what has put the potential in
the trade mark in the first place (and for that, see Jerry �ster's
statement). But what they ended up doing was milking the trade mark for
what it is worth by presenting new products that should sell not because
they are "the absolute highest quality" (which they themselves do tell us
they are not), but because they can put the name Hasselblad on it, and
thus "develop this potential into further volume growth".
The "strategic marketing" part (which was dr. Fleischer's job at Zeiss)
was urging us to buy them, while at the same time letting us know that
these products are sub-standard, only meant to allow a cheap entrance into
the Hasselblad system, allowing you, once in, to save up and get the 'good
stuff' later.
But that doesn't work, does it? Hasselblad's traditional customers are
exactly does who do not mind (well... yes, evidently) paying the asking
price to get uncompromising (!) quality, so letting them know the new line
is sub-standard only makes them doubt Hasselblad's reputation. And the
low-budget customers cannot keep Hasselblad afloat. So the end result is
that they are scaring old customers away (deflating the "potential" in the
trademark), while not being able to compensate through 'CB'udget sales.
So bye bye, CB line, and the policies you stand for. Please, do never come
back.
The Pola 107/108/667 come with instructions on the package.
1. Check the rollers in the Pola holder and clean if necessary.
2. Upon opening the package, straighten the white tabs and the long black
paper which is the "dark slide" from their folded position. This will
facilitate the passage of the white tabs through the rollers.
3. Open the back of the Pola holder and insert the film. close the holder
*over* the film and tabs without trying to insert the black paper between
the rollers.
4. Pull the black paper out completely. A white tab with the number 1
will appear from between the rollers and out through the film door. You
are ready to take photos.
5. After taking the photo, pull the white tab completely. The film tab
will follow. Pull evenly, steadily until the neg/print leaves the holder.
Wait the indicated time and peel apart. Voila!
If the white tabs do not appear through the door, it means that the
rollers are dirty and do not move, or that the film is old, or defective
in which case Polaroid will exchange the film.
Good luck,
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
John Stafford wrote:
My SWC uses the same 67mm thread size as the old Bronica S2A. Every
filter I purched has the same pitch, if that's any help.
Gene Pallat
Date: 24 Jun 2001
"Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected] wrote
Thanks, That seems to indicate that the ES pitch is common, and the
one B&H sent is the outlier.
Date: 28 Jun 2001
Following up on my own post to close this thread...
It turns out that B&W does not make an ES thread for their 67mm
filters. They only make only the E thread, which doesn't fit my
application (Hasselblad SWC).
I question the rationale, but perhaps most Schneider made lenses which
take 67mm filters are all E threads. Dunno.
But now I'm investigating the possbility of removing a B&W filter from
the mount to use it as a Series VIII filter.
A gentleman named Abe K. at B&H was the person to answer my question
and then point me to Schneider's web page for definitive information.
Duh. Silly me! Thanks to B&H again for their good help.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
[email protected] wrote:
Take the magazine off the body then pull the darkslide from the
magazine. Push down on the pressure plate at the crank side and your
insert will come out. What has happened is that the little aluminum tab
that you tuck the film under has become bent and has to be replaced.
There is a little tab on the bottom of this piece that gets bent or
broken. If bent, do not try to straighten, it as it will break.
This is a very easy and fast fix. Just remove the four screws that hold
your pressure plate, and you will find 2 screws on the back of the
pressure plate that holds the aluminum tab. You can call Hasselblad and
get the new part shipped to you almost immediately.
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
Austin Franklin wrote:
Evald Karsten mentions it in his book "Hasselblad" (ISBN 91-85228-59-1).
(Yet he also mentions that "M" stands for "manual", which certainly isn't
true when used in camera type designations ;-))
Evald Karsten was head of PR at Hasselblad AB, and the first editor of the
Hasselblad magazine "Hasselblad", later "Forum".
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
Has anyone noticed that the Hasselblad 203FE price has been cut by 45%?
That brings the price to $3195 instead of $57xx! That's actually a
"reasonable" price for a Hasselblad and definitely worth the price of
admission if you have the money. The 203FE USED was that much a couple
years ago and now you can get it new.
Now my thing is that if Hasselblad can cut the price 45% then was it
mostly fluff and greed that it cost so much (and rose in price) or was it
really because of the economic reasons? Frankly, I really think it was
because Rollei is stealing a lot of the ever shrinking medium format
camera sales and a stop had to be put in to stop the bleeding. Now if only
Hasselblad would cut prices 45% across the board, then they'll really see
sales jump.
I'm actually really considering selling my 553ELX and my 500 c/m to get
the 203FE now. That was something I would never have considered before.
Nathan
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Joe Codispoti wrote:
To my knowledge, all Hasselblad shuttered lenses use Gauthier Prontor
shutters (actually, a late Compur design, but adopted by Gauthier when
they absorbed Deckel).
Marc
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
Er.... you didn't load the film in the back wrong way around - that is
emulsion toward the pressure plate, did you?
In simple terms - load the film into the magazine such that the black
paper is facing away from the pressure plate {g}, then use the thumbwheel
on the takeup spool to advance the film so the arrow on the paper lines up
with the arrow on the takup spools edge. Whilst doing this, make sure the
paper is under the clamp on the edge of the pressure plate as well.
Better to cock the camera body before going any further... Then put the
insert into the magazine body. Make sure a darkslide is in place, if the
magazine is not mouted to the camera body, then advance the film in the
magazine using the winding crank on the right side of the magazine body.
It should stop at #1 automatically. Fold the crank down to its storage
position. At this time, if you precocked the camera body, you're ready
for the first shot. If you forgot to precock the camera body, you need to
remove the magazine before cocking, as you'll lose one frame otherwise
(because the film will advance to frame #2 when you cock the body).
Hope that helps
Rob E wrote:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 http://www.clubhasselblad.ballarat.net.au That's how I got onto this bulletin Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 From: Randy <[email protected]> Try Mike Fourman at www.kievcamera.com in Atlanta. Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001
I have pondered this question myself and in the end acquired a used 250 C
you wrote: Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001
"David Mackie" unter From: [email protected] (Thom) [email protected] (Dr. Peter Ochmann)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which medium format to get?
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Well, so does the Blad if you want to sell your First Born to able
> to afford it. (The Schneider Variogon)
The Schneider Variogon 140-280 mm zoom has been dropped from the Hasselblad
line-up in 2001.
There is a Hasselblad 60-120 mm zoom lens though. It even isn't that
expensive compared (!!!) to the other FE lenses; only 18% more than the
cheapest lens in the FE series (the f/2.8 150 mm that will be discontinued
beginning of next year), and a snip at only 21% of what the most expensive
lens from that line would cost to buy. ;-)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Tsun Tam [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Advice please
An advance welcome back to the Hasselblad fold!
I would stay away from the 1000F as no repair parts are available and
also very few repairmen would even attempt at its repair. The 2000
bodies are reliable but my understanding is the the titanium curtains
are no longer available (as least from the US distributor in Fairfield,
NJ). If you buy a 2000 series body, buy either a 2000FCM or 2000FCW
which automatically retracts a cocked shutter (to protect it from
'poking' fingers) when you remove the film magazine. These are very
modestly priced (sometimes less than the cost of a used 500C/M body) and
would be a good choice and all 2000 series bodies utilize a long mirror
so image cutoff with telephoto lenses is not an issue. The 500C and
500C/M do not have the long mirror.
Though the bodies are inexpensive, the F and FE lenses ARE not so. Since
the 2000 series bodies are fully compatible with 'C' lenses, I find that
this is a good match. With 'C' lenses (as with 'CF' lenses) you may use
either the Compur or focal plane shutter, but if you use 'C' lenses you
loose the ability to see the image immediately after the shutter is
released. The mirror returns but the Compur shutter remains closed so no
image in the viewfinder. 'C' lenses are inexpensive and don't turn down
a non-T* lens JUST because it does not have multicoating on its optical
surfaces. In the majority of cases, I defy anyone to be able to tell the
difference between pictures taken with a T* and a non-T* lens. Make sure
that you have the Compur shutter tested as parts (like main springs) may
be placed on the endangered list soon.
One very pleasant 2000 and 200 series feature that us very useful is the
ability to take multiple exposure easily. You do not need to remove the
film magazine, cock the shutter and replace the magazine to make your
next double exposure. You simply depress the button at the center of the
winding knob while you are winding the shutter. This action winds only
the shutter BUT NOT THE FILM! Really NEAT!!
The focal plane shutter cameras also permit using 'odd ball'
non-shuttered lenses as well. I also find that the 2000 speed on the
2000 series to be very useful WHEN YOU NEED IT! Sometime 500 just won't
do. A really need gadget that Hasselblad made and is not discontinued is
a shutter speed multiplier which is actually a replacement for the
standard battery holder. To use it, replace the original battery holder
and use the multiplier. All shutter speeds are automatically multiplied
by 60; 1 second becomes one minute; 1/2 second is 30 seconds!! Just
don't misplace your original battery holder or all your speeds will be
extended 60x.
As you can see, I am a fan of the 2000 bodies . . . just stay away from
the 2000FC, the original model. It doesn't retract a cocked shutter when
the film magazine is removed. Wondering fingers can do major damage on
the 0.14mm thick shutter curtain. It was crease, it will dent and it
will tear. Treated with caution, the 2000FC is a reliable body. One
other thing, the 2000FCW (maybe the FCM too) will function with a 'C'
lens even when you have NO BATTERY JUICE LEFT. Wow, what a concept . . .
an all mechanical camera that double-duty as an electrically timed
camera too. If you are in the boonies and the battery dies, just use the
leaf shutter built into a 'C' or 'CF' lens and set the body on the 'C'
setting. You now have what is equivalent to a 500 series body BUT WITH
THE LONG MIRROR!
Good luck!
Tsun
Jeffrey & Debra Jones wrote:
> First time writing ... a couple of questions ...seeking the advice of
> the group on the least expensive way to get back into Hasselblad
> having owned a CM several years ago and having lost it. Financially
> things are tight but I'd like any suggestions. I was thinking of
> possibly an old 1000F. However, I'm skeptical as to availability of
> parts and service. Ideally, I would like to find possibly a 2000
> series, focal plane shutter or perhaps it's best to just stick with
> the old school and find an old 500CM like I had before. Advice
> please. Thanks in advance,Jeff PSPlease let me know if anyone's
> parting with anything inexpensive.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:04:06 EST
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 501CM Jammed
I found it quite simple to make my own version of the Unjammer. I don't know
what the $20 tool looks like, but it seemed to me that a simple collar around
the head of the machine-screw used for cocking, and attached to the
screwdriver........would eliminate the chance of slippage. So I took a spare
smallish screwdriver (about 6" long) and ground-down the blade to fit exactly
the width and length of the slot in the Hassie screw. Then I found a short
(2", in my case) piece of metal tubing who's inside diameter would just fit
over the screw head. Then I coated the shaft of the screwdriver with epoxy
and slipped the tubing over the screwdriver. Put the screwdriver in the
screw-slot and at the same time, slide the metal tubing down over the screw
head........and let the epoxy cure in this position. Just try to keep the
epoxy from dribbling down onto the screw head while you're waiting for "the
cure". I think it took me longer to type this explanation, than it actually
took to make the tool. Naturally, I've carried it with me for five years and
have never needed it.
Pete Schermerhorn, in the glorious Berkshire hills of western Massachusetts
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 202-FA? 205FE? 503CW?
daniel wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion on whether a 205FE is worth getting over a
> 503CW?
Different kettle of fish alltogether (as their price tags clearly show...).
The 503 CW is the basic, full mechanical, leafshutter Hasselblad.
It is, as were its predecessors, a perfect camera. The only automation is
the TTL-flash, and, with the appropriate winder, film advance.
The 200 series are electronic, full-automatic (first thing to ask when
someone presents you with anything automatic is "can you switch it off?".
The answer (at least for the 203 FE and 205 FCC cameras) is "yes"),
focal-plane shutter cameras. They come with their own series Zeiss lenses,
almost all of whom are a full stop faster than their leaf shuttered
counterparts.
Plus the 203 FE and 205 FCC can do everything you can do using one of the
500 series cameras. The CFE series leaf shutter lenses in particular can be
used on these cameras without any limitations to the automation. The others
(C, CF and CFi) can be used to, with stopped down metering.
Now is it worth paying extra (nearly 3 times as much for a 203 FE body (!),
almost 4 times as much for a 205 FCC body. Plus the extra for the E-film
backs, FE lenses, etc.)?
Depends on what you need, or want.
But if you do decide to get one of the 200 series cameras, have a look at
the 203 FE instead of the 205. I would prefer the center weighted metering
over the spot metering of the 205, and don't really need the Zone-system
built-in a camera.
> What about a 202-FA?
It's basically a crippled 203 FE. A lot less expensive, but less desirable
too.
It will not let you use the leaf shutter in leaf shutter lenses.
It has no shutter speed ring: speeds are set by the camera, even in manual
mode. You will have to use the exposure override to select the speed you
want.
Its shutter lacks the top 1/2000 sec speed (why?).
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001
From: Eduardo Aigner [email protected]
To: Hasselblad mailing list [email protected]
Subject: converter
Re: double double posts posts
>Any recommendations on a good Focal Length
>DOUBLER for the Hasselblad?
>Are the KENKO or Komura brands any good?
>Thanks,
>Bob
I have been using a Vivitar MC 2x. It's just good. Avoid apertures
larger than f11.
I guess the Kenko, Rokunar and Vivitar are just the same piece with
different brands. Anyway it was a bargain: USD 60,00 in Portugal.
AIGNER
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Tilt and Shift
I have been searching for the ability to do Tilt with my Hassy equipment.
Yes, there is a FlexBody and an ArcBody, but both of those turn the camera
into what is basically a small view camera, with GG focusing. Not quite the
optimum IMHO.
Zork makes a ball joint adapter to allow Tilt. It also means I must use an
enlarging lens or a LF lens to act as the optical path. Again, not totally
perfect , but may be OK. Does anyone have any experience with this Zork
item?
I have the description they just sent to me if someone is interested, email
me.
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad exposure time multiplier
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001
Per Ericsson wrote:
> There must be someone out there who can tell me how the Hasselblad
exposure
> time multiplier for the 2000 series cameras work. I am interested in
> detailed technical information since I would like to craft one myself
(with
> some more functions than the original).
The time multiplier has a capacitor which is put in parallel with the
camera's timing capacitor.
I don't know what pins are used.
Pins 3 and 2 are used to supply the voltage.
Connector:
<= camera front.
5 3 1
* * *
* * *
6 4 2
from leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] OT: Hasselblad History
Dan Post wrote:
>Marc
>Correct me if I stray off course, but I thought I read that Victor
>Hasselblad was actually an ornithologist, and he specifically designed the
>camera to photograph birds in the manner he wanted. I always thought that
>the reason the camera was such a success, was because it was designed by a
>USER and not by an engineer with some vague notion of what a photographer
>needs (shades of the Edsel!).
Sorry, Dan. Victor Hasselblad had little input into the actual design of
the camera bearing his name. Read Nordin's COMPENDIUM for details.
Marc
[email protected]
from leica mailing list
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] OT: Hasselblad History
[snip]
Marc,
I believe Dan is completely right. What I read is that the entire concept
was his idea...as well as the original HK7, he designed and made him self,
with a couple of other helpers, which is the basis for the civilian
Hasselblad. There is even a prototype that was at least designed, if not
made, by him, called a "Rossex", which, conceptually, is nearly identical
to the modern Hasselblad camera... He did not "design" the internal
mechanisms of the civilian camera, but that doesn't mean he wasn't the
chief architect/engineer of it!
It isn't the internal "details" that make a camera "functional", but the
overall concept of how the entire camera/system works with the user that
makes a camera "functional". I certainly would give VH credit for that.
There is a book called "Hasselblad, I am the Camera" you might want to
read.
Regards,
Austin
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] A-12 problem?
> I ran a
> roll of Ilford Delta 400 through the A-12 this past Sunday
If the take-up spool is an Ilford spool (+ on top and bottom flat, and round
holes in paper slit), then you need to stop the film about 1/4" or so BEFORE
the red loading triangle that you normally align the arrows on the backing
paper up with. The Ilford spools are slightly larger than all others, and
therefore can cause a film spacing problem on the last frame if you don't do
this.
Austin
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] German labor in the 60s
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> I can picture the "hammer" as the tool Marc, but as interesting a picture
it paints I think think not. There was a great care for detail and
precision which eventually started to dissappear through the 70s.
-------------------------------------
The tale of the hammer is quite true. Hammers were used for final assembly
of Hasselblad cameras as recently as last year though I understand that
these will not be used in the new plant. The "great care for detail and
precision" ensured that the cameras were comprehensively adjusted during
assembly -- and this mandated the use of the hammer.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic Hammer in precision mechanics
[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
> Special hammers are used for precise setting in precision mechanics.
> The one I know has platic ends and is filled with sand or something
> preventing the mass from bouncing. There are also rubber hammers but
> this may bounce. BTW I do not know what kind of hammers is supposed to
> be used at the Hasselblad factory for a precise adjustment of rollfilm
> inserts in rolfilm backs. I would assume a non-bouncing type.
The hammers I have seen in camera factories used in fine adjustments have
all been Swiss jeweler's hammers. They have solid heads and come in
different weights. I have one I use now and then along with a wood dowel
to straighten bent filter rings on lenses.
Because the head weight is in grams, these are true "metric hammers".
Bob
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Ted Baker [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: XPAN
I, too, would love to see an XPan lens with focal length >90mm. A colleague
& I spoke with Erland Petersson (Hasselblad's product manager for the XPan)
at Photo Expo in New York this past fall about just such a lens & we put in
a plug for a 135mm XPan lens. Erland Petersson told us that there are some
technical issues (such as exit pupil position & focusing precision) that
would have to be solved & so it's not clear whether they will make one but
at least we made the request.
I agree -- XPan optics are excellent. I shot some handheld pictures using
the XPan 90mm lens of my grandson outside on a windy day & they were so
sharp that his individual blond hairs blowing in the wind stood out against
a dark background.
Ted
"Roy Ooms" [email protected] wrote:
> I love my xpan and found the 30mm lens to be a bit wide for my liking but
> that's strictly personal preference. If anything I wish they had a longer
> lens than the 90, however it's unlikely they'll develop one according to an
> engineer at Hasselblad who's associated with xpan design. Optics for this
> camera are superb. The center filter is essential. B & H sells them for
> $234.
>
> Roy
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] German labor in the 60s
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> Hasselblad also made aerial cameras during WW-2 and folding cameras
> before that. They may have made clocks too but were certainly in the
camera
> business for a long time before the famous SLR camera.
Oh yes. True (though not the folding cameras).
In 1943 Victor Hasselblad did not accept an futher order from the Swedish
Air Force for more aerial cameras. After the Russian victory at Stalingrad,
the English victory over rommel in Northern Africa, and the invasion of
Italy, he thought the time had come to plan and prepare for when the war
would be over. But his refusal of the military work meant he had to find
something to keep his staff occupied, and to keep money coming in. So they
made some 250,000 gearboxes for SAAB aircrafts too. Plus some 5,000 slide
projectors. And (in total) about 95,000 clocks. In spite of the fact that
clocks were easier to build than his future civilian camera would be, he
thought it would be excellent training for his workforce
So, coming to my point, the Series One (distinguishable by a four digit
serial number) Hasselblad 1600 F cameras suffered from problems that,
according to a factory repairman, stemmed from the fact that (quoting
Richard Nordin's excellent book again:) "the initial mechanical design was
from a group trained as watchmakers and the stresses and the mechanical use
of a camera is very different from a watch".
Peter's assertion that the inital Hasselblad cameras had less precision in
their design isn't true. What they lacked wasn't precision, but robustness.
Their fault was that they had as much robustness as, well, a Swiss (or
German) made watch.
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] German labor in the 60s
Bob Shell wrote:
> > Hasselblad also made aerial cameras during WW-2 and folding cameras
> > before that. They may have made clocks too but were certainly in the camera
> > business for a long time before the famous SLR camera.
>
> Folding cameras? I've never heard that before. Prior to the aerial cameras
> I am only aware of a box camera, and that may have only been sold by
> Hasselblad trading company, not made by them.
Folding cameras is correct.
But they indeed never made them, only sold several models of folding
cameras, carrying the Hasselblad name.
I don't know who manufactured these folders, but perhaps it was the same
manufacturer that built the "Hasselblad" box cameras (more than one model
was sold by F.W. Hasselblad, carrying the Hasselblad name), Hugo Svensson &
Co. from G�teborg.
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
To: Jesse Hellman [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes
FWIW, I unstick the doubled-over leader and get the bend in the leader to
catch the (how do I explain this???) far side of the slot in the spool..
Then I hold it back against the spool counter to the way that the spool
turns and get one good wind or two to hold the leader against the spool and
make the first wrap(s) tight.. I use my thumbs to keep both the supply side
and the take-up side taut (sorry if this recording studio terminology
doesn't translate). I have yet to have any spacing problems. But also for
the record, I only use Magazine 12s, and don't own any A12s.
D.
....
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes
> >How do you all deal with this? Are there secrets to loading Ilford?
>
>
> The way I deal with it is that I do not use Ilford roll film. I use Fuji,
> Agfa, Kodak, and Efke. Plenty of good films here without having to deal
> with Ilford's idioms.
Hi Jim,
The problem isn't the film, but the take-up spool. Just don't use Ilford
take-up spools, and all will be right with the world. I use Ilford Delta
3200, since there really isn't any other high-speed B&W 120 film that I am
aware of...but easy enough, I just keep a "few" "regular" spools round, and
throw the Ilford ones away.
Of course, this is easy to do if you process your own film. I have probably
100 or more of these spools lying around, and if anyone wants a dozen or so,
please let me know, and I'll be happy to send them to you.
Austin
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
From: David Meiland [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes
Since the recent discussion about film spacing and overshooting the end of
the roll (getting 11.5 frames), I've taken the step of winding my film on
just short of the 'Start' mark in the magazine. If the mark is at 12:00, I
wind to 11:00 and stop there, about 1/4" short. I have not had any problems
with spacing or overshooting since. I use 5 A12 magazines and Kodak, Fuki,
Ilford, and Maco films interchangeably. Prior to this I was having
occasional problems, in one case getting 11.5 frames on a dozen rolls in a
row (yes, rolls of Delta 100).
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Using Ilford film (was: hello)
Hi,
>I am new here, and in fact I am also new as an hasselblad owner. I am from
>Lisbon, Portugal.
>I have a 501C with 80C lens.
Welcome to the list.
>Until now I could not have the space between the frames consistant and
>usualy I lost the last frame. I have made some search in the internet and
>it seems that this can have something to do with Ilford film. In fact I
>used almost Ilford film...
Uneven spacing between frames is a quite common Hasselblad phenomenon.
Usually a CLA (Clean, Lubricate, Adjust) takes care of it.
Some people are reporting problems with Ilford film, and on newer film
backs, Hasselblad has made a special start mark for Ilford film. This
"Ilford mark" is before the regular start mark on the outmost corner of the
metal piece that holds the film spool. If your back doesn't have that
"Ilford mark", try aligning the start mark on the film with the outmost
corner on the film holder - approx. 45 degrees before the normal start mark.
Tom
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Improvement of Hassy 150/4
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
Max Perl wrote:
> How much of an improvement has been done
> from the HSB C 150/4 to the CFi 150/4?
Not much.
> Is the optical formular still the same?
Yes.
> In the near future I want a 150mm for portraits,
> landscapes ect. I don't want to pay more than necessary.
The only difference that might ever be visible in your photos is that the
CFi lenses have a somewhat improved stray light reduction, enhancing
contrast (and thus colour saturation) a bit when shooting against strong
backlight.
All other changes were ergonomical.
Any 150 mm lens is capable of delivering perfect results, whether it is a
single coated C lens, a multicoated C lens, a CF or CFi.
So if you can find any of these in reasonable condition and for a ditto
price, the only reason not to get it would be if you don't like the
ergonomics of that particular version.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Improvement of Hassy 150/4
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002
Max Perl wrote:
> OK, that is good to know.
> I have noticed that the price level of used 150's is
> significant higher than older 250's. The reason is
> probably the high quality of older 150's.
Partly, yes.
The 250 mm is an excellent lens too, but it is less popular. Always has been
less popular too.
The reason for that is that it is harder to use: it needs faster shutter
speeds, is a full stop slower too, it needs more lens to subject distance,
less quick to focus, etc.
Being less popular also means being cheaper in the used market.
I have and use both focal lengths and like them equally well.
The 150 mm is a very fine portrait lens (so is the 120 mm. Oh, and the 180
mm, or so i'm told ;-)); the 250 mm is great for getting tight head shots.
They are both fine lenses for other applications as well. You will certainly
enjoy the 150 mm.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New 500 series Hasselblads w/ coupled meters?
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
Eric Desch wrote:
> The introduction of the CFE lenses has sparked speculation that
> Hasselblad may be coming out with new 500 series camers with coupled
> meters. For example:
>
> http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/ghassy.html (last paragraph)
>
> Anybody heard of anything concrete in this regard?
>
> I am pricing Hasselblads right now and am ready to buy, but will wait
> to see what the rumored model is like if such a thing is coming.
I think it is highly unlikely (but i am willing to be surprised and be
proven wrong. Though a huge surprise it would be.)
There is no advantage in having a coupled meter as long as you have to set
all settings manually anyway, is there? So why would we need such a thing?
The introduction of more CFE lenses is a (slow) correction of a marketing
error. When they introduced the CFi/CFE line, they should have given all
lenses Databus contacts to ensure, true to Hasselblad tradition, a 100%
compatibility. Now instead, they were telling us that you could indeed use
leaf shutter lenses on 200 series cameras, but that it came at a price: the
fancy metering electronics you paid Kilobucks for were useless ballast as
soon as you put one of those leaf shutter lenses on.
This did not go down very well with Hasselblad customers. From the moment
the CFi lenses were introduced, even before they were actually put on the
market, people complained, wondering why on earth Hasselblad did not convert
all CF lens to CFE. So now they are upgrading the most popular (or so they
hope) CFi lenses to CFE.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Light Traps
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
Ken Martin wrote:
> I see replacement light trap on Ebay for Hasselblad backs. According to
> the information provided it appears easy to replace them yourself. Has
> anyone replaced them themselves and if so any problems?
First of all: don't go and spend a lot of money on light traps sold on eBay.
They are likely to end up costing multiples of what they cost when ordered
from Hasselblad. The last time i ordered a bunch (last summer) i paid
(equivalent of) US$ 4 per set (foil and foam).
And if you do decide to buy via eBay anyway, make sure that they are not
just selling plastic foam pads roughly cut to size, but the real Hasselblad
foil backed foam shaped pads plus (!) the plastic sleeves.
I can't think though why anyone should want to hazard getting non fitting
counterfeit parts when the original parts are so cheap and easy to get from
Hasselblad.
You can do it yourself, yes. It is not that difficult, and not a lot can go
wrong: the sprung (!) exposure lock (the thing that pops up when a slide is
inserted) can come out, but is easy to put back in (don't drop and lose any
parts, like the small spring, though), and so can the sprung locking arm
mechanism (the one that locks the backs release when the slide is pulled
out), but it too is easy to reset.
But don't get frightened by this, they usually don't come out. Unless you go
and hold the back upside down while the plate is removed, and shake the
thing violently ;-)
Remove the dark slide and insert, and remove the screws that hold the
interface plate in place. When you lift it out you will see the old light
trap.
Have a good look at how it is positioned before taking it out. And also have
a good look at how the two parts of the old light trap are fitted together
before you take them apart.
Next fold the new foil and slip the new foam pad in between. You will notice
that both the foil's long end and the foam pad's ends are cut at an angle.
Slip the foam pad in the folded foil sleeve so the the angled ends match.
Next put them in the back, (obviously) the same way the old ones were
positioned (you will notice that the recess in the back too has angled
ends). Make sure that the foam pad's silver backing is facing down.
Oh, and don't use glue. ;-)
Last thing to do is replace the plate. The new light trap will be quite
"springy" so you will have to push it down when repositioning the plate.
Take care that it doesn't jump out of its intended position.
It's always a good idea when you disassemble something to take a polaroid,
or video, so you will have a reference telling you where everything must go.
But if one of the things mentioned above do fall out, you can easily figure
out how they go together again, even without pictures.
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Craig Roberts [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Light Seals - dumb question ?
Hello David,
Changing your own light seals is an easy 15 minute, money saving job. It
consists of the removal and replacement of nine screws plus the swapping of
a piece of mylar and a mating chunk of foam. There are two flat springs
inside the back that can (if an earthquake hits opr your cat walks across
your work) fall out, but their replacement is self-evident.
The ebay vendor who sells the genuine Hasselblad light trap kits for $16
includes easy-to-follow instructions with his package. It's a worthwhile
investment.
Craig Roberts
trapping light in Washington, DC
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: "ian.barnes" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Light Seals - dumb question ?
I would second the Peter R route.
He appears to be fair and reasonable and the job should not be to costly.
I buy the parts from Hasselblad direct in the UK for a few pounds so I would
forget the 'kit' option.The job is 'fiddly' . A few parts can easily drop
out and you have to watch you don't screw the screw heads otherwise you are
starting to get bigger problems.
Out of interest the Polaroid backs have the same problem.
The seals are made from something like a mylar foil strip which is pushed
into place by a foam strip. The problem is that the old foam either rots
after 20 years and or compresses. Look for little grains of black foam. You
refurbish your seals reliability for the next say 20 years. Whilst the back
is in it would probably be worth a cla. Check your negative frame spacing.
It always seems to be a little errattic but can get out of control. Also
check your counter works and returns properly.There are a few parts here
that are easily replaced and it would be cheaper in the long run and for
piece of mind to get it all checked and sorted properly.
Hope this helps.
Ian
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Light Seals - dumb question ?
David,
'Just a little fogging' on one side could be yourself not being causious
enough when putting the film in. Particularly with fast film (400ASA +
+) you should try to change film in a rather dark place and see to that
the new roll is tight when you put it in.
Typical 'leaking' magazine produces 'stripes' far into the negative and
reduces the contrast. Look up the web page of the US dealer for the
Russian Kiev cameras. There you see some excellent examples of pictures
produced with leaking mags...
Tom of Oslo
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Changing light trap
FWIW, I have changed the traps in every one of my (bought used) C12 mags.
It is pretty easy if you work carefully. Work on a white terry towel so
that the tiny screws that pop off your screwdriver stay within light-years
of your bench. Use the best, most expensive, properly fitting screwdriver
for the task (don't get a set for $6 at Radio Shack. Check the biggest
electronics supply house in your area and take the back.) Take the frame
off slowly and you won't disturb the lock-out springs or if you do, you'll
see right how they go back. And also see how the seal sits in it's cutout.
And you'll figure out right away that you need to slide the cover back into
place across the new seal, make sure that the frame is sitting flush all the
way around (if it's not, one of the lockout springs has popped up) and screw
it back together. Just be very patient and work slowly on the first one.
Once you've done it, the rest will be easy. BTW, insert the dackslide
gently the first few times. The new seal is tight and you don't want to
tear out all your hard work.
If you mess up, Peter will put it all back together for twice the normal
price {g}.
D.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] Changing light trap
I just want to add to the previous post that on the magazines I opened
(built between 1968 and 1984) no springs popped up. Maybe they are unique to
older designs?
When I put the new light trap into its place I fix it with the dark slide in
it's position so that it can't move and then put the cover back into place.
I second the advice to use a high quality screwdriver thast fits perfectly
and nothing else because the screws can be quite tight.
I buy my light traps directly from Hasselblad/Germany for less what some
people pay at ebay. I always order a pair when I sent a camera to the
service to save shipping costs.
Ulrik
(who received his 30 mm Arsat-Fisheye, converted for Hasselblad (2000 FC),
yesterday and is waiting for the first results)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]
To: Hasselblad forum [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Changing light trap
Ian Barnes said-
I changed my polaroid back light trap recently and was advised by my camera
repair man to rub a tiny amount of silicon grease onto the braided matt that
the light trap touches. The slide was very stiff but is now silky smooth.
Before you guys try it I would wait and see what Peter R thinks first
but it worked for me. Ian
Ian et al-
I don't recommend putting grease where dust, dirt and sand can easily
get to it as it will then easily collect dust, dirt and sand. I tend to
be more concerned how clean the slot is than how easily the slide goes
in and out. The inside of the faceplate of the back needs to be cleaned
as well as the fabric strip therein. The channel that encloses the
darkslide when inserted should be cleaned as well. Many backs have
pieces of roll film tabs stuffed in there as well as lots of things
that look like little nativity scenes when observed with a high-power
loupe. Best to get all that out. A judicious amount of mild solvent
does all of these things well. Putting a hard fold into the mylar
sheath will help installation as well.
I also agreed with someone's (I apologize for not remembering who)
suggestion of pressing the darkslide onto the new shield assembly when
putting the faceplate back on. It really helps in making sure it stays
put. It eliminates the Hasselblad back equivalent of the refrigerator
light quandry. Is it in place or not??!!
Peter
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(928) 779-5263
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002
From: "ian.barnes" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Light Seals - dumb question ?
That is exactly how it works. Good on you.
The two parts from Hasselblad are about �3 (say$5). I am assuming the 'kits'
are from ebay and hate to see people waste their money when they can buy the
original for less.
I think it is a fiddly job if you have not done it before. Remember whilst
some of our friends on the forum are very happy wielding screwdrivers many
are not and I would hate to see any damage / disappointment to an expensive
or cherished camera (part). There are two shims and at least one spring
which can drop out and need to be in the correct place when reassembling.
Not difficult but fiddly especially if you drop or lose one. You do have to
be careful as you to get the seal to 'squash' correctly.
The screws are not a problem if they all come out easily, but if there is a
bit of corrosion or you burr the head over you do have a problem.
I just wish to participate, help and pass on knowledge gained from others
and personal experience but always take a slightly cautious approach. I
would not like anyone to tackle a job beyond their capabilities and have
problems with their treasured possession.
Regards
Ian
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002
From: Charter Mail [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] FS New Item for Hassy
Following several requests for a better system to connect the Hasselblad
camera to the Arca (and other brands) Quick Clamp, I have developed what I
believe to be the best solution for those who use such a device.
This is not an adapter but a plate that replaces the original Hassy "foot"
which I am offering to HUG and LUG members at a special introductory price
until Feb 28.
You can read about it at:
http://www.clearsightusa.com/hassyfootcs.html
For those who do not wish to make the modification I have an adapter that
serves the same function (and can fit other cameras as well). See:
http://www.clearsightusa.com/hassyadaptercs.html
Joseph Codispoti
ClearSight USA
P.O. Box 150, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 USA
www.clearsightusa.com
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] FS New Item for Hassy
I have this replacement plate (foot) on my three Hasselblads and they are
the greatest thing since sliced bread!!! It makes my Hasselblads sit level
on a table, without falling over, and be able to be clamped to any Arca
Swiss clamp. It is exactly like the factory foot only a little wider and
slightly thicker in order to mate perfectly with the Arca clamp.
All of my tripod heads have Arca type clamps. Some built-in (Arca B1 ball)
and others using the RRS B2-PRO/L Clamp.
With these feet (foots), my Hasselblads look and act normal... :) That is
they don't have that large metal lump bolted to the bottom, on top of the
original Hasselblad foot, adding weight and clumsiness to handling my
Hasselblads.
I highly recommend this product.
Jim
>You can read about it at:
>http://www.clearsightusa.com/hassyfootcs.html
>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] 205 FCC vs 205 TCC
Someone recently asked about the differences between the 205 FCC and the 205
TCC. The differences I believe (having owned both) are:
1) TCC does not have autobracket mode
2) TCC does not have fill flash programmability
3) FCC shutter controlled from 34 minutes, TCC from 16 seconds
4) Control dial is laid out differently
there may be other differences...
Austin
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Remote for 200-series?
Austin,
The 503 winder is a mechanical release. There is a solenoid in the winder
with a little arm that is positioned right in front of the 503 body
release. Pushing the release button on the winder or on the remote
activates the solenoid which pushes on the 503 body release.
Not exactly elegant.
The 503 winder could easily be adapted to the 20x. I understand that
Hasselblad did exactly that for NASA.
Jim
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Remote for 200-series?
Austin Franklin wrote:
>Instead of doing that, I'd say it would be easier to just make a little
>infrared jobbie with a solenoid in it...that screws into the release...
>
>Austin
I agree. Even though the 503 winder works slick and the remote is really
cool (eliminates the need for a l-o-n-g cable release,) there is a
potential gotcha.
I was away from civilization one time and decided to use my 503 & winder. I
set it up, got ready, released the mirror, and pushed the remote. Nothing
happened. I pushed the release on the winder... nothing happened. Dead
batteries and as I said, I was away from everything. No spares with me.
I decided to use my camera without the winder... But... You cannot remove
the winder without removing the lens first. The mirror was released so the
lens could not be removed (lens/body keyway partially turned.) So there I
stood in a catch 22. Can't remove the lens. Can't remove the winder. No
batteries to make it all work.
Then, from within my backpack, I pulled THE Hasselblad tool. While I,
through the back of the camera, turned the keyway (only use this tool as it
won't slip off and gouge the inside of your camera and your lens rear
element) my wife removed the lens when I had the keyway turned to
horizontal. I was then able to remove the winder, release the shutter, wind
the camera, put the lens back on, put the wind knob back on, and continue
my photo outing.
Moral, with 503 winders, always carry spare batteries. Or if you don't have
spares, don't use mirror release with the winder attached.
Jim
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] A-12 backs
Not to worry at all about mismatched magazines! It's the case itself that
determines the film plane. The spring-loaded pressure plate on the magazine
only pushes the film against the rails in the case thereby (sorry for using
the word "thereby", I promise not to do it again) determining focus.
Perfect film flatness is very elusive, so lets hear three cheers for depth
of field!!!
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] LCD readout in 20x cameras with a prism...
Austin Franklin wrote:
>I have never used a prism in either of my 20x cameras, since now the meter
>is in the camera, and that was the only reason I used a prism...but how does
>the camera deal with having the prism on. The 205FCC manual states: "When
>you use a prism viewfinder the display appears reversed, but the
>microprocessor adjusts all the indications to make them fully readable.".
>What, EXACTLY do they mean by that?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Austin
They mean that you can read the display normally. I only use a prism on my
203FE. The LCD is normal. A no meter prism.
When the prism is off, the LCD is read normally. As you slide the prism on,
if you look through it, the LCD will first appear reversed and then as soon
as the prism snaps-in, the LCD reverses itself so that it is no read
normally through the prism. A microswitch in the nooks and crannies of the
hood receptacle.
Jim
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] LCD readout in 20x cameras with a prism...
Thanks Jim and Daniel!
That's exactly what I thought, but was too lazy to go up stairs and find the
switch and try it out ;-)
My Rollei 6008 does reverse the LCD display very nicely. Obviously on the
Hasselblad, the little symbols that aren't symmetrical and fixed words
wouldn't reverse, but all of the 7 segment displays would be easy to
reverse...and the symmetrical symbols wouldn't matter.
Austin
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad metering modes - was RE: [Rollei] Yashica
Austin Franklin at [email protected] wrote:
> That would have been some 13 years ago! One would hope they got it straight
> by now ;-)
Why? They still don't have a motor drive that auto winds the film to the
first frame and winds off the backing paper at the end. Rollei has had
that since 1976!!!! Every other medium format that takes a motor or has
one built-in does that. Yet it evades the technical abilities of
Hasselblad.
Bob
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Light Traps
Date: 18 Feb 2002
"Ken Martin" [email protected] wrote
> Hi:
> I see replacement light trap on Ebay for Hasselblad backs.
Don't do it. Buy from Hasselblad so you get the real thing. I don't
have the number handy, but when I called, their answering machine
picked up. I just left my credit card info on the machine and asked
for two sets and got them in ten days. I think it was something like
$12 total, with shipping.
It is easy to replace the old ones. Just pay attention when removing
the old ones so you put them in right.
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Filter and Hood sizes
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002
...
Heliopan makes Bay 50 rubber hoods.
Special order but easily ordered and obtained.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: optical glass flat plate was Re: Kiev models - Film Flatness
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> however, each time this thread comes up, I learn about more cameras that
> use this trick (e.g., Marv's movie camera examples) ;-) hassy lunar
> cameras, aerial cameras, and on and on. I am beginning to be surprised
> that more cameras didn't use them, rather than going the vacuum method ;-)
The reseau plate on Hasselblad lunar cameras (and photogrammetric cameras)
is not meant to keep the film flat, but to provide reference points (the
crosses) on the film, enabling precise measurements. Film's dimensional
stability isn't that great, so processing will introduce a distortion large
enough to (severely) limit photogrammetry.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002
Stephe wrote:
> On the ext tube, the russian ones are too long at 20mm and 40mm. If you can
> find a set of the german pentacon six ones, they have a 10mm one in the set
> that is perfect for this use! But these won't work on a k88 B mount lens.
Are you sure 20 mm is too long? What is the maximum built-in extension in
this lens? The best thing to do is get a ring not a lot shorter (if at all)
than the maximum built-in extension of a lens.
I don't know this particular 250 mm lens, but i use a 32 mm extension ring
with a 250 mm lens. It racks out 32 mm on its own, giving a minimum field of
view of about 44 cm square, so a 32 mm ring is ideal. It provides a
"seemless" transition from what the lens can do on its own, down to a
minimum field of view of about 22 cm square. This sometimes still is too
wide for that nice tight facial, so an even longer tube is needed.
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Daniel Taylor [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
I have seven. not because I need them necessarily, but
mostly because Hasselblad USA offered them free as an
incentive to buy another Zeiss lens. one came with my
503CW millenium, three more from promotions, and a
70mm back for infrared. when I bought my 203FE, I
bought two more E-12 backs.
when you have three different Hasselblad bodies,
{503CW, 203FE, Flexbody}, it isn't quite as insane as
it appears. and I make great use of them. several BW
films, Konica 750, 2424 in the 70mm back, various
colour negative films, and the rare slide film.
Daniel Taylor
Lightsmythe Studios
Oregon, USA
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Arlyn DeBruyckere [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
I have 5. 2 A-24, 1 A-12 and 2 12 backs.
2 A-24's for weddings because usually sometime between frame 24 and 48 there is
a chance to reload film without having to make people wait (and a A-12 loaded
just in case there isn't the time). People don't usually like to watch
you load film. One 12 back loaded with high speed (800 ISO) film and the other
as a "backup" or sometimes loaded with B&W (I usually shoot B&W on 35 mm).
For sport "Memory Mates", 2 A-24's for the individuals (vertical composition),
the A-12 for groups (horizontal composition), a 12 for black & white, and a
second 12 to "fill in" when I need to shoot something between groups but
don't want to waste 2/3 or half a roll of 120 film.
Sometimes a 3rd A-24 would be nice to give me extra shots between reloading
(like when I'm doing photos of 85 7th grade football players) but not enough to
give me the itch to buy another.
Barry Schmetter wrote:
> I can't believe I just bought another A-12. I already had three, but
> something came over me and I bought a fourth. I need a reality check
> here. How many magazine do some of you own (and why)?
--
Arlyn DeBruyckere
http://www.nelson-photography.com
mailto:[email protected]
From: Peter Williams [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: jammed again, hassy jamming problems continue, help pls?
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
Grand Master Chuck wrote:
>
> Well, I fixed my previous jam, with the lens attached and stuck on, but
> now it jammed with the lens on, and I tried using a screwdriver to cock
> it again, so I can put a new lens on, but the mirror remains flipped up,
> and it won't let me put the lens on. So what now? This happened
> because I was testing out an extension tube that I had never used before
> and it releases when I took the tube off. I can't wind it, I can't put
> a lens on, I can't get the mirror down, and the normal 'twist the bit
> with a screwdriver' advice isn't working. Can anyone give me any
> advice? Or do I have to resign myself to getting it repaired
> professionally and expensively? Thanks for any help in advance. Please
> e-mail me if you can help.
Ah, the joys of Hassle-blads. ;-)
I don't know how to unjam it, but don't be so frightened about the
possibility of an expensive repair. I know a repair guy, and he says
that most Hassy jams are relatively easy to fix and don't take much
time. So for the most part, he doesn't charge much to get things back up
and running (and he will can do the unjamming on the spot if asked). The
only time it gets ugly is when the jam is a major one that breaks
parts...
Just as a final note, be careful with the screwdriver technique. Do it
the wrong way, and you can throw off the sync timing between the leaf
shutter and the body's shutter. My repair guy told me this is a very
common problem for people who unjam the lens themselves, and don't do it
carefully.
Best regards,
-PBW
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
Two old 12 magazines. They are not as expensive used and I can shoot 220 in
them. BTW, was there ever a dedicated light-plug for shooting 220 in an
M12? I use photo black tape, inside and out but it is a bit a kludge.
D.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Bob Boggio [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
Dick Werner, who once posted to this group regularly, had some. I bought
two from him about two months ago.
Bob B.
Tourtelot wrote:
> BTW, was there ever a dedicated light-plug for shooting 220 in an
> M12? I use photo black tape, inside and out but it is a bit a kludge.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002
From: Bernard Ferster [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
! for slow B+W
1 for fast B+W
1 for slow color neg
1 for slide
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002
From: Joseph Codispoti [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] tubes
I have written briefly on extension tube usage but not on workable distances
for each lens.
Nevertheless there may be enough good information to glean on the subject from
http://www.clearsightusa.com/technotes.html
Joe Codispoti
[Ed. note: now I'm confused ;-)]
From: [email protected] (Milburne Drysdale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
All kidding aside, the "V" notches are not there to be seen by folks
viewing the finished photo because they would normally be edited from
the image when the frame is cropped. Only the diletanttes and studly
students exhibit prints with the "verification" frame not cropped from
view.
The notches (always on the left side of the frame) are placed there
for a very good reason. Since the shooting format is square, the
photographer cannot determine by looking at a film whether the frame
was shot horizontally or vertically. The notches allow him/her/it to
identify the orientation of the camera.
By the way, the shape of those marks has nothing to do with "Victor".
It derived from a phrase which Hassie himself had learned as a young
man whilst studying in Spain. And "Buenos Notches" remained his motto
til the end.
aaaaaahhhh......
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad- an obscure question - those 2 notches on the edge of the frame
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002
"fotografm" [email protected] wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Can anyone shed any light on those 2 triangular notches that appear on the
>left-hand edge of the frame ? I guess they are for alignment purposes -
>i.e. so you know which way around the film was in the camera. More
>importantly, are they standard on ALL backs or only certain ones ? In
>particular, are they present on the A12 back ? I mentioned this to a camera
>dealer who said he had no idea what I was talking about. Hopefully some of
>the newsgroup readers will know what I am referring to and will be able to
>make some comments.
>
>Thanks in advance
>Simon
This has just been discussed in detail in another thread titled "Tell
me about these Hasselblad "V"s. To summarize:
1. The V's are there to make sure you know which way the negative was
oriented in the magazine.
2. The V's are there to let art directors know you've got a 'blad.
3. The V's are there to let potential Bronica purchasers know that
someone with a 'blad shot the Bronica ad.
4. The V's are there so uber-art photogs can print their stuff without
cropping out the V's and thus have everyone know they've got a 'blad.
I recently saw a show where this was done. I took this as an
invitation to talk 'blad with the artist and did so.
5. The V's are there as a challenge to other manufacturers to copy
them.
Did I leave anything out? I stopped reading the thread when it became
a Nikon v. Canon discussion. Hopefully no further reasons for the V's
were tucked in there...
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: 120 in a 220 back
Manu Schnetzler wrote:
>One question: can I use 120 films in a 220 back?
>
>Thanks,
>Manu
Yes, of course. But you have to remember to stop at 12. And because 120 has
a paper backing, the take-up roll will get larger quicker and after frame
8, the pictures will have a larger and larger space between them to the
point where you might only get 11 or 11-1/2 pictures on a 120 roll. I
suggest shooting only 11 frames when using 120 in a 220 back.
Jim
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
Hi all,
I am a bit confused: the Kiev USA price list
http://www.kievusa.com/kievpricelist.html says $325.00 for the 120 or 220
backs. Am I missing something? Where are those $99 prices?
One stupid question: can I use 120 films in a 220 back?
Thanks,
Manu
Mike Kirwan wrote:
>
> Amen to that statement. At $99.00 a pop I would go for a couple, but I
> cannot justify the $250-$300 for a used A12 back.
>
> Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Monaghan [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [HUG] How many film magazines do you have?
>
> 4@12, 1@16, 2 polaroid backs, an obsolete 1600f 12 back (note the 12 and 16
> can use 220 film in a pinch); and a ground glass back (for 500c/ELM/SWC)
>
> I am considering getting some of the new $99 auto 12 hassy compatible
> backs made by kiev after hearing about how very flat they are, but would
> be interested in more user comments pro and con. The few users I have seen
> have all raved about how much better they were than the older Kiev backs,
> which were often problematic. Sam Sherman, who has done a number of film
> flatness studies on various backs, rated the new hassy kiev NT backs very
> highly, which is another factor of interest. At $99 a back, more of us
> might add on some extra backs for odd films and fast shooting situations...
>
> bobm
From Russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Fisheye for Mamiya
Did you folks know that our friends over at Arsenal Zavod in Ukraine
are now making some of their lenses in Mamiya 645 mount? I just got
in the 30mm fisheye. It is Mamiya 645 factory built with full auto
diaphragm and the light metering fork on the aperture ring. I'm
assuming that they will make other lenses in this mount in the future.
Mine came from Mike Fourman.
Bob
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fisheye for Mamiya
Kelvin Lee at [email protected] wrote:
> If they ever do one with shutter for my Bronica GS, that's the day
> I go exclusively Bronica GS.
I doubt you'll see it. They'd have to buy the shutter from Seiko since
it would be impractical to build their own, and the price of the shutter
would make the final lens price too high. They looked into this some
time ago when it was suggested they should make their lenses for Hasselblad
500 series cameras.
Bob
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20x shutter/aperture coupling?
Austin Franklin wrote:
> The 205FCC doesn't couple the shutter/aperture ring, like my 2003 and
> 2000
> do... I am curious if the other 20x models don't couple either? It's
> kind
> of annoying, when in manual mode, not to have them couple!
Austin-
Although the aperture & shutter speed don't couple on the BODY, you can
still use the "C" or "CFx" lenses in the leaf-shutter mode (marked "C"
on the 203 or 205 body). The camera then "emulates" a 500 series camera
and you can use the coupling features of either the C (always coupled,
push tab to uncouple), or the CF, CFe, CFi (always uncoupled, "push"
button to couple) lenses.
This was one of the original reasons I bought several CFe lenses rather
than FE lenses for my 203. I had grown used to the coupling feature on
my older "C" lenses, along with the ease of use of the EV exposure
setting on these lenses (only needed to read one EV number from my old
Gossen light meter, and transfer it over to the coupled ring on the
camera lens).
I do have to admit that as I used the 203 over the past year, I grew to
use the EV/coupling feature less and less. Still, the lens coupling of
the older lenses was a very elegant way to GUARANTEE that you kept the
exposure constant as you changed (for example) depth of field.
-David Gerhardt
([email protected])
From: [email protected] (Wilt W)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Pro Wedding Photographers?
[email protected] writes:
Hasselblads are good because they hold their value and if you buy used, you
maybe able to sell it for close to what you paid for it.
The above statement USED TO BE true, but is an urban legend now. I have proven
on several occasions over the past few years, using 1992 Shutterbugad prices
vs. new copy of Shutterbug ad prices, that a Hassy outfit does *not hold value
as well as Bronica* given a purchase of a body+back+lens+prism combo and
accessories.
--Wilt
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions about medium-format vs. 35mm
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002
Mxsmanic wrote:
> The lens is marked CFE. What does the CFE stand for?
"C" stands for Central shutter. Obviously because it has one ;-)
"F" stands for Focal plane shutter. The leaf shutter can be disabled so the
lens can be used like a shutterless lens when used on a focal plane shutter
body. When the orange button to the left of the shutterspeeds on the
shutterspeed ring is depressed you can set the ring to the also orange "F".
In this setting the leaf shutter is disengaged.
"E" stand for Electronic. It signifies that the lens has the electronic
Databus contacts that transmits aperture data to the metering systems of the
200 series cameras.
> Has anyone noticed that Hasselblads smell different from German and
> Japanese cameras? Yes, I'm serious! This Hasselblad has a mechanical
> odor like any camera, but it is different from any other camera I've
> had. Maybe it is plasticizers in the coating on the camera--I assume
> the faux leather is some sort of plastic, right?
Vinyl, yes.
In the past Hasselblad cut this cladding to size and glued them on when the
vinyl was still fresh. It shrunk quite a bit though, quite visible on many
old Hasselblads. Now the vinyl is allowed to "pre-shrink" before it is put
on.
I haven't noticed a different smell myself, but it is most likely coming
from the lubricants. There are many different lubricants in use in
fine-mechanical industry, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that no two
manufacturers use the same.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions about medium-format vs. 35mm
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002
Mxsmanic wrote:
> I'd like to know how Zeiss and Leica dream up these lens names. Sonnar
> sounds like _Das Boot_ and Plannar (or whatever it's called) sounds like
> a geometry class. The others are even worse.
Ah... The big "Ar" mystery. Why do so many lens names end in "ar" (or "or")?
There is an answer to almost any question, so here goes...
Distagon retrofocus wide angle lenses are named after being retrofocus wide
angle lenses ;-)
The "dista" part is there because of the greater *dist*ance between lens and
film made possible by employing the retrofocus design invented by Angenieux,
while the "gon" part emphasizes the wide angle, derived from Greek "goonia"
meaning angle.
Biogon is similar as far as the "gon" part is concerned. These lenses have
such an large angle of view that they seem to encompass most of our world in
one single view. Hence the "Bio", part. (Don't shoot me! It is the official
Zeiss explanation... ;-))
Planar does indeed sound like something geometrical, and that is because it
is meant to sound like something geometrical. It is named after the
excellent flatness of field associated with this type of design. It is
"plane".
Sonnar is named after the sun (Sonne auf Deutsch), because the designed
allowed greater maximum apertures. In 1930 Zeiss' Ludwig Bertele came up
with the Sonnar design and the lens he then built had a miximum aperture of
f/1.5. It was at the time the fastest lens available in 35 mm photography.
Tessar is named after the number of elements in the original Tessar design:
4. "Tessares" is Greek for "four".
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Polaroid 88?
Ryan Allan Photography wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a Hasselblad 88 Polaroid back?
> If so do any of you have any comments on them?
> Sorry for al the Polaroid questions.
The Hasselblad 88 Polaroid back has a glass plate that protrudes quite a
bit. Enough so to damage focal plane shutters in 200 and 2000 series
cameras. So be warned!
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Unjamming Tool
Someone once taught me a trick...fat lenses (50 TC etc) tend to fall forward
as they are mounted dismounted making sure they are at a 90 degree angle has
helped a great deal in reducing jams
Mark
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
From: "Dr. Rob" [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Waist Level Finder
Dear Mike,
Why don't you call the Hasselblad parts department at (973)
227-7681 and ask them.
You can purchase the parts for the same price as your repair shop
does.
Dr. Rob
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 150mm Shade on an 80mm??
Dirk,
I have used my 250-shade on my 80 mm for years. Haven't noticed any
light fall-off.
Tom of Oslo
From: "Stefan Geysen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Zeiss Planar 80mm: conflicting opinions
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002
I get the impression there's this strange attitude towards the well known
Zeiss Planar 80mm. When it's mounted in a Rollei TLR, people can't find
enough words to praise it, but when it's discussed in a Hasselblad context,
it doesn't seem so well regarded anymore, with comments like "not that
special for a Hasselblad lens", "the Planar 100mm is much better", or "I'd
much rather have the 60mm and the 100mm instead". Maybe it's because the
other 80mm choices in the Rollei TLR line are the more humble Xenar and
Tessar, while the Hasselblad line offers more recent and better-performing
alternatives?
Now, I've only used the Hasselblad Planar CF 80, but found absolutely
nothing wrong with it, a wee bit soft wide open perhaps, but I've seen more
than enough outstanding results to say it's a second-rate lens. Any opinions
on this?
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] new Hasselblad Webside
Hasselblad has set up a new Webside at http://www.hasselblad.se/.
I noticed that they do not list the 202 FA any more. No reason to cry IMHO.
Ulrik
[Ed. note: need a really, really low cost strap?...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev-60 Strap
Paul Shinkawa wrote:
>Did the OP/TEC strap have the proper lug attachments?
Yes, Paul, and that is the entire point I was making. The lugs on the
Kiev's and Hasselblad are identical.
Marc
[email protected]
From: "Graphic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 2X Rokunar Hasselblad Converter
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002
I've heard that the Kenko suffered from weak/brittle mount screws that
could/would shear off simultaneously allowing your longer lense to become
part of an impromptu gravity experiment.
...
>
> I borrowed a Kenko (at least i think it was) once a long time ago. Results
> in conjunction with the 80 mm were o.k. in the center of the image, but
> getting rather poor near the edges, with some dreadfull distortion. Things
> were slightly better when used with a 250 mm lens.
> But different converters differ a lot in performance. Perhaps the Rokunar is
> better?
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1487
[email protected] wrote:
> I was told that with the original Acutmatte screens the meter prism had to be
> recalibrated, but that the "D" version solved that problem, whatever the
> problem was.
Since the Acute Matte screens are considerably brighter than the old style
focussing screens, meter prisms had to be calibrated for use with the new
screen, yes. But that is not a "problem" that needed solving.
The original Acute Matte screens are an improvement over the old screens,
but focussing using an Acute Matte can be more difficult. The optical make
up of the screen (it isn't a matte screen, i.e. an etched glass surface,
that scatters light in all directions, but instead has myriads of tiny
"optical elements" on the bottom surface, giving direction to the scatter)
makes it difficult to see the difference between focus and almost in focus
parts. Apparently, the eye can accomodate and look "through" the screen,
somewhat akin to what happens when you take away the "matte" part of the
screen entirely (viz. the plain glass screen). In other words: sharpness
wasn't as Acute as the name suggests. Though i would not want to change back
to the original screens, i sometimes do find it annoyingly difficult to
focus using the Acute Matte screens. The Acute Matte D type should solve
this (i haven't tried them), giving more contrast between in focus and out
of focus areas.
The D type is as bright as the original Acute Matte, so no change to
metering prisms is needed.
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Tim Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] pme finder information
Jeffrey Frankel at [email protected] wrote:
> Does anyone know of a site where I can review the diffenent versions of PME
> finders to see how they compare? It is very confusing when looking at the
> used market to determine which one I could use.
> There seems to be a wide variation in value. This would imply a wide
> variation in features, performance or desireability
>
> thanks,
>
> jeff
Jeff,
The PME finders vary as follows: the original was designed for use with the
pre-acute matte screens. If used on a body with the brighter screen the
exposure should be increased by one stop (from the instructions for my
501CM). This applies to all screen types. If you use a converter Hassy
recommend making test exposures first.
The PME-3, 5 and 51 models are calibrated for acute matte screens. All have
improved electronics. The PME-5 and 51 also feature cut outs to accommodate
the data displays of the focal-plane shutter cameras.
All these earlier models feature centre-weighted metering only. The current
models (PME-45 and 90) also have spot and incident metering capability. The
PME-90 can not be used in conjunction with the Polaroid back.
Hope this helps a bit,
Tim
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Tim Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] pme finder information
Jeffrey Frankel at [email protected] wrote:
Jeff,
You've asked more than my rudimentary knowledge will likely allow (I only
bought my first Hassy last November), but here goes!
> What is the difference between the 3, 5 and 51? Is one more desireable
> than the others?
The 3 was introduced in 1989, the 5 in 1991 and the 51 in 1994. The main
difference between 3 and 5 has already been covered in my previous. The 51
has improved electronics over the 5.
> Do any of the finders use batteries that are no longer available?
I have a 51, which takes a 6v PX28 (or 4SR44 or similar) silver cell. I
found this to be easily available here in the UK when I checked, so it
should be OK in the US. If not you could probably source from over here via
a list member!
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 205FCC/203FE & Metering
Daniel,
The real wonders about the Hasselblad system is that it is 'light and
compact'. Much more so than my EOS3 (spot, multispot, average,
'program' etc.) I do have a prism finder with light meter (old, murky,
heavy and bulky, and laughable inaccurate if not finely tuned every
season, individually for all my lenses). So I just carry around my
500C/M with a hand held light meter in my pocket (also some old and
unreliable sh*t).
I am fairly comfortable with the zone system, but is still sceptical to
the 205TCC (or the 205TCC which I have on my hand now) for my kind of
shooting. Particularly if it comes to an additional price. I simply
can't afford it.
My impression (surely, I don't know what is said and done at product
development meetings at Hasselblad) from 'influences' comes from two
visits I have made to the Hasselblad factory. The latest at the automn
of 1999 (or was it 2000? Anyway, paralell to the packaging exhibition,
the 'Scanpac' in Gothernburg, some 3 1/2 hours drive from where I live)
when also G�ran Berhoff (vice president) attended and held a
presentation. He said that USA was their 'most important market'
besides Japan and that he had spent some 30% of his time there -
'listening to customers' etc. In today's light, some other things might
have been on the wallpaper too. Foveon, for one, but I see no reason to
not believe him. He was himself 'deeply engaged' in 'strategy & product
development',- in his own words.
Let me mention this: He made a lasting impression, this G�ran Berhoff.
Very preoccupied with 'keeping cost down 'so that our products is
available to those who need it, to a price they can afford'. His own
words as I can remember them. And look up the details of the Hasselblad
system; some 'Swedish parts' set together with some 'German parts'= Carl
Zeiss. It surely isn't the Swedes driving up the costs. The classical
Biogon 38mm can be bought together with several camera systems. Alpa,
for one, but then to a 20% higher price. Many of the small details is
'dirt cheap' taken that they are 'almost hand made'. Like the
tripod-head bracket. A smart and competetive priced detail, often
overlooked.
Whenever you are in Europe, go to Gothenburg and go on a Hasselblad
factory 'tour' (send them an e-mail first). It is quite an experience.
My group consisted of several people who had been to both Canon and
Nikon's plants in Japan. 'Over there they were more preoccupied with
how their share prices were doing on NYSE', as one said. Hasselblad is
a small, but customer dedicated operation owned by the managment. Only
a few hundred employees at an old town house in sentral Gothernburg.
The production line (if it can be called that) was a silent and rather
slow one. Like a Swiss clock maker. Or the Morgan factory at Mavlern
Link. The limitation is, after the old Victor Hasselblad AB was robbed
for assets and liquidities by greenmailers back in the late 80', -
economical resources to make dashing and back-breaking chances on
product development. Like Kyocera obviously does, introducing a new AF
SLR, a 4,5x6 and a 6 million pixled digital SLR, all within 18 months; -
an enormous chance on the investors hands. - An introduction at which,
Carl Zeiss, mind you, will come out winners regardless. So sit tight in
the saddle folks, you are riding the right horse!
Tom of Oslo
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Some more Zone/203/205 stuff... plus a lesson.
Austin Franklin wrote:
>Agreed, but how do you "zone meter" with the wide area meter of the 203?
>Walk right up to each area of the image you want to take readings? At least
>for my work, I really want to get a specific reading from a specific "spot"
>and the wider meter of the 203 didn't seem like it would do what I wanted.
>Sometimes, I just can't walk up to the "spot" I want to meter!
>
>Austin
Since the B&W films that I use are only 120 and not 220, this means twelve
photographs on a roll. If one is actually using the Zone system for some
photographs, this means that the whole roll must be exposed in the same
mode. N, N+, or N-. You cannot mix and match N's on the same roll. And
twelve exposures are precious little when expending the effort to capture a
masterpiece. :) Hence... most of the roll, if not all, will be expended on
one scene, or slight variations of that scene, including bracketing. It's
amazing how fast the end of a twelve exposure roll appears.
And even though I think that the 203FE meter is a masterpiece, I am
reluctant to move my tripod mounted camera in order to figure out things
like dynamic range, where to place zone V, etc. Under these, and usually
only these, circumstances, I find that my Pentax Digital Spot meter, with
Zone VI updates, is the best way to go. With this meter, you can make short
work of dynamic range, zone placement, and N(+/-) determination. It is
almost a no brainer.
Since this is so simple in practice, that when I borrowed the 205FCC and
tried to figure out just what Hasselblad did in the "Z" mode and the ECC
N-dial backs, I quickly gave up and uttered "it took a Swedish committee to
turn something as simple as the Zone system into a complicated
un-understandable methodology." But then I sat back and studied it and it
became clear that they designed the "Z" mode and ECC N-dial backs to allow
the un-Zone-educated folks to practice the Zone system without knowing what
the Zone system actually is.
Big mistake as far as I am concerned. For those folks that are interested
enough in photography to want to take Zone based photographs, one would
believe that they would also like to know what it is that they are trying
to do. And if they can understand how to use the "Z" mode and ECC N-dial
backs, the sure as hell can understand the "real" Zone system and do it
correctly.
Which is where the Pentax Digital Spot meter with Zone VI internal mods and
a Zone strip glued on the dial comes in. This meter makes the Zone system
and N(+/-) development easier than just pointing and shooting. Well,
almost... :)
Now... if Hasselblad had designed a 1� spot meter to be at the end of a
cord, a cord which plugged into the side of the camera, so you could look
through the meter end (use it like a real spot meter) and take highlight,
shadow, and Zone V placement readings, via a trigger on the meter end, all
without disturbing the camera, and have the 203 meter "in" the camera, this
would be a WOW system. So this would be an integration of a 203 & 205. A
203 with the option of buying the Zone spot meter attachment, turning it
into a refined 205. And forget the ECC N-dial on the back as it basically
does nothing but bias the ISO dial. I have never found a reason for the
camera to automatically change the ISO setting out from under me. They
stopped making the 24ECC backs. If someone really wanted one, they probably
still have a batch, in Sweden, from the original manufacturing run.
The preceding is simply my humble opinion (MHO.)
Now the lesson. You know about EV values. All of your C, CF, CFi, & CFE
lenses have an EV scale. Hasselblad meters read in EV values. If you set
the EV pointer to EV 10, your lens will say 1/30 @ f/5.6 . This is a
truism. The light value that is passed at 1/30 @ f/5.6 (1/15 @ f/8, 1/60 @
f/4, etc.) is EV 10. There is no ISO component to EV.
Now look at a Pentax Digital Spot meter and you will see an EV scale. Don't
be fooled... this is NOT an EV scale. It is simply the number you transfer
to the dial from the internal digital reading. And it will match your
Hasselblad EV scale ONLY when the meter is set for ISO 100. It is not
meant, in any way, to be used as, what we all know as, EV. The Pentax EV
scale should have been called LV for Light Value. Many people have been
fooled by this poor use of terms. Completely erratic exposures will r
if one used the Pentax meter EV as you camera EV.
Jim
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1509
[email protected] writes:
Just a reminder that the ClearSight Hasselblad Foot modification is =
available until Feb 28 for the introductory price of $39.95.
I am not trying to be impertinent, but did I miss something? The plate on
the bottom of my 500CM is the same as the one on the bottom of a RB67, and it
fits right into a proprietary mount (that attaches to my tripod) that I
bought from KEH. I also bought mounting adapter plates to put on my Rapid
Omega, Crown Graphic and several 35mm cameras. I read the ClearSight web
page, and there must be something I don't understand. What is ClearSight
doing for us? Thanks in advance. Sorry if I am having a senior moment!
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002
From: Charter Mail [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1509
Dave,
Camera base plates and Arca-type tripod mounts are not compatible.
In order to use a Hasselblad, Mamiya etc on a tripod/monopod equipped with a
quick clamp of Arca, Kirk, RRS, or ClearSight manufacture, an adapter plate
is required.
The Clearsight CS-H1 plate replaces the Hasselblad base plate so that no
intermediate adapter is required for mounting the camera onto the above
tripods/monopods quick clamps.
Since most photographer use non-proprietary tripods whose quick clamps have
wider jaws (1.5") than the Hasselblad base, the CS-H1 modifies the camera to
fit the tripod directly (no need for adapters).
The sequence of photos at http://www.clearsightusa.com/hassyfootcs.html
demonstrate the modification and benefits.
If you use a tripod or clamp made by Hasselblad then you don't need the
ClearSight item.
Cheers,
Joe
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002
From: fritz olenberger [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] vhpictures
Look on the inside of the rear of the lens. In small characters in red
paint you will see something like "K59A" for example. Swap the numbers (in
this example you would get 95) and that is the year your lens was
manufactured. On some lenses you have to rack out the lens to closest focus
to see the numbers. vhpictures is for camera bodies.
-Fritz
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Polaroid film loading
Lay the film in, close the door. Pull out the first paper tab to place the
first film in position. A new paper tab will appear. Expose the film. Then
pull out the paper tab, the film appears in the slot and a new paper tab
appears above it - where you pulled the paper tab in the first place. Pull
the film through the slot to process it. Repeat.
Jim
ian.barnes wrote:
>Just a quick and easy one.
>I was loading my polaroid hassy back for the first time and wondered where
>the big and small tabs should be laying.
>
>Does the big tab just have the door closed on it and pull or does it have to
>be threaded through the plastic slot?
>Ian
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Black 150 c t* question
i think the black T*'s are from about 1970-1980.
i believe that other than the multicoated optics, the T*s are
the same as the older lenses. most specifically, they all
use the compur shutter (the CF replaced this with the prontor shutter).
hasselblad did mention in a newsletter last year that certain parts in the
C line might become scarce. i have a 50C and 80C and i'm not too
concerned about this yet.
the advantage of C's are :
1) generally smaller and take smaller filters
(the 40C is the exception)
2) have moving depth of field markers (i like this)
3) self timer (sometimes handy)
4) flashbulb setting
the advantage of CF's:
1) depth of field easier to check (no need to rack to max aperture)
2) larger, rubberized focusing rings
3) decoupled EV (aperture and shutter rings not locked)
4) newer, and according to hassy more reliable prontor shutter.
-rei
> From: Eric Maquiling [email protected]
>
> Hello,
> I'd like to get one of these 150's and concerned about the age. Are the black
> 150 C T* f/4 fairly old? Not as old as the chrome ones I'm guessing. Also, I
> hear parts for the chrome lenses are getting harder to get so how about these
> black ones? Any big difference between the 150 C's and the 150 CF's?
> TIA!
> Eric
--
Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Black 150 c t* question
Eric Maquiling wrote:
> I'd like to get one of these 150's and concerned about the age. Are the black
> 150 C T* f/4 fairly old?
Yes. They come in black since about 1973. The early black ones have single
layer coating. They were replaced by the CF version in 1982. So a black C
150 mm lens is at least 20 years old, at most 29.
> Not as old as the chrome ones I'm guessing.
Right.
> Also, I
> hear parts for the chrome lenses are getting harder to get so how about these
> black ones?
Same thing.
> Any big difference between the 150 C's and the 150 CF's?
Optically? None at all (perhaps somewhat better baffling inside the lens
barrel, giving a tint bit better contrast in difficult situations?).
From: [email protected] (Pete Schermerhorn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: 2X Rokunar Hasselblad Converter
>Anyone have any experience with converters on a Hasselblad?
I bought a Komura converter a couple of years ago. It was so-so, and I only
used it for emergencies. I recently bought the older-style Hasselblad Mutar 2X
(based mostly on newsgroup/mailing list recommendations) and I'm elated. I've
used it with all of my lenses to get just the coverage I want, and it's
perfect. I'm in the process of gathering information on how to convert my
Komura into an extension tube.
Pete Schermerhorn
From: [email protected] (grandguru)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Is this the best trade in deal ever?
Date: 25 Apr 2002
In the UK Hasselblad will give you your original purchase price for
your 'C'lens, regardless of condition, when you trade in against a new
lens.
I can't think of any other piece of pro equipment that costs nothing to
use for 20 to 45 years, can you?
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] focal plane vs. 500 series
[email protected] wrote:
> I am considering purchasing a 500 series hasselblad vs. the focal plane F2000
> models and was wondering if you could guide me a bit.
>
> I find the focal plane model attractive in theory due to the fast 110/2 &
> 150/2.8 lenses available & I don't use strobes.
> I'm wondering if I'm better off using a leaf shutter model, since there is
> less camera slap due & shutter vibration.
You can use shutter lenses on a 2000 series Hasselblad too, and only buy
those special ones (like the two you mention above) in shutterless F or FE
version. Best of both worlds! ;-)
That's the way Hasselblad is going too lately: the 80 mm lens, for instance,
is only available with shutter. The shutterless f/4 250 mm lens is on it's
way out, and so is the f/2.8 150 mm you say you want.
> What shutter speeds can you use
> with the 500 series handheld vs. the F series?
No difference.
> I use a rollei tlr & mamiya 7
> & can't get a tight head shot with either. Tried a Pentax 67 & found it too
> heavy & combersome (but have not ruled it out), so I am looking for an
> alternative solution for tighter head shots.
A 250 mm lens with 32 mm extension tube. I love this combo.
The 180 mm lens with 16 mm tube will be good for that too.
> Can the older F2000 FC/M models
> be serviced if they break?
Sone can, some can't. Depends on the problem too.
> Lastly, are the focal plane models much noisier
> than the 500 series?
Yes. A bit.
But i find that not all 500 series cameras are the same in this respect. The
earlier ones are a lot better than the later ones, which produce a sharper,
more metalic clang. Anyway, neither series can be said to be silent.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 Transparencies
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
Joe Schimpanzi wrote:
> There are 120 size slide projectors out there, but they cost quite a bit.
> Rollei and Hasselblad both make 120 projectors, as well as Cabin (Mamiya).
> Robert White lists them, starting at 689 Pounds. You might want to check
> eBay.
Hasselblad doesn't sell projectors any more. They can't: the company that
made these for them went belly up. There's just too litle demand for
projectors of the non-digital kind.
G�tschmann too make very good projectors. They are very expensive though.
But then, so were the Hasselblad projectors.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is so good about leica?
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
Speedy2 wrote:
> [...]
> Hasselblad, their products were made irrespective of cost, and purely for their
> performance which, being German, was for the nearest possible to perfection
> attainable at any given time.
(As has been pointed out, Hasselblad is not German.)
Guess why Victor Hasselblad in 1952 decided not to use Kodak lenses anymore,
but decided to switch to Zeiss?
Indeed. Because they were cheaper! So much for "irrespective of cost".
Sorry!
He just couldn't afford those expensive US $ products anymore, but Germany
at the time was still in economic ruin, so the German Mark and Zeiss lenses
were cheap.
(Quite co�ncidentally, the first cameras ever bearing the Hasselblad name,
the Hasselblad Svenska Express/Hasselblad Svea Express, had a Zeiss
Anastigmat lens. These cameras (initially a copy of a British made camera,
the Murer's Express) were produced by Hugo Svensson & Co., and sold by F.W.
Hasselblad & Co. from 1895 until 1920.)
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Problem with 220 mag w/6008i
> Atthur et al
>
> Why is it that I never hear such febrile maunderings
> about equivalent Hasselblad problems on the H'blad
> Users Group? WHY can't Rollei SLRs be made as
> reliable as Hasselblads?
>
> Jerry
People do have problems with Hasselblad backs. There are two typical
problems. Light seals and overlapping frames. Both are cheap and easy to
fix. They are typically on much older magazines...like 20 or more years
older...that have never been serviced. You can check the Hasselblad mailing
list archives, but over the years a few people have asked about back
problems. I'd say equally as many as I've seen here.
One thing to keep in mind, Hasselblad backs from 1957 work on cameras made
today. A lot of old backs are still in service today.
I have about 10 or so Hasselblad backs that I use, and none of them have
ever given me a problem at all. Only the very early backs for the 1000F and
1600F have required any service...and their 40+ years old, and haven't
probably been used regularly for 20+ years.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Problem with 220 mag w/6008i
> ...but there
> are pleanty
> of Hasselblad failures reported on photo.net and elsewhere; Arthur
I did a search for "hasselblad back" and I only found five reports having to
do with a problem with a back. All five were spacing problems, which is
caused by lack of maintenance, typically. It is a cheap and easy fix...one
drop of oil.
Also, keep in mind, there are a LOT more Hasselblads out there than Rolleis
(in respect to SLRs that is), and they can be a LOT older too.
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on 500 c/m and lens capability
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
> > > Evald Karsten mentions it in his book "Hasselblad" (ISBN 91-85228-59-1).
> > > (Yet he also mentions that "M" stands for "manual", which certainly
> isn't
> > > true when used in camera type designations ;-))
> >
> > Calls into question how accurate ANY of this information is!
>
> True. Even though Evald Karsten was one of those people who should really
> know.
> I just thought i should mention it ;-)
> I will have a rummage, and see if i can find any other mention of
> "C-is-for-Compur".
>
> But as i said before, it could stand for both "C"ompur and "C"entral
> shutter, and it was common to think (;-)) it to mean Compur. There was
> nothing wrong in that, since, as we all know, these lenses did have a
> "C"ompur "C"entral shutter. Usage may be continued, even if it isn't
> strictly accurate anymore.
> (Remember, the number in the type designations stood for the fastest shutter
> speed, yet i have never seen a Hasselblad having 1/2003 sec, 1/503 sec.,
> 1/553 sec., or any approximation of 1/200 sec as (nominal) fastest shutter
> speed. But we can all agree that even today these numbers do still relate0 to
> shutter speeds.)
Yes, certainly today there is a different 'twist' to the body
designations... The lense designations today seem to be reasonably
consistent though... FE, for electronic F series lenses, CFE, ditto for CF
lenses...CFi, I believe "i" is "improved"...
I'm going to take a good look at the SWA designations and see how that
developed. The very first ones were called "Supreme Wide Angle", then they
just changed it to "Super Wide"...note, that ALL the Biogon cameras of that
decade had Compur shutters, but it was only in 1959 that they changed the
designation to "SWC"...but the "C" in "SWC" is said to mean "Camera"...go
figure!
As an aside note, there were 903 Supreme Wide Angle cameras made. That is
speculated to be the source of the current designation for that camera, the
903SWC.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on 500 c/m and lens capability
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
Austin Franklin wrote:
> As an aside note, there were 903 Supreme Wide Angle cameras made. That is
> speculated to be the source of the current designation for that camera, the
> 903SWC.
So "903" is not the angle of view, plus the "3" that was added to all camera
type designations at that time?
Nice if it were true ;-) But that seems highly unlikely to me.
The exact number of SWAs built being 903 is indeed speculative. But even if
it were correct, there is no denying the link of the extra "3" with the
overall change in type designations made in 1989.
[Ed. note: see hassy lenses sold
posting for related figures]
From: Randy [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on 500 c/m and lens capability
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
Well here is a copy of an email that I received from Hasselblad about
this silly bickering about the meaning of "C"
Thank you for your e-mail.
C stands for 'central', as the lenses for the 500 series have central
shutters and M stands for 'modified' as it is an improvement on the
original 501C.
I hope that answers your question. Thank you for your interest in
Hasselblad equipment and please contact us again if you have any
further enquiries.
Regards
David Jeffery
Customer Support
Victor Hasselblad AB, Sweden
Charles Barcellona [email protected] wrote:
>Guys... I happen to still have my course material from 1981, when I
>attended the "Hasselblad University" at that time, presented by Ernst
>Wildi.
>
>In the lens section - it clearly states that the C stands for Compur.
>
>What does this mean? It only means that at one time, Hasselblad
>considered the C to stand for Compur. Since then, Hasselblad has been
>thru some vast changes in corporate mindsets. Maybe now they consider
>it to stand for Central, or whatever.
From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Hasselblad question?
This happens frequently with any Hasselblad lens. On the back of the lens
is a slot with an arrow (usually red and curved) pointing the direction
that the slot should be turned.
Simply take a coin, insert it on the slot, and turn the slot IN THE
DIRECTION OF THE ARROW until it stops. Your lens will now be open and you
can attach it to your camera.
There is a little pin, on the back of the lens near the slot, within a
little shield that, if touched, will trip the lens. This is how the camera
controls the lens. If you hit this pin by just normal handling, the lens
will trip. So always carry a coin when using a Hasselblad.
All of this is covered in the instruction manual that comes with all
Hasselblads.
Jim
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PME51 vs PME45
The differences are 1. The magnification. 3X for the 51, 2.5X for the PME45
so the PME45 is a little easier to use with glasses., 2. Built in diopter
adjustment on the PME45, none on the 51. 3. The 51 has only center weighted
averaging metering, the Pme45 has that plus spot metering and incident
metering. The PME45 is truly an outstanding meter prism! But expensive!
Terry Dent
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: flash tips
you wrote:
>Last weekend I
>tried using my 501CM as a "street camera" for the first time,
>photographing some skateboarders. My flash has the usual
>ISO/distance/aperture chart on the back. When I set the flash for the
>film speed I was using, this chart indicated f8 at 10 feet. I've never
>had an instruction manual for this thing, but I took that to mean that the
>flash would give correct illumination of subjects at 10 feet at that
>aperture and film speed. I shot a sequence of pictures at about 5 feet
>from the subjects, and set the lens at f16. The pictures look uniformly
>underexposed by a stop or so.
I presume you used an auto-type flash like the venerable Vivitar 283 or a
Metz 45CT1 which has auto flash settings but not TTL (since your camera
doesn't have it either). When your flash said 10', it was indicating the
maximum flash-to-subject working distance for that particular auto setting.
As long as you're at or nearer than that, set your aperture to the flash's
suggested aperture. In your case, your flash anticipated f/8, but you
underexposed by two stops when you set f/16.
In my case, I often use a Vivitar 283 with ISO 400 film. The flash has four
color-coded settings. I use the yellow setting, which gives me f/5.6 at up
to 40 feet. If you wish to use your flash as fill, rather than main, try this:
Set your camera for the ambient illumination, whatever it may be and set
your flash output for one stop less. An example -- if your camera's set to
1/125th at f/8, set your flash to produce f/5.6.
If the flash is your primary light source, use the aperture your flash
suggests and remain within the maximum working distance which will vary
from setting to setting.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: flash tips
you wrote:
>The flash is an old Osram C250 Studio with no attachments. The head was
>pointed at the subjects, there being nothing to bounce off of. The
>underexposed film was Tmax 100; I had shot some on Tmax 400 and those all
>are correctly exposed. (To the obvious question: yes, I did remember to
>reset the ASA on the flash when I switched films from 400 to 100.)
>
>The flash has three settings: Auto I, Auto II, and M. I and II seem to be
>two stops apart; i.e. I tells you to use to use f4 where II says f2 for
>the same film speed. On the "M" setting there is no indication of
>aperture, and I suppose here one is invited to use the guide number
>formula. Presumably the guide number is calculable from the I and II
>settings.... or is it?
>I have no flash meter or Polaroid back. I have been tempted to get the
>latter,
For "street" photography a meter will get you closer to good exposures than
a Polaroid back, which is primarily a studio accessory, and one I use AFTER
metering.
Your flash's "M" setting is full manual and will force the flash to fire
100% each time. If you wish to use this setting, you will have to calculate
the exposure via the Guide Number method for each frame, recalculating
every time the distance to the subject varies.
With either "Auto" setting, set the lens' aperture to whatever the flash
suggests and remain at or nearer than the maximum working distance and you
should be well within the ballpark. If you had a exposure meter, you cold
balance the ambient light and the flash quantity for very pleasing results.
They're a bit rudimentary, but a Gossen Scout III meter is under 55.00.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs)
David Gerhardt wrote:
I thought I remembered seeing some references to a Hasselblad 35mm back,
and so I went thru promotional material, and price lists from '69 thru the
present (not ALL material, but a reasonable sampling). What I found was the
following: [snip]
Wildi includes illustrated instructions on how to load the magazine in his
third edition (1986). No further mention was ever made in later editions. He
mentions that you get 21 exposures on a 36-exposures cassette, only 13 on a
20-exposures cassette.
Have you noticed how, though this back is officially called A2035, itself is
marked 21-35?
The mention of 24x35 mm frame size in the 1996 catalogue indeed is a typo.
[Ed. note: if you aren't shooting pro then this may not require annual CLA repairs...]
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: more helpful wisdom
To all those that have not had this happen! Listen up kids!
I had no Idea that there was a piece of film like substance that acts as
the light trap for the darkslide. Well, to make it short, this piece wears
out and if not replaced each year in your back you may discover a dreadful
and catastrophic phenomenon. When pieces of this piece break off they like
to replace the image on your prints with a nice black bar. Luckily, in was
in the bottom corner of four rolls of my film and I knew the people I shot
the wedding for. The moral of the story is: have your backs serviced every
year and make sure they replace this piece or deppression my find your door!
lucky 13,
Brian
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: more helpful wisdom
First, I believe it would be based upon how many time you remove and
replace the darkslide. Twenty times a day vs twenty times a month. Big
difference.
Second, I believe it depends upon whether you "jam" the darkslide in, or if
you carefully align it and gently push it in.
Third, it depends upon if you have ever used a bent darkslide.
All of these things can make a huge difference in the life expectancy of
your film backs.
Over the years I've used two different 500c systems, a 503CW, and a 203FE.
Dozens of backs. I've never had a system lockup or a back go bad. Back in
the 500c days I was a commercial photographer here in Silicon Valley. I
only had 120 backs. It seemed like all I did was change film and move the
darkslide in and out. Never a back problem. I did have a bad circuit board
and a bad film wind stop in my 203FE body. But that's it for Hasselblad
problems.
Hasselblads are robust, but one has to be somewhat intelligent about the
way one uses intricate equipment. If I ever do have a back problem, I have
Dick's back book and will fix it myself.
One thing many people don't think about. Older backs don't have darkslide
storage so the slide is stuck in a pocket. It can easily get bent if placed
in a pants pocket. Never ever put a bent darkslide into a back. This can
wipe out the light seal in one fell swoop. If you have a habit of bending
darkslides, buy several new slides and keep them in you camera bag as
spares. Better yet, get the Lindahl darkslide keeper and stick it on your
older backs.
http://www.lslindahl.com/accessories.htm
Jim
From Leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Hasselblad question?
You should also buy the Hasselblad camera key tool. One end fits the lens
slot and the other end fits the camera body cocking mechanism, which is
under the mirror from the back of the camera. If your body gets tripped in
a funny way, you won't be able to mount or dismount a lens. Some people use
a screwdriver but this is v-e-r-y dangerous as a screwdriver can slip off
of the slot and gouge the back of your lens or the inside of the camera.
This tool slips over the slot, cannot slip off, and you can cock the camera
very easily. It's about six inches long and smaller around than a pencil.
Chances are you won't ever need it, but when and if you do, nothing else
will work properly. I've had to use mine once.
http://www.micro-tools.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=MT&Product_Code=PK-1
The inset on the photo is a picture of what the ends look like.
Jim
From Leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Old Hassy lens
Henry Ting wrote:
>I cannot
>figure why Hasselblad cannot design an internal
>mechanism to change the floating elements based on the
>focusing distance instead of forcing the photographer
>to do it. I don't know about others, I quite often
>shoot with this lens handheld, and more often than
>not, forgot to adjust the floating after focusing.
Henry,
Hasselblad lenses without a shutter (F & FE lenses) do automatically adjust
the elements as you focus. It is the lenses with a shutter that require the
user to make the adjustment. Something about not enough room left over
after the shutter to put in the auto adjustment mechanism.
Jim
from contax mailing list:
From: "Kaisern Chen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Contax] Zeiss 300/2.8 for Hassy
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002
Dear Mehedad,
I paid much less! The lens is brand new, with warranty from the
authorized Hasselblad dealer and I negotiate it for baht 710,000 and the
exchange rate is 43.6 baht to a US the date I purchase.
The lens serial number is 9300078, comes with two certificate, one is
the official relase serial number which says the lens is of a limited
edition of totaling 350 units ( I assumed mine is nr. 78 ) and the
inspection report singed by five positions and the date of inspection is
30.5.2001.
The lens is not particular large, about average for 300mm lens ( as
compare to Leica's 280/2.8, AF-S Nikkor 300/2.8 and weights 3.8 kgs, in
fact it looks similar size than the usual 300/2.8 lens for 135 camera
except slightly fatter body but not by much. The lens comes with a
tele-converter, 1.7X, of identical serial number as well as a PL with a
thumb wheel outside so you can operate when the PL is in the slot.
Brgds/Kaisern
-----Original Message-----
From: Mehrdad Sadat [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: [Contax] Zeiss 300/2.8 for Hassy
Kaisern, how much would this lens cost in far east (where did you get it)
in us B&H is selling it for 20.5 k. I have good hk contacts, i have also
looked at this lens but the size scares me!!
Regards, Mehrdad
From contax mailing list:
From: "Kaisern Chen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Contax] Zeiss 300/2.8 for Hassy
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002
Its finish is excellent, not nearly as large as I thought so it is good as
you won't cause much attention. I am leaving to Shanghai this evening
again so I would have to leave it back home, sorry me. Anyway, I just
realized from the certificate that the lens is limited 350 pcs only, mine
is 9300078, the inspection certificate was dated 30.05.2001, assuming mine
is nr.78, don't know how much was produced after that and don't know if
the production has stopped as reached the 350 mark.
Brgds/Kaisern
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Kiev-60 Strap
Paul Shinkawa wrote:
>
>A 'Blad strap must cost more than the Kiev 60 itself!
Well, the stock Hasselblad strap is junk. I use an OP/TEC strap I bought
about a decade back for $9.99 at my local camera store. Nice and
heavy-duty and quite comfortable.
I don't know the current price on these, but I doubt if it's all that
much.
Marc
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 501CM or 503CW?
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002
Keven Fedirko wrote:
> I understood that before, but my question was on the "price". If the 501
> can use a prism too, then there isn't much (for me) to gain by getting the
> 503 it would seem.
I completely missed the word "price". I apologize.
There is no difference between any of the Hasselblad SLR models as to what
finders they will accept (except that the ones in the 200 series need their
own versions that clear the meter display. New finders all have the
necessary cut-out). So if you don't need any of the extra features of the
503, you would be better of with the 501 CM. Price difference (body only):
the 501 CM is 20% less.
> >The Contax 645 differs on a lot of other points from the Hasselblad too. If
> >you like the various ways it differs, you obviously should buy a Contax.
> >But you can look forward to getting a 120 macro when you decide to go with
> >Hasselblad too. A different one, but a very good one too! ;-)
>
> I'm sure I've read in a few places that for some reason Hassy people were
> disappointed; that the Contax version is somehow better; and/or the Hassy
> was somehow slightly inferior (or slightly outdated) (?!?)
I haven't read that myself. But i don't imagine the people at Hasselblad,
nor at Zeiss, see the two camera systems as direct competitors.
But i think you mean Hassy users? Yes, i for one would like to see if
something of the new Zeiss lens designs done for the Contax somehow would
trickle down into the Zeiss/Hasselblad line, resulting perhaps in even
better Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad than the already more than adequatly
performing current lenses.
Apart from the lenses, i don't see what would be done better in the Contax
645. Unless, of course, you like/want/need autofocus.
> I'm not as concerned (most of the time with getting the most scene in) as I
> am with getting a different ratio - I'd really like 3:1, but 2:1 is pretty
> decent. I'd like to do more "macro" panoramics - which is something most
> of the panoramic cameras don't provide - unless you go to a bellows-type,
> but then setup becomes a huge chore -- ah you can't have everything I
> guess!
Well... if you don't mind cropping... Some would consider that a waste of
film. I don't.
Take a 6x6 or 6x4.5 format camera and crop to any aspect ratio you like.
That way you're not spending a lot of money on specialized camera equipment
than can only do panoramic ratios, and more often than not lacks the full
system to do anything else. Take as an for instance the XPan. Yes it does
panoramic format well. But what else? Macro? As you point out: not a chance!
> I don't know, perhaps I really should look into the Silvestri some more {ha!}
And than have a good, long and hard think about what it is they are really
offering ;-)
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: FW: [HUG] Extension tube(s) for 120 MP to get 1:1?
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:
> Simon Lamb wrote:
>
>> What extension tube(s) do I need to turn the 120 MP into a 1:1
> reproduction
>> ratio?
>
> You'll need about 91 mm of extra extension. So using the bellows would be
> best.
I just thought I'd pass on some info that may be of use to those who are
curious about the extensions (etc ) for close-up photography.
Several weeks ago, I ordered a number of back issues of "Forum"
(Hasselblad's magazine). Included with the issues was a sheet of paper for
additional Hasselblad information. I dutifully checked off (almost) every
box, and amongst the booklets that came back were:
- The current Hasselblad catalog
- "Eye on Nature", nice little book/advertisement on outdoor photography by
Judy Holmes
- Brochures on the 905swc & flexbody
- Brochure on Zeiss Telephoto Power Pack (interesting discussion of the lens
& it's manufacture)
- "Eye on Close-ups", also by Judy Holmes which INCLUDES A SERIES OF
TABLES/FIGURES ON BELLOWS EXTENSION/REPRODUCTION RATIOS/EV COMPENSATION, AND
CLOSEUP NOMOGRAMS FOR EACH OF THE (more common) HASSELBLAD LENSES
The nomograms in the last booklet give all sorts of useful information on
combinations of close-up lenses & extension tubes for each of the common
Hasselblad "prime" lenses...
And it was all free (including shipping, as I recall).
--
David Gerhardt
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Buyer's frustration
David Gerhardt wrote:
> How about 0.5 stops at 1/500 (see thread from Dick Werner post, below)?
> Still OK? Do you need precise exposure placement for narrow latitude slide
> films? The 203FE has shutter speeds adjusted in increments of 1/12 EV-steps
> (in certain operating modes) from 1/2000 sec to 16 seconds; and 1/4 EV-steps
> from 16+ seconds to 90 seconds (although in Auto the viewfinder only
> DISPLAYS the 1/2 EV-steps).
I do wonder though if the 200 series shutters can actually perform with that
precision at high speeds too.
It's all nice and well to let the electronics decide to step things in 1/12
EV steps, but the mechanical shutter must play ball too.
I know that the shutter in my 2000 FCW isn't accurate at 1/2000. I guess (i
have never actually tried to measure this) it is a good half stop slow. And
it too is electronically timed. The fact that the 201 F and 202 FA had a
shortest shutterspeed of only 1/1000 makes one wonder too.
So how about it? Has anyone here using the 203 or 205 cameras noticed
anything that might indicate that they too have problems with 1/2000? (I'm
still waiting for that rather nice reduction in 203 price to reach Europe.
Things however tell me it won't 8(
Ah well, i will have saved enough to get that nice 204 when it hits the
streets ;-)))
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Leaf shutter accuracy
> What is the accuracy of the leaf shutters in a Hasselblad lens, such as the
> 80mm CFe? Particularly at the 1/500sec end.
>
> Simon
Your leaf shutters will typically run between 1/375 and 1/425 when set
at 1/500. If you fine tune them higher, you will start to break blades
in a short while.
Dick Werner
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy 501c
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002
PJM
> I have the opportunity to purchase a 501c Hasselblad. My question is what is
> the difference between the 501c and the 501cm, which is the latest all
> manual camera in that series. I currently use a 503cw for my wedding work.
> How does the 501c differ from the 503cw aside from the TTL feature. The
> 501c will cost me around $500.00.
> Any input is greatly appreciated.
The 501 C has the old, vignetting mirror. The 501 CM has the same GMS mirror
as is in your 503 CW.
Apart from that there is no difference between the 501 C and 501 CM.
The difference between the 501 C and 503 CW, apart from TTL-flash, is the
mirror, and that you can't use the winder with the 501 C.
The user interchangeable screen thing Victor mentioned does not apply. It
was what made the major difference between the original 500 C and EL series
produced up to 1970/1971 and the 500 C/M and EL/M models made after that.
It's ancient history.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Buyer's frustration, now leaf transmitter
Austin Franklin wrote:
> Thanks for the info! Any idea when the Hasselblad unit was out?
1986.
Was it a joint venture?
In a brochure (I think it is the one called "Great news for Good
Photography". Interestingly the title of the Dutch language version of this
brochure translates to "Nothing New for Perfect Photography" ) of that time
there was mention of "engineers working on the development and production of
the Dixel 2000, Hasselblad's digital image transmitter, at Hasselblad
Digital Imaging AB, daughter company of Hasselblad" (my verbatim
translation). It further goes on to say how their technical expertise and
long time experience building cameras provided the basis for Hasselblad to
develop simple, reliable and easy to use image digitizers.
Is this all just 'marketing' talk, making them look 'better' than they are,
or is there anything in it?
By the way, and returning to the issue about the amount of R&D done at
Hasselblad: the same brochure mentions that (at that time) one in ten
Hasselblad employees was doing R&D.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Buyer's frustration
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Nothing, but I think it's safe to say that Hasselblad has nowhere near the
> resources for R&D that a Canon or Nikon has.
>
> > You could be very wrong there.
>
> I hope I am, but I fear that I am not.
For the relatively small firm Hasselblad is, i do believe they have invented
lots in research, both done by Hasselblad and by other firms.
Too much it seems, according to an article in Dagens Industri of January
this year. They increased their R&D budget by 50% in 2000, and there was
mention of several R&D projects in progress, in particular digital. With
falling sales, they are hoping to find someone to invest in R&D with them.
The same falling markets prevented refloating the company on the stock
exchange to find the money needed.
A lot of this R&D has been rather low profile and has not resulted in sales
worth mentioning. Hasselblad was one of the first to have a digital back for
use on its cameras; they were among the first to have a 35 mm scanner cum
image wire photo transmitter, plus the things needed on the other end of
that wire: ImageBasket, ImageTuner, ImageServer systems; and they invested
in Carver Meade's Foveon. And those are the (failed?) projects they have let
us know about, yet
Still small fish compared to a giant like Nikon. Yes. But we're talking MF
here, and that's a completely different world.
By the way: they have done work on electronically controlled leaf shutters
too. So maybe we can expect to see a new generation of Hasselblad cameras
and lenses in which the camera's metering electronics can control the
shutter in leaf shuttered lenses too...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1591
In response to many requests, here is a Hasselblad technical question. Wildi
says that C lenses plus a hood are just as good as CT* lenses. I have a 50
and a 80 CT* and a 150 C. I don't see anything wrong with the photos shot
with the C lens with a hood. What would I gain with a T* lens? I am sure
everyone will have their own opinion, but I would like to know how much
variety there is in peoples' experiences.
Thanks and best regards,
David Hodge in scenic Churchville, MD.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Buyer's frustration
Austin Franklin wrote:
> > ...they were among the first to have a 35 mm scanner cum
> > image wire photo transmitter, plus the things needed on the other end of
> > that wire: ImageBasket, ImageTuner, ImageServer systems;
>
> I thought Leaf had this out long before Hasselblad?
The DB4000 digital back, maybe (not clear what part Hasselblad did play
actively in R&D of the ). But this thing too?
Hasselblad did have a subsidiary company called Hasselblad Electronic
Imaging AB. I don't think all they did was write order slips and send them
off to Scitex. ;-)
There was another Hasselblad company, Hasselblad Engineering AB, doing lots
of things we hear little about too. I believe Hasselblad Engineering AB
incorporated Vimatek AB (an earlier company that was partly owned by Victor
Hasselblad AB, producing fotogrammetric mapping systems) in about 1987-1988.
And as far as i know (could be wrong) both Hasselblad Electronic Imaging AB
and Hasselblad Engineering AB were dissolved as separate companies and their
activities transferred to the Technical Photography Group within Victor
Hasselblad AB in about 1995.
[Ed. note: I learn something new every day - I hope!]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 57 BAY 7 TIFFEN ADAPTER RING SERIES 7 - whats it for please?
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> the bay 7 mount doesn't relate to any mounts I recall offhand; the TLR
> mounts are usually Bay 1, 2, or 3 etc. I assume the adapter is for
> bay 7 to a standard series VII (7) size, either for a series VII (7) hood
> or filter (probably need retaining ring to hold filter in place if not
> part of adapter, standard series VII item...
>
> do you know what cameras used a bay 7 mount (could this be a typo?)...
I think "57 BAY 7" will be Bay 57. This is the same as the old Hasselblad
Bay 50 (which was '50' only in name).
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002
From: Chris LI [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Pola Basic question
According to the instruction that comes with my PolaPlus magazine, the only
difference between the two is that the PolaBasic model requires that the slide
be withdrawn completely to make the exposure.
Regards,
Chris LI
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Pola Basic question
Charles M�gnin wrote:
> Does anyone know what the Pola Basic back is ?
> I don't find a reference for it in Nordin's book.
> How does it differ from the Pola Plus ?
The PolaPlus (cat.no. 30200) differs from the PolaBasic (cat.no. 30205) in
that it has a spring loaded "click stop" rest at the appropriate distance to
keep the darkslide partially inserted, yet far enough out to clear the
film gate, while making exposures. And it has a similar spring loaded "click
stop" for the fully inserted position, making it less easy to accidentally
draw the darkslide a bit when the back is off-camera.
Apart from that, no difference.
The PolaBasic was/is available only in the U.S.A., the PolaPlus exclusively
outside the U.S.A. Why? Legal reasons? I don't know, perhaps someone held an
U.S. patent on this "click stop"preventing Polaroid to use the same in the
U.S.?
[postscript:
While i'm correcting, i might as well add that the darkslides differ too.
The slide for the PolaPlus (cat.no 41126) has to have a notch to make it all
work. The slide for the PolaBasic (cat.no. 41122) obviously doesn't.]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large Format
Rich Lahrson wrote:
> [...] a Hasselblad Acto. Who buys those?
(Almost) nobody. That's why Hasselblad has given up on attempts to sell them
and discontinued the thing.
It wouldn't surprise me if the same would happen soon to the Rollei X-Act.
From Hasselblad Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad FE 60-120
I do custom Cibachrome printing for a client who uses a 60-120 exclusively
for landscape photography. I can verify that it is a very sharp lens as I
make the prints from his transparencies. I've been tempted to get one
myself right now as they are $1000 off.
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002
From: Joseph Codispoti [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Mounting Plates?
David,
you have the Hasselblad tripod adapter, specifically made to mate your
camera to a *conventional* tripod head. There is nothing wrong with that
system and if you are happy with it there is no need to look at the
neighbor's setup.
What "the fuss is about" has to do with people who use the Arca-type ball
head fitted with a Quick Clamp. This clamp is wider than the Hassy bottom
plate therefore if requires an adapter - different from yours and not
provided by Hasselblad.
A whole industry has sprung up to provide a variety of adapter plates to
mate most cameras to the Arca-type clamp.
Being that Leica and Hasselbad users are individuals particular about their
equipment, there is always a debate about who provides the bestest of the
widgets, accessories, toys, or gadgets.
Contrary to some thinking, *no* adapter (aside of the Hassy model) dovetails
onto the foot of the camera. Most good ones , including RRS, Kirk, or
ClearSight have a flange or lip which indexes to the front or side of the
foot to prevent it from twisting. I know of one company whose adapter sports
two flanges to "hug" the camera foot. This may sound like a better idea. In
reality it is an overkill that limits its use to Hasselblad only.
The ClearSight plate was designed specifically for the Hasselblad with the
flange the full length of the side and the mounting hole in the same
position as the original Hassy tripod hole. That same plate (CS-H2) fits
many other cameras just as snuggly and securely.
The leading manufacturer of adapters is RRS (Really Right Stuff) with Kirk
in second place, and the "also ran" following.
I am not familiar with Kirk principals or their products. RRS is being sold,
in fact the sale should be in its final stages by now. I wanted to purchase
it but heard about it too late.
I don't know if the change in management will affect the product but it
should be an improvement in customer relations and service.
Cheers,
Joseph Codispoti
ClearSight USA
P.O. Box 150, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 USA
www.clearsightusa.com
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Shutter release interlock with darkslide - was: RE: [HUG] Plate Front vs Back?
Austin Franklin wrote:
> The interlock is on every model that I know of (and have), from the 1600,
> SWA (the very first version of the wide angle Hasselblad), to the 1000, to
> the 500 and beyond.
Indeed.
The thing that has changed (and which might be the thing Anthony has heard
about) is that with the earlier, pre-'A', backs, this interlock was
disengaged as soon as the darkslide was drawn a tiny bit. Having it work
that way was really defeating the purpose of the interlock, since it was not
uncommon to think you had exposed film, while all you did was project an
image on the still inserted slide.
In later backs the slide has to be drawn halfway to deblock the shutter
release. You will notice a slide when it's sticking out that far.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002
From: Anton Zackaria [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Tele converter 2x
Hello guys,
We all know that Carl Zeiss make the both 1,4 & 2 x tele converter for
Hasselblad. But besides Carl Zeiss, we also have Kenko, Cambron, and others
who make tele converter for Hasselblad. My question is : is there anybody of
you guys who has ever used or tested one of these converters, and how do
their performance ? I happen to borrow one 2x tele converter from my cousin,
and I am quite surprised to find out that the result using Kodak E100S is
pretty stunning !! The sharpness is still there, and no any significant
color shift or nor any loss of quality. This Cambron is HBF 2x auto tele
converter. The optics looks alike with Carl Zeiss's, with brownish,
purplish, reddish coating on both side. Pretty much look like the original
Zeiss's, you can only tell the difference by the brand.
I also have tested one of this converter belong to a friend of mine, it's
not Kenko or Cambron, nor Vivitar (is Vivitar make one for Hassy?), I forgot
the brand. That one also have very good performance , almost flawless.
So if any of you guys have any experience using one of these tele converter,
please post your info for me & others. Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Anton Zackaria
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Tele converter 2x
The current "E" version of the 2x converter is NOT a Zeiss lens. Hasselblad
doesn't say where it is made. Perhaps Keocera (sp) or Fuji ??? I found a
pre E extender (Zeiss) when I wanted one and have not been disappointed.
Jim
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] IKEA should sell Hasselblad and A24 Backs with 120 Film
This is perfectly legal and done often. The thing that happens is that as
you pass frame six, the spacing starts to expand to the point where,
sometimes, frame 12 won't quite make it completely on the film. I suggest
you shoot only 11 frames of a 120 roll in a 24 back. Or test it first to
see what your 24 back(s) does/do. And remember to STOP shooting when frame
11 or 12 has been reached.
That's it. It works. No artifacts.
Just remember that, for the most part, a 24 back is just a 12 back with a
longer counter. You'll hear that the pressure plate spring is different
because 220 film is thinner than 120 film + paper backing. But for real
world use, that's sort of a moot point.
Jim
Mark Kronquist wrote:
>I realize the slight difference in thickness and pressure plate position
>etc...and rest assured I do not intend to do this but should I ever find
>myself in the wilds (which I often do) with a Domke full of 120 film and a
>A24 back on the blad...
>
>Will the Swedish elves attack me if I slip a roll of 120 film under the 220
>clamp and shoot it...
>
>In real world shooting by error or emergency has anyone done this and what
>were the results (good, bad or ugly) thanks Mark
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002
From: Joan Girdler [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Plate Front vs Back?
Plse note that there is a slight curve to the dark slide -curve goes towards
the front of the camera. Instruction book gives this detail.
Joan
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002
From: rboggio5 [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Tele converter 2x
...
I have used a multi-coated Vivitar 2X converter with my 80mm & 250mm C
lenses and seen no noticeable degradation in sharpness. Vivitar doesn't
make them any more but there are still some available used. I paid $100 for
mine.
Bob
From hassselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] 3rd party motor winder
Anton,
this topic has been discussed before. Keep in mind that a used ELM body (I
bought mine for abaut 250 US$ and it only needed a new battery) might be
cheaper than a third party motor drive and that it adds a reliable sturdy
backup body to your inventory.
Ulrik
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Tele converter 2x
I use a Vivitar 2X teleconverter with excellent results.
Unfortunately, Vivitar does not make them any more.
....
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] 3rd party motor winder
...
NPC made a great winder for the 500 C and CM cameras. I have one and it
works great. I noticed one for sale at Citizens Photo in Portland, Oregon
503 232 8501 ask for jim or e mail [email protected] (or perhaps
[email protected])
Mark
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002
From: Bruce Wilson [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Proshade or Lee?
Lawrence,
The primary advantage of a Lee shade over the Proshade is to be able to use
graduated and polarized filters. They require lateral and rotational
adjustments which the Proshade does not offer. In addition, the Lee can be
used on a wide range of lenses and cameras by changing the adapter size.
I have used the Lee for years on 35mm through 4x5 format cameras. Filters
slide into a standard 4" (100mm) slot and can be of any length. The amount
of friction holding the filter can be adjusted by bending the flexible tabs.
Unlike the Proshade, you can customize the Lee to hold multiple filters
which can be moved laterally and rotated independently of each other.
That's important if, for example, you are aligning a grad filter to a
slanted horizon and separately adjusting a polarizer or second grad for just
the right amount of sky or water control. That said, stacking too many
filter holders can cause vignetting in a wide angle lense.
The Lee accordian-folded shade is is manually extended to the desired length
and it stays in position without brackets. It is possible to extend it too
far and create vignetting in a wide angle lense, whereas the Proshade has
preset adjustments for standard Hasseblad focal lengths which can help avoid
those kinds of mistakes.
Good luck!
Bruce
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002
From: Nicholas Albano III [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Tele converter 2x
I use a Kenko HBF and there is no readily apparent loss of quality. I found
it surprising but Mr. Wildi states (paraphrasing to the best of my
recollection) that teleconverters emphasize defects inherent in the lens
and, because the Hassey lens are so good, there is little loss of quality.
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Step up Ring 93 to 95mm, etc.
James H. Holt wrote:
>I have the 60-120 FE lens that uses a 93mm thread for round filters.
>Does anyone know where I might find a step up ring to convert it to a
>more common sized thread for round B+W filters, e.g. 93mm to 95mm?
>
>[email protected]
Hasselblad makes a 93mm to 86mm adapter ring for this lens. You then use
86mm screw-in filters. No, it does not vignette. It is also the adapter for
the Pro shade.
Just curious... How much duty did you have to pay on the lens?
Jim
From contax mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002
To: [email protected]
From: Yoshihiro Sasaki [email protected]
Subject: [Contax] re:Are the Hasselblad Xpan lenses Fuji or Carl Zeiss lenses
Reply-To: [email protected]
Hi,
The lenses for X-Pan are exactly same to Fuji TX-1 lenses. Those are Fuji
designed and Fuji manufactured. It is not related to CZ.
I own X-Pan and I have used TX-1 also. Those are exactly same but the color
and the logo:) X-Pan is an OEM product of Fuji TX-1. This is officially
stated.
It is said that the X-Pan/TX-1 is a cooperation development product but
Hasselblad took a minor role on that.
I have a 45/4 and a 90/4. (Of course, I have CONTAX G lenses also)
IMO, the 45/4 is of typically Fuji's lens character but the 90/4 is
something similar to the German lenses. That is, gentle tonality rather
than hard touch. Bokeh is also good for 90.
Below is a 90/4 picture.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eg3y-ssk/photo/panorama/hatoyama/hato2.htm
X-Pan lenses are very sharp but color saturation of lenses may be lower
than you expected for G lenses. Build quality of those are better than G
lenses except for plastic lens hoods.
I have never used 30/5.6 but it must be of outstanding quality.
If you have an interest in, please visit my X-Pan/TX-1 home pages.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eg3y-ssk/photo/panorama/sakura/sakura1.htm
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eg3y-ssk/photo/panorama/chinatown/index.htm
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eg3y-ssk/photo/panorama/index.htm
Hiro Sasaki
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eg3y-ssk/photo/tstar/eng.htm
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ansel Adams and Lens Quality
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002
"Homer" [email protected] wrote...
> Why do people like this Ron Todd post such unsubstantiated rumors? This
> kind of crap belongs in the National Enquirer unless Todd can substantiate
> his claim of "free lenses". And this guy's a CPA and MBA???????
In his autobiography, Adams writes:
"The Hasselblad has been my camera of choice for the past 20 years. I
thoroughly enjoy it's superlative optical and mechanical precision. I met
Dr. Victor Hasselblad in New York in 1950. On my return to San Francisco, I
found one of his first cameras awaiting me: the 1600F model, with the
request to try it out and send my comments to him in Sweden. I was to keep
the camera with his compliments."
Arrangements like this are common; famous rock guitarists get lots of free
guitars. Having Adams say nice things about Hasselblad makes perfect sense
from an advertising budget standpoint. I'm sure the total cost of the
cameras Hasselblad gave Adams over the years was tiny compared to their
advertising budget in any year in the latter half of that period.
> "Ron Todd" [email protected] wrote in message
> > I thought he had a commercial arrangement with Mr. Hassleblad and got
> > the lenses for free.
Cameras too{g}.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002
FLEXARET2 wrote:
> I have the KIHAS (Kilfitt/Hasselblad) adapter which fits perfectly on all my
> Salyut-C and Kiev 88 cameras and allows me to use my 39MM
> Kilfitt short mount lenses just fine.
Thanks for your info. So it works the other way round. This strengthens my
belief that the threads on the Zodiak were cut too coarse.
> [...]
>
> This is the best bang for the buck. I would not waste the time and money
to try
> and convert this lens to Hassy 200 or 2000 series.
Any particular reason why not? Any problems to be expected?
Or just because of financial considerations? The price i was quoted for
conversion was not very high (equivalent of US$ 110). I don't think it would
suffice to pay for a Kiev or Salyut camera instead (and even if it did, if
the lens works fine on a Hasselblad why add another body (and magazine) to
the already too heavy bag?)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 30MM Zodiak Fisheye on Hasselblad?
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002
FLEXARET2 wrote:
> Interested in using the Zodiak 30MM f3.5 fisheye lens with
> Kiev 88 "B" mount on Hasselblad. To convert it would be an expensive nightmare.
Is this fact, or fiction? ;-)
In total (buying a Zodiak fisheye plus conversion to make it fit Hasselblad)
i would have to pay the sum of (equivalent of) US$ 335. Not too expensive in
my book.
Since i still haven't decided yet whether to return the Zodiak i have, or
have the conversion done, i would love to hear what the nightmare bit is.
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: 30MM Zodiak Fisheye on Hasselblad?
Converting any lens to a camera system it was not designed for
poses many problems, including keeping the diaphragm auto stopdown working, as
sometimes the lens may be a push pin and the camera
a side moving lever. Retaining true infinity focus and the lens
perfectly parallel to the film plane for sharpness in all corners
is another problem.
The 30MM Zodiak is a great lens, used as it is intended. The plain glass filter
is part of the optical design and should not be removed
according to the factory. I have heard of sharpness problems when removing it.
**Ken Ruth redesigned this lens to work on Bronica EC and it was
an expensive complex procedure..
The 30MM lens is so good that it is worth getting a special camera body
just to use it. If you have to use it manual stopdown you might not be pleased
with it. Whoever is doing this conversion might mess it up and it might not
come out right as work like this can prove unpredictable.
The safe, sure bet is to buy the Hartblei body, but the choice is yours.
- Sam Sherman
[Ed. note: ** see next posting...]
[Ed. note: thanks to Kevin for passing on this tip...]
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002
From: Kevin & Shelley Elliott [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bronicas/Kiev Lenses Conversions - Ken Ruth
Hi Bob, long time no talk.
I recently tried to trace down a link from your Bronica home page about
the above conversion. Seems it's a red herring... Is there any way you
can make it clear that Ken isn't doing these conversions - just to stop
others wasting his time... His view, as you can see below is that it
won't work.
tia
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Kiev 30mm/Bronica S2 conversion
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002
From: Ken Ruth [email protected]
To: Kevin & Shelley Elliott [email protected]
Hi Kevin sorry it's an urban myth
I think some one started this as a joke perhaps, I have indeed examined
the lens but there are mechanical conflicts [if you want it to be able to
focus that is].
Best wishes Ken
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 30MM Zodiak Fisheye on Hasselblad?
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002
FLEXARET2 wrote:
> Converting any lens to a camera system it was not designed for
> poses many problems, including keeping the diaphragm auto stopdown working, as
> sometimes the lens may be a push pin and the camera
> a side moving lever.
It will be a non-auto aperture lens. The push pin will be removed.
I don't mind that.
> Retaining true infinity focus and the lens
> perfectly parallel to the film plane for sharpness in all corners
> is another problem.
Yep. The first one is the one i can't get an answer to, will it or will it
not, and if not by how much.
The second one is a matter of good machining. Not too difficult.
> The 30MM Zodiak is a great lens, used as it is intended. The plain glass filter
> is part of the optical design and should not be removed
> according to the factory. I have heard of sharpness problems when removing it.
I have heard about that too. But only from people who say they have heard
that from yet someone else.
It's not that i absolutely don't want to believe it, but i would love to
know for sure, i.e. from first hand experience, before i decide.
> [...]
> The 30MM lens is so good that it is worth getting a special camera body
> just to use it. If you have to use it manual stopdown you might not be pleased
> with it. Whoever is doing this conversion might mess it up and it might not
> come out right as work like this can prove unpredictable.
I'll have Hans Roskam c.q. his repair technician rework the lens. He has
shown himself to be a very lenient and easy going person to deal with. I
have no fears on that account.
> The safe, sure bet is to buy the Hartblei body, but the choice is yours.
I might consider that, but not now, perhaps later. As it is, i have enough
bodies to schlepp around already. ;-)
Thanks for the advice though. I do appreciate it!
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: Hasselblad CB or CFE 80
Q.G. de Bakker wrote regarding 80mm Planars:
"The difference between the two? The CB version is (according to Zeiss) not
quite as good as the C, CF, CFE, F, or FE version."
Douglas, the optical performance differences between the 80 CB and CFE are
going to be next to impossible to judge in real life. Dr. Kornelius J.
Fleischer (of Zeiss) stated in a photo.net post on February 3, 1999:
"When I compared a CB 80 to my CF 80 shooting high resolution Kodak Ektar 25
color negative film and using a very good tripod I could not detect a
difference in the prints 25 inch x 25 inch. This was approximately 10 times
magnification. With the negative under a microscope at 30 x magnification I
found, the CF 80 offered somewhat higher resolution than the CB 80. Expect to
see differences once you enlarge to 4 ft x 4 ft and larger and look at these
prints from with in one foot."
Doug from Tumwater
From: Tim Dawson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 500 C/M Question
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002
John Stafford [email protected] writes:
>What would his pictures look like if he had it on M synch mode all that
>time?
Uh, been there, done that. M Sync, at least on speeds around 1/125 or 1/250
is so far off that none of the flash gets through. As such, the film is
only exposed with ambient light, and unless you are in a cave or some such,
there should still be some image on the film. Oh, and for what it is worth,
this was not my mistake - the lens failed into M internally, even though it
was set for X. Modified for X only now . . . . . one less thing to worry
about!
- Tim
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Choosing Equipment
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Are we talking about Hasselblad's variable tube or a 2nd party one?
Hasselblad.
> I checked in an 85/86 Hasselblad Product catalogue (from the time
> shortly after I bought my 'Blads), and it does not directly state that
> the Variable Extension Tube 64-85mm (51691) is auto, only that it can
> be used with other extension tubes, which is stated specifically ARE
> fully auto, and/or the AUTO bellows. It was my understanding that
> Hasselblad's variable tube was incapable of fully coupling lens and
> camera body , at least, for the one from the mid-80s.
It (they only made the one) is fully automatic. It has to be: it wouldn't
work with a C or CF lens (like the 135 mm it was intended to be used with)
if it wasn't.
In fact, the only non-auto Hasselblad extension tubes ever were the ones
made for the pre-1957 1600 F/1000 F cameras.
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] re: Here a relevant Thread
The "E" backs include interfaces for the electronic Hasselblad models'
circuitry. From the Hasselblad website:
---
E Magazines
The E magazines are for the 202FA, 203FE, and 205FCC cameras and
automatically connect to the camera's exposure metering system. The film
speed is programmed on the magazine. On the back of the magazines there is
a slot for the magazine slide when it is not in use. The E12, E16 and E24
magazines have the same features and mechanical functions as the A12,
A16 and A24 magazines.
---
The A16/E16 backs you 6x4.5cm format horizontally oriented for 16 frame
per roll of 120 film.
Godfrey
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Daniel Lee wrote:
> What's the diff betweeen "A" and "E"? Also why the "16"? I didn't know
> film was made in 16 frame sets. Unless yer "rolling yer own"
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002
From: Jeff Grant [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] APO better in average use? was Re: lenses to lust after test
I have a 250SA and a number of Canon fluorite lenses. I have never seen
a Canon warning about this. As I understand it, one of the reasons they
are 'white' is to stop heat damage to the fluorite element. With the
250SA I take 'normal care' such as not letting it cook in the car in
summer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] APO better in average use? was Re: lenses to lust
after test
I understand that the 250SA and some other Zeiss lenses use fluorite
elements. Does this mean that they are sensitive to temperature changes as
Canon lenses are said to be? I don't like the idea of a $7500 lens cracking
just because I took it from a warm room to a cold exterior or vice versa.
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002
From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: lenses to lust after test Re: [HUG] Pictures with 250/350
I use a 350 SA, and I agree with Cornelius; It is a demanding lens to use. You
have to either have a sturdy tripod or a heavy gyro stabilizer to get top
results. I find the gyro very helpful.
I also use this lens a lot on the flexbody vith very satisfying results. Only
trouble is that you must put the flexbody on the tripod, and not the lens .
I am sorry to not be able to put some pictures from this lens on the net, but I
do not have a scanner, and the quality of the pictures from this lens is best
seen on slides or copies. As Ernst Wildi said to me some months ago;
"I think there is something missing when I look at digital photos."
Best Regards
Ragnar Hansen
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002
From: James Michael Lennon [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad F cameras
In response to my previous question about shift lenses, I was
directed to Zoerk.com, where they sell a Mamiya 50mm shift lens
modified for use on Hasselblad focal plane shutter cameras.
I am more familiar with 500C series cameras and lenses. Is there any
reason to think that HB focal plane shutter bodies and lenses are
less reliable than the HB C versions? Any other drawbacks/advantages?
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kiev NC-2 type prism - diopter corrections ...
Hasselblad NC-2 prisms will not allow the use of Polaroid backs. Hasselblad
made a modified NC-2 called an NC-2 100 (one of which I bought used, labeled
as an NC-2 in the ad, before I found out that there would be any issues
From: Daniel Brittion [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Lourens Smak [email protected] wrote:
>Still haven't heard a single thing that people who use a hasselblad don't like
>about the camera,
Ok, I love my Hasselblads, but things I'd like to see improved.
1. A flash sync terminal on the body. No problem
when I'm shooting in the studio since I use radio slaves. But when
shooting a Wedding, or an event and swapping a lens, I have forgotten
more than once to reconnect the sync cord.
2. A simpler method for double exposures. I don't use it much any
more, but removing the back, cocking the shutter, and replacing the
back to shoot again on the same frame is a bit awkward. On the plus
side, its better than forgetting to return the multi-exposure switch
on some other bodies.
3. I'd prefer the shutter speed knob on the body. Its not a major
issue, but there again something I don't have to remember when I swap
lenses and want to stay at the same shutter speed.
4. I'd like to be able to wind off the film at the end of the roll
with the main cocking crank rather than the small winder on the film
back. Not a major issue, but something I think would be a little
faster.
5. A frame counter on the top of the back, rather than on the side.
Its a little easier to read under pressure than having to turn the
camera sideways. Better yet, a frame counter in the viewfinder.
Does any MF camera have? I think the Pentax 645 does.
Ok, there you go. Happy now ? :)
From: "Stik" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad 150mm vs. 180mm portrait lens comparison
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002
I've read numerous discussions comparing 150mm vs. 180mm
lens for portrait photography via Google, however, I am hoping
that someone may provide additional advice specific to my situation.
I have 4/50mm, 3.5/100mm (32mm extension tube) and looking
to buy either a 4/150mm or 4/180mm (I am just an amateur
photographer looking to buy a portrait lens that I can use for nature
photography as well -- and I am not looking to buy 250mm lens
anytime soon).
Based on comments provided by regular readers of this newsgroup
in the past, following are main strengths and weakness between the
150mm and 180mm.
1. MTF - 180mm slightly better at wide open (maybe not noticeable
to the un-trained eyes).
2. Head and shoulder shot - 150mm requires 8mm or 16mm extension tube.
180mm does not require an extension tube.
3. Small studio - 180mm focal length maybe too long to use in a small room.
4. Used market - Availability of 150mm is more, due to 180mm being a
newer lens.
5. Lens flare - Someone mentioned that 180mm has flare problems, and
another poster mentioned 150mm having flare problems. With proper lens
hood, can I assume that this is a none issue?
6. Ease of use - 150mm lens is smaller, and easier to handle. 180mm is
heavier and more difficult to handle. Has anyone have specific problems
with the weight of 180mm lens on a tripod, e.g. tipping over? Someone
mentioned that 180mm is clunkier (can someone please confirm this?)
7. DOF - I cannot recall reading about "out of focus" (aka bokeh) handling
for these lens. Are they comparable? This is an important factor for me.
Any additional comments (or opinions) are greatly appreciated.
Stik
Subject: Re: Blad Polaroid Backs - What's the Difference ?
From: Bob [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
> They all do the same thing, but the Hassy back costs more to do the same
> thing.
>
> --
>
> "Dave CS" [email protected] wrote
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm a Hassy newbie - I just recently purchased an older 500 C/M and I'd
>> like to get a polaroid back for it.
>>
>> I've started hunting around but I'm encountering a conundrum:
>>
>> What's the difference between the backs ? Some say Polaroid 100, some
>> say NPC, some just merely say Hasselblad..
>> is there any difference to a Polaroid back and if so, what is it/are
>> they ?
>>
>> Any and all help is greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Dave
Since the film plane in a Polaroid back lies at a different point then the
film in a roll film magazine Hasselblad has added a glass plate to their
back which shifts the focus 1/3rd the thickness of the glass plate. This
allows for sharper Polaroids with a larger range of focal lengths. It is
especially important with normal and shorter lenses.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Blad Polaroid Backs - What's the Difference ?
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
Dave CS wrote:
> What's the difference between the backs ? Some say Polaroid 100, some
> say NPC, some just merely say Hasselblad..
> is there any difference to a Polaroid back and if so, what is it/are
> they ?
The earlier Hasselblad Polaroid 80 back takes (obsolete?) type 88 and 89
film, and has a glass focus correction plate that will damage Hasselblad
focalplane shutters.
The Polaroid 100 back, and it's present re�ncarnations, take current film,
and the correction plate does not protrude.
All Polaroid film backs are higher than the camera, so stick out either to
the top, interfering with 90 degrees prism finders, or to the bottom,
interfering with tripod heads, and the motor housing on the EL(..) cameras.
The Hasselblad backs do the first. I don't know a lot about the NPC, but i
do remember having seen one once that protruded below the camera.
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: Polaroid 55 p/n
From: Georg Bauer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Hi!
"Pho-Ku" [email protected] wrote:
> Thanks Georg, actually this is within my budget range i think, just
> wondering what polaroid films does the standard film back for this camera
> take?
You just use the standard packfilm formats. 665 is the P/N film for the
standard back. Another nice film is the 664, a 100 ASA B/W film. And you
can use the Fuji FP100B, of course (that's what I usually use). Image
size is 3 1/4 by 4 1/4 " - actually a bit smaller because of the white
frame around the picture area. For other formats you need an adapter and
corresponding back.
There once was the homepage of Tony Sansone with lot's of information
about this camera, but since home.net went down the drain the pages are
lost. At least I was never able to find them anywhere :-/
bye, Georg
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Rumor - new products this fall
I just heard that a forveon digital back for 'Blad will probably be
introduced this fall. The source of this info implied that an autofocus xpan
will also be shown at the Photokina.
Thought HUG members might enjoy this tidbit.
Art
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] 203fe vs 205tcc - beat to death... ;)
Austin Franklin wrote:
>The built-in zone compensation is for B&W, but a spot meter is, after all,
>merely a spot meter...and works perfectly for either B&W or color.
Well, of course this is true. My Leica R cameras have spot meters and I
occasionally use them hand held. But I use the averaging meter more. 99% of
my and my colleagues photography is on a tripod.
What I was talking about is Hasselblad promoting the camera as a Zone
system B&W camera. All of the special literature takes you painstakingly
through using the camera in the B&W zone system mode. Including the special
ISO compensating backs. Not really special at all. All that second little
dial does, by the way, it simply adjusts up or down, the ISO that is set on
the first little ISO dial. A lot of pomp and circumstance for nothing.
Someone in Hasselblad's marketing arm was a zone system nut (or just a nut)
and was high enough up to create this camera. Not exactly a best seller.
My friends who have the 205 camera all complain about the same thing. To
use the Zone System properly, for fine art photography, a tripod is
involved. This makes spot readings of various areas difficult. They all
carry Pentax Digital spot meters. My daughter out photographs most of them
with her 503CW and Pentax Digital spot meter. The "Z" mode on the 205 does
not create magnificent photographs. Hasselblad tried to take the thinking
out of the Zone system. What they failed to realize is that there really is
not much thinking to start with. It's pretty much a dirt simple concept.
I was given the 205FCC manual by my local Hasselblad rep. He wanted me to
learn how the "Z" mode and special backs work so that I could teach this at
a Hasselblad seminar/workshop.
What they have actually managed to do, is turn a simple concept into a
complex concept. By the time you finish reading the 205FCC manual and
reading the extra literature available (I have this too,) you are
dumbfounded on how they can make something so simple, so complex. The 205
is promoted as being a camera that will "do" the zone system for you. Most
real photographers do this in their sleep so they don't need the "Z" mode
on this camera. A neophyte photographer could possibly have the 205 do the
zone system for them. But Hasselblad does not provide enough information
for this to happen. You actually have to know how the zone system works in
order to use the "Z" mode. If you know how the zone system works, you don't
need the "Z" mode. Oxymoronic if you ask me!
The difference between the 203 and 205 no where approaches the $4400 (USA
MAP) differential in price. The difference between the two cameras is a.) a
different size meter cell aperture (no cost), b.) software (only initial
R&D cost), and c.) the labeling of the mode dial on the left side of the
camera (no cost). Basically, the cameras mechanically and electronically
are identical. It boils down to... the firmware is different. Even if they
lowered the price to match the 203 (and they should) you would not see a
huge surge in 205 sales.
The 205 is a great camera. The 205 is a 203 with a spot meter. A 203 is a
205 with a large averaging spot meter. All of the zone system stuff is
hype. A 500C, 503, 2000, 201, 203, 903, or whatever, can do the exact same
zone system stuff WITH A LOT LESS HASSLE, using simply the camera and a
Pentax Digital spot meter. Or any spot meter you like.
If you really like built-in spot meters and have an extra four grand laying
around, go for the 205. For most people, the built-in semi-spot makes more
sense. I know that 203FE's have been running out the door at my local dealer.
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] 203fe vs 205tcc - beat to death... ;)- Zone system
Stuart Phillips wrote:
>I may be missing the point - but how would the Zone system work unless
>you dedicated one back to N, one to N-1 and one to N+1 development? If
>you are just using one back, then your shots are just getting an average
>development. As far as the Zone system is concerned, that's only half
>the story?
>
>Stuart Phillips
What you said is exactly correct. The "Zone" hype about the 205 is just
that. To do N-1, N, and N+1, you need three backs. And the second
compensating dial on the ECC backs does nothing for you. It simply alters
what you set in the first dial.
If you are shooting ISO 100 film and set the compensating dial to -2, what
you really did is reset the ISO dial to 25 even though it still says 100.
So why go through all of this hand waving and hocus pocus? Why confuse things?
Jim
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: [HUG] Looking for wide angle
[email protected] writes:
I, too saw the scratched up 40mm. Anyone have any idea what Zeiss gets for
a replacement front element?
$525.00 installed
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
To: Hasselblad [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Superwide examples
The superwide is a really great camera. Most of the photos bellow were
taken with a SWC/M in Australia. Only one of them was not (here's a good
test: figure out which one wasn't).
http://www.schnetzler.com/Photography/ click on the Australia image
(field with yellow flowers).
One comment: although I am really pleased with the scans (Epson 2450)
and the prints I got from them (Epson 1280), I am not so happy with the
way the images turned out on the website - gotta work on that.
Comments and suggestions appreciated.
Cheers,
Manu
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002
From: fritz olenberger [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Teleconverter or Extension Tube?
I believe DOF is a function only of the f-stop and the magnification. If
the goal (a head shot) is to fill the frame with a head, the image size to
object size (magnification) will be the same, whether you achieve it by
moving closer (using extension tubes) or using a greater focal length lens.
The perspective will be different, and moving closer (with an extension
tube) will exaggerate the size of the nose.
-Fritz
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Teleconverter or Extension Tube?
Frank Filippone wrote:
>PS: Use the extension tubes for the easiest solution...... a teleconverter
>will limit your DOF even more...as the FL doubles.....
>
>Frank Filippone
Frank, you of all people should know that DOF is dependent ONLY on image
size. If you frame the image EXACTLY the same on your ground glass (film),
the DOF is identical REGARDLESS of the focal length of the lens or if you
used extension tubes or not.
So no matter what you use to crop in closer, if the image size on the GG is
the same across all methods, the DOF will be exactly the same.
Providing that you use the same f/stop in all cases.
:)
Jim
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 2x Zeiss Mutar
Jim,
The Zeiss 2x Mutar is a virtual brickstone; not usable to anything. Add
just two aparture steps to your 5,6 (250 mm) or 8,0 (500 mm) and you
will see that you'll reach some exposure times that is close to
prohibiting for anything that is moving (wildlife, sports) even with
fast films. Hand held shooting? Forget it! You need a heavy tripod
and a dead steady motive (like stuffed birds) to cope with exposure
times of 1/60 and longer, in most cases. Don't expect much sharpness
out of shooting 1/60 exposures with 500 mm and 1000 mm even with a
tripod...
Add then loss of contrast compared to the prime lense in 'clean'
configuration.
I am just home from shooting (photographically, that is) moose and
beavers in V�rmland, Sweden, with my Canon (EOS3) 300 mm/2,8L and Gitzo
(G1349 Mrk 2 - rather marginal with this camera and lense) with both the
EF x2 and x1,4 converters. - Both of which I had to leave out of the
optical formula in the early afternoon in the rather favourable
Scandinavian summer light. The best pictures ('a lot' was just flawed, -
all with 100 ASA film) was taken with the 'clean' 300 mm/2,8L lense and
when the damned animals stood still for the 1/125 of s second it took to
nail them to the film. I 'might' have matched this by using my Zeiss
250 mm/5,6 in clean configuration with a 800 ASA film...
Tom of Oslo
Brick wrote:
>
> Jenny Morgan wrote:
> >I was wondering if anyone has used the Zeiss 2x MUTAR. I am planning on
> >using it on a 500mmC lens and a 150 & 250 C lens.
> >
> >What I want to know before buying it, is whether it will degrade the
> >image as much as those tele converters you find in the 35mm world.
> >
> >-Jenny Morgan
>
> BUY IT!!!
>
> Jim
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Wildlife
Sharookh,
I have come to that shooting wildlife is very much finding the optimal
combination of aparture and focal length. If you have a 500-series
camera then the 250 mm/5,6 gives this optimal combination. This
eaquals, roughly, a 200 mm focal length on a 135-system camera, which is
just excellent for shooting medium sized to large wildlife from a car (=
superb camuflague). My best wildlife pictures has been taken this way,
both with Hasselblad gear and my EOS3-gear. Light conditions (here in
Scandinavia you can only see the large wildlife at dawn or dusk) and
movements of the game decides what film you can use, but bring a lot of
800ASA, just to be sure.
It is extremely difficult to take good pictures of small game, birds
etc. You have to get close which demands advanced camuflage set-ups.
Even with my (Canon EF) 300 mm/2,8L and a x2 converter I regard
distances over 10 meters as 'totally hopeless' for good contrasty
pictures of small birds with my 300 mm with the 2x converter.... - For
this kind of photography, leave the Hasselblad gear out totally. Unless
you have a 200-series camera and a 350 mm with ditto 2x converter at
disposal...
Tom of Oslo
Mehta wrote:
>
> I have recently been contemplating going to one of the wildlife
> sanctuaries here in India. Apart from 35mm, how would you approach
> photographing wildlife with a medium format set-up. Has anyone tried
> this. If not, how would you address this??
>
> Sharookh
From: "Tourtelot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Problems with Hasselblad lens
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002
The PC sync plug on Hasselblad lenses (at least my "C" lenses) is of
slightly different size than those on Japanese cameras. Paramount (and
there may be others) makes a sync cord with the specific plug for Hasselblad
"C" lenses. The local pro dealer should have one.
D.
"Pen" [email protected] wrote
> I've just acquired a lens for a wedding this weekend, however, the flash
> isn't firing off the lens. It fired once or twice on a test film but then
> gave up altogether. The flash and leads work fine with another lens I have
> so its not them. Can anyone suggest anything I might be able to do to get it
> working again?
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 06 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: THE SHOCK OF SEEING THE FIRST HASSELBLAD IN AMERICA
Yes, I will chime in about the great Primarflex - which I both collect and
use and I do have 8 variants of model I and II in total.
There would be no Hasselblad without the Primarflex which inspired it.
Victor Hasseblad owned and used one and was inspired by it, just as Zenaburo
Yoshino owned Primarflex, Hasselblad and other such cameras
which he admitted inspired the first Bronicas.
The style of a boxy small (Graflex-like) SLR for 120 film is no doubt a
landmark design.
All of these cameras from Primarflex I and II, to Hassy 1600/1000, Bronica
Deluxe through S2A and all of the Kiev/Salyut models can still be made to work
perfectly today by fine repairmen like Ken Ruth of
Photography on Bald Mountain.
This is nothing to argue about, if you have one of these cameras and really
like it - have it serviced to work properly and use it, as I do.
- Sam Sherman
From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002
Subject: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Just as no one has improved on the M Leica, no one has improved on the Blad
designs. The original Blad has inspired dozens of designs all based on that 6x6
SLR that was fully modular. But when we look, at them all; the Bronica, the
Rollei 6x6 SLR's and a dozen others, none have been able to outpace the Blad
in quality or performance and very few are the blads equal, even those that
also use Carl Zeiss lenses. Is the world waiting for a new brilliant designer
to move the ball foward, or are we at the end of the line in MF SLR's?
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002
Subject: HELP : CHOOSING LENSES (and MED FORMAT brands too...)
From: andrea [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I have asked two experts today to pick "their selection" among these hassy
lenses: 50FE - 60 - 110 FE (f2) - 120 macro - 250SA - 350 SA
...I had also told them to pick a selection which favors portraits (notably
details of faces, like lips, eyes etc.) and travel photography...
Answers:
- dissenting opinion over the wide angle (one said 60 the other 50)
- dissenting opinion on the middle lens ("the 120 macro reveals too many
details, you should choose the 110, that's what glamour photogs use..." -
"the 110 is not sharp like the 120")
- no specific indication on the 250/350 choice (besides the legendary
quality of the SA, VERY RARE to find in second hand...etc.) : "it's up to
you basically..."
PLEASE HELP
First hand accounts on the first two points 50/60 and 110/120 warmly welcome
SIDE (but important remark for this newsgroup) Remark:
An automatic HBLAD body (200 series) and 2 lenses is expensive stuff: REALLY
better than Mamiya, Bronica, FUJIFILM?
Have you read how many newsgroup megabits discuss the horrific mark up on
the Hassy lenses?
Could you provide some conforting reading on the Hassy vs.Mamyia
/Bronica/Fuji debate?
Many thanks
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: end of the line? Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002
The Hasselblad SLR, like the Rolleiflex Automat TLR before it, are simply
extremely good designs that have stood the test of time in their
respective genres. Even as introduced they are fully actualized, quality
performers which have spawned a thousand similar designs because they are
so good. Certainly not perfect ... nothing is ever perfect ... witness the
many detail improvements along the near 50 year history of either of them
... but also witness that the types dominate in their fields and so much
superb photography has been done with them.
The question is really "What is there to improve upon?" with these
cameras. Many things, most likely, and many others have tried with
variable success. Hasselblad's efforts to improve the breed have been
noteworthy, and most of the improvements add features and convenience to
the fray rather than improve the quality of the photos they produce.
Rollei's SLRs in the SL66 vein took one tack to improve, the SLX and its
descendants move in a different tack, the RB/RZ system from Mamiya, SQ
system from Bronica, etc etc all move along in the direction of
improvements with more features, a different mix of things to put at the
photographer's disposal. The basic idiom really is just extremely good and
very adaptable, even to digital capture, so the notion of improvement
really is one of detail improvement, feature support and continued
adoption of modern technologies in manufacture rather than the revolution
that the original design encompassed.
Godfrey
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Problems with Hasselblad lens
...
> >A typical Hasseblad problem. You'll have to get it repaired.
>
> Not even a decent troll. Step to the back of the line and try again.
You haven't used flash much, did you? I have worn out several
Hasselblads with studio work, including digital work where each shot
requires 3 flashes... God only knows how many times I had to have a
flash-contact repaired. It's actually a very bad basic design. The inner
bus of the lens-contact gets pushed down by the pin of the cable, and a
tiny bit is already enough to break it.
Lourens.
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: at least i'm happy
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002
Just finished processing four rolls of TMax 100, one from each camera:
Rolleiflex 3.5MX, Fuji GA645, Hasselblad 903SWC and Hasselblad 500CM + 80
Planar...
I may be broke but I'm happy I bought the 'Blads.
The Rolleiflex returns a beautiful negative, that old Tessar produces very
sweet out of focus shapes and wonderful crispness stopped down at f/11 or
so. It's a little soft at the edges, particularly wide open.
The Fuji lens is awesomely crisp and sharp ... when I get the focus locked
on precisely. Like any autofocus camera, if you don't have the focus lock
activated on the right target you get out of focus results. I must admit
that I'm probably a little too sloppy about it, I get more consistently
well focussed pictures when manual focus cameras. Exposure on the Fuji is
wonderfully even and correct in nearly every frame, the shutter and meter
are very accurate.
But then I look at the Hassy negs. Both lenses produce the kind of mouth
watering tonal separation, crisp to the very corner image rendition that
is to die for. The out of focus imaging has that "just right" look,
exposure is dead on perfect (Sekonic L208 and L328 meters supply the
metering). I can see the difference between the Hassy negs and all the
others I've shot instantly, despite what some people say.
Perhaps the differences are more subtle than my eyes are telling me. After
all, I'm NOT doing a blind-sight test of random negatives and I *always*
remember what camera and lens took which of my negatives. But I don't
care, I'm happy and the photos are fantastic.
Some cameras will now be going up for sale and none of their names starts
with the letter H. :-)
Godfrey
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 50mm vs 40mm comparison
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
John Stafford [email protected] wrote
>> a 903SWC 38mm (better MTF)?
>
>It is a stretch to compare the 50mm with the Biogon 38mm. They are two very
>different lenses.
>
>IF you have to go as wide as possible and still avoid gross distortion, then
>the 38mm wins, even over the 40mm. It is superior in every single regard.
>Those who argue that the SLR viewing of the 40mm makes the difference might
>have a requirement to do faster setups. And of course, there is the price
>issue.
>
>903SWC or even an earlier SW is a requisite to a complete system, IMHO. :)
Agreed. I would go with the 50mm lens and try to add the SWC if you
need wider. The 40 is a decent lens, but it's a lot more money, and
you'll need another set of (expensive) filters for it if you're a
filter user. With the 50/100/180 setup it's all B60 filters or 67mm w/
adapters, and you can add the CF version of the SWC. The 40 takes 93mm
filters, I think. The SWC is *much* sharper than the 40.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 150mm vs. 180mm portrait lens comparison
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
Daniel Brittion wrote:
> Stik, the 180 CFi is a newer design, and has improved flocking and
> protection from flare.
The CF versions of the 180 mm and 150 mm lenses have identical (!) stray
light reduction, and so do the CFi/CFE versions of both lenses.
Again, no difference between the two lens designs, so not a deciding factor
when considering which focal length to buy.
From: fotocord [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Big deal using a 'tube'?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
I found the posts about the 150 vs the 180 'blad lens interesting. As a
user of another system, I wonder what is the big deal about using a short
tube?
I normally use a 180mm f2.8 sonnar for portraits on my Kiev-60 and CZJ made
a short (7.5mm?) tube for this lens just for doing tight portrait work. It
allows the lens to focus easily within "normal" portrait distances and
(given that when someone is doing portrait work, they aren't likely to need
to grab a shot at infinity and then back to a tight portrait) what is the
problem with needing a short tube to get a tight portrait? Are the 'blad
tubes a problem or not made in these short lengths? Is it the cost?
Seriously I just can't see how this would be an issue on buying a certain
lens. I know I'd never want to be working that close to the end of a lens's
focus range doing portraits anyway. Sure as I was closing in for a great
shot, I'd run out of helix on the lens.
--
Stacey
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002
From: Ken Martin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Newbie questions
Tom:
There are three additional features that the 503CW has over the 501C.
-Gliding mirror system
- Accepts winder
-TTL flash control
I am not sure how you are going to use the camera but you can judge for
yourself if you need a winder or TTL flash control. The 501C and all older
models does not have the gliding mirror system and when you use longer lens
the viewfinder will vignette. The 501 CW has the gliding mirror system and
eliminates the problem. I have have a 500CM for some time and recently
bought the 501 CW, since I use long lens and found the vignette
unacceptable. Hope this helps.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tristan Tom" [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002
Subject: [HUG] Newbie questions
> I am getting closer to making my first Hasselblad purchase and am wondering
> if anyone has any advice for a newbie. 501c or 503cw? Differences pro and
> con each one? Also, what is the prism finder that puts the image right side
> up and has a meter?
> Thanks!
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
From: Joichi Ito [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Society
I'm new to this list, and found it when searching Google
for some answers to questions about my Hasselblad.
Anyway, I've been following this list and would be happy
to help if I can. My classmate and good friend is VP
Sales world-wide for Hasselblad and I would be happy
to pass on any ideas to him for review.
- Joi
> > Does anyone have any contacts at Hasselbad or a
> > national distributor?
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] "Hasselblad Historical Society"?
....
I have a 500c that has a great story...Ray Atkenson's camera from which came
most of the images of Oregon I II II California Washington...the whole
series of coffee table books from GAC from the 1970s and 1980s...
He was a friend of my grandmother and though I was quite young I was able to
go on a couple shoots with him though he found the fact that I was using a
rather thrashed IIIc a bit amusing
Mark Kronquist
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Magazine protectors
The back protectors that I use are made by Tenba:
http://www.tenba.com/camera/weddingextras.htm
The case on the far left in the picture. The 5057 LPZ-4: Lens Pak. They
call it a lens pack but a back fits perfectly in it and it has a zipper top
to keep out dust and dirt. I have six. I use some for spare backs, others
for 60, 80, or 100mm lenses, 2x extender, etc. Perfect fit for all of these
items.
Jim
From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Polaroid Backs
Andr� Oldani wrote:
> As I have to do some on location jobs with no chance to repeat I try to
> "assure" me with on set polas. Some product description now confuse me: Is
> the new Pola Plus back (Code 30200?) identical with the Pola 100?
No, it's not. The PolaPlus includes a catch allowing you to pull the slide
out only far enough to clear the filmgate. It (obviously) comes with a
different dark slide too, one that has the necessary holes for the catch to
catch in.
It does all the same things though. Takes the same film too. No difference
there.
So unless you find it really annoying that with the 'old' 100 back you have
to take the slide out all the way, there's no reason to prefer the one over
the other.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE:Newbie questions
Alparslan Berik wrote:
And my question: Why would I want to remove the winding crank of the 501
CM. Does not it fold out of the way nicely? Or is it a disturbance while
taking photographs.
No, you're absolutely right: there is no reason why one would want to remove
the winding crank. It works like a treat, either folded or unfolded.
The detachable wind knob was originally included as a feature on the 500 C
way back in the 1950s because Hasselblad was planning to produce a motor
winder that would be replace the wind knob, kust as the CW winder does today
in conjunction with the 503 CW. This thing never appeared; the EL cameras
with the motor built-in were the more reliable option. The detachable knob
was continued, partly so that it could be replaced by a rapid wind crank
(which, unlike the one introduced in the 1980's, could not be used when
folded) partly so you could change it for a wind knob with built-in exposure
meter.
In the early 1980s the knob was replaced by a foldable wind crank that can
be used as a knob when folded, and about 10 years later the metered wind
knob was discontinued. So there is no reason left why the wind crank on the
501 would need to be detachable.
However... It apparently is possible to remove it (one screw under the
center portion), and to fit a coupling plate to the camera (this part either
ordered from Hasselblad or taken from the container the metered knob
originally came in). Modified like that, and equipped with a new wind crank
with a latch, you can have the same wind crank configuration on the 501 as
on the earlier 500 cameras.
I don't know why anyone would want that, though. ;-)
From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jammed selftimer ..... help please!!
If you cock your lens and then move the shutter ring back and forth
between 1 second and 1/60, you can probably nurse the self timer back to
the uncocked position. You will hear the self timer circuit move a few
gear clicks at a time, so just continue this movement until you hear the
self timer finish it's thing. You will still have to go in for service
though, if you want to use the self timer again.
Dick
shutter wrote:
>
> > Hi All
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] ??? WHAT LENS SET : 60 - 50FE - 110FE /2 - 120 macro - 250SA -350???
andrea wrote:
> - dissenting opinion over the wide angle (one said 60 the other 50)
The difference is one in angle of view. Very little difference, if any, in
image quality. Certainly not enough to take first place when deciding what
focal length you really want/need.
> - dissenting opinion on the middle lens (the 120 macro reveals too many
> details - the 110 is not sharp like the 120
The 110 mm isn't as sharp as the 120, no.
But to say that the 120 mm reveals too many details? Look at it this way:
you can always soften a sharp lens using a softener, but you can't sharpen a
soft lens whatever you do.
Having said that, the 110 mm is only soft when used wide open. It too is
very good when stopped down a few stops.
And the 120 mm lens is extremely good when used at close range (up to, say
4-5 meters), but not quite so good at long distances. Other lenses (like the
150 mm Sonnar) do better then... but not a lot ;-) You will have to look
real close to see the difference.
> - no specific indication on the 250/350 choice (besides the legendary
> quality of the SA, VERY RARE to find in second hand...) : "it's up to you
> basically...
Indeed it is. Again, mostly a matter of what focal lenght/angle of view, you prefer.
The 250 mm SA does pop up on eBay now and again.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] ??? WHAT LENS SET : 60 - 50FE - 110FE /2 - 120 macro - 250SA-350???
> ...the 110 mm is only soft when used wide open.
Well, it depends on what you mean by soft... It's certainly a VERY sharp
lense, even wide open, just not as sharp as some other lenses, and it REALLY
depends on how big your enlargements are. I doubt you'll notice any
difference until you make really large enlargements...
The 110 also REQUIRES you to focus perfectly or it WILL be soft. It has a
very narrow depth of field wide open. I have done many (as in hundreds and
hundreds) 24 x 24 inch prints from negatives taken with the 110, and you'd
be hard pressed to say any of the images are soft at all, in the "in focus"
region.
Austin
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] ??? WHAT LENS SET : 60 - 50FE - 110FE /2 - 120 macro - 250SA-350???
Hi Q.G.,
> > > ...the 110 mm is only soft when used wide open.
> >
> > Well, it depends on what you mean by soft... It's certainly a
> VERY sharp
> > lense, even wide open, just not as sharp as some other lenses, and it
> REALLY
> > depends on how big your enlargements are. I doubt you'll notice any
> > difference until you make really large enlargements...
>
> What i meant is "just not as sharp as some other lenses" ;-) And it isn't,
> wide open.
That's never been disputed...but does it really matter? To some perhaps,
but I believe in real application, it doesn't to most.
> But i find it doesn't take extraordinary large enlargements to see it. You
> can see it in small ones too, if you look hard.
That has not been my experience. What do you mean by "extraordinary large"
and "small"? As I said, on a 24 x 24 (that's inches) one would be hard
pressed to see it (if at all), from some sort of a viewing distance. It is
better than the human visual acuity. Possibly, someone with a loupe
attached to their forehead might have a better chance at seeing something
that no one else from some sort of viewing distance would be able to see.
This lense also typically gets used at lower shutter speeds (at least with
me) and therefore is subject to other influences making the image "soft".
It also depends STRONGLY on what your "subject" is. The fact that the 110
lense is two stops faster than the 120, with the 110, you may be able to
eliminate any issue with vibration that could render your 120 image possibly
significantly softer.
I disagree that the 110 is a soft lense. Yes, it is softer than some of the
very technical lenses, but it also has far far better bokeh (rendering of
out of focus areas) than these other lenses, and IMO, gives a FAR more
pleasing picture. This is an issue with Leica lenses, where the older lense
designs, like the 50/1.4 and the 75/1.4, though slightly "softer" give
better images in some people's opinions. Sharpness is only one aspect of a
lense, and IMO, when talking about this quality of lense, I don't believe
sharpness, in general, is a real issue.
Austin
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 503cx
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002
Steve wrote:
> What is the difference between the 503cx, 503cxi, and the 503cw? I know all
> three presumably feature TTL and the winder capability. Is the mirror the
> same or different? Any know differences would be appreciated. Thanks!
The 503 CX is the last Hasselblad to have the body-ready signal (not a
greatly missed since a quick glance through the viewfinder will tell you the
same) and the old style release button with lock.
The 503 CX can not (!) take the CW winder. You need at least a CXi to do
that. The wind crank configuration had to be changed, so the CXi takes a
different wind crank.
The 503 CXi differs also from the 503 CX in that it can take the masks in
the rear, masking the frame to 6x4.5 or panoramic format (not very usefull),
and it has the new 'underside', sporting two ridges the camera sits on
The 503 CW has the better mirror geometry (called GMS for Gliding Mirror
System). You get less of the viewfinder vignetting when using long lenses
and/or using extension.
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002
From: Jesse Hellman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Teleconverter or Extension Tube?
To get a really good, tight headshot you could use both the 1.4
teleconverter and the 16mm extension tube. The converter costs you a
stop but the lens becomes a 210 with the same close-focussing distance
as before. It is not quite close enough for a tight headshot, however,
so add the tube to get a little closer.
Rent this if possible before buying so you know it will do what you
want.
For headshots I use the 180 with the 1.4 teleconverter, almost always at
the closest focus, and do not need an extension tube. This distance
allows intimacy without too much distortion.
Just using extension tubes with the 150 brings you in too close (to get
a tight headshot), and the distortion will be considerable.
Jesse
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 8/10/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 203FE Problem
This is sort of one of those electromechanical/firmware bugs. Yes, it
happens. Typically, at the point where it won't wind and the mirror is up,
use the DE wind and everything syncs-up properly. You don't need to remove
anything, just use the DE button, wind the crank, and everything comes back
to normal. Nothing gained, nothing lost. In my experience.
I've had my 203 for four years and it has happened a half dozen times. A
little more than once a year. So it's no big deal. In the software/hardware
world, it's called a corner case.
Jim
Peter Fu wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I had a strange problem today at a engagement party.
>My 203FE locked up while the camera was in "C" mode
>with a 80mm CFE lens (not in "F" mode). The mirror
>would not return and the winding crank will not wind.
>No electrical functions were working either. I
>returned home and removed the magazine and replaced it
>with a cover. Removed the lens and replaced with
>another lens and still the winding crank will not
>move. However I was then able to press the double
>exposure button and wind the crank but the mirror was
>up and the crank will still not wind without pressing
>the DE button. I reset the lens to "F" mode and the
>body to 1/90" and miracously the mirror dropped and
>the camera seemed to function normally.
>
>Has anybody seen such this problem? I am hoping that
>I can prevent this from happening in the future.
>
>Regards, Peter Fu
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] WTB Hassy Catalogs
New ones are free old ones are cheap at Blue Moon 503 978 0333
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] WTB Hassy Catalogs
[email protected] wrote:
> Hello
> I was hoping someone may have an extra Hasselblad product catalog from 01 and
> 02 that they may want to sell. I check ebay at times but have come up with
> nothing but older stuff.
I was told by Hasselblad that there will be no 2002 catalogue. The next new
one will be the 2003 version, with all the new products in it.
The 2001 catalogue can be downloaded in .pdf format from the
www.hasselblad.se site too.
[ed. note: this is probably long gone and sold, but here for info on demand and pricing]
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] Tele-Tessar lens
My CT* 8/500mm lens in like new condition cost 1500 DM (~750 US$). There is
not much demand for them (about as much as for cheap 80 mm F-lenses in
perfect condition).
Ulrik
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002
From: Jeff Grant [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Introduction and a question about Distagon 3.5/60 CF
I have a 60CFI which I use as my standard lense. Before buying my
Hasselblad, I asked on Photo.net which were the most highly regarded
lenses. The 60 was definitely on the list. It is a great lense. The
detail it delivers is amazing.
Here is Kornelius Fleischer's post (I think) from Photo.net:
Facts from inside Zeiss: The optics in the Distagon 3,5/60 for Rollei is
in fact the same as for Hasselblad. In Zeiss resolving power tests this
lens reached 250 lp/mm. This is way beyond the resolving power of any
color film currently available in general photography (Velvia: 160
lp/mm) and way beyond the resolving power of other top quality lenses
(typically on the level of Velvia). Only the Superachromat 5,6/250
reaches as high as 250 lp/mm, and the superwideangle Zeiss Biogon 4,5/38
available in Hasselblad SWC and Alpa 12 reaches 200.
In short: When it comes to optical performance, the Zeiss Distagon
3,5/60 seems to me the most underrated lens in medium format. At its
relatively moderate price I find it clearly a best buy. Or, even
shorter: The Distagon 60 is irresistable.
...
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad and GPS
Thomas Hahn wrote:
> I use cartography a lot in my work...so some newer digital cameras (Nikon,
> Kodak etc.) allow for adapters that take GPS. I wonder how for wildlife,
> landscape and architecture shoots in MF positional readings are processed,
> or if they are even regarded as important.
>
> Possibly a somewhat dumb question, then, but I suppose there is no device or
> software (yet?) that allows GPS readings to be captured by the digital back,
> correct? Or, put another way, I need (besides my Sekonic meter and
> everything else one lugs around) also a completely independent Garmin GPS
> device to map and record my whereabouts if I shoot regular MF (specifically
> Hasselblad).
>
> Just musing....it's a long shot, I know, but maybe, in some future model,
> expansion slots might appear which enhance on functionalities such as the
> one addressed above.
You're in luck... ;-)
If you really need a system capable connecting to a GPS receiver and
recording position on film, contact Hasselblad and ask about their GPS-Data
recording setup. It consists of either one out of a choice of two different
Data Recording Backs (70 mm film or regular 120 film) with DE-32 module,
cables to link this thing to a (Magellan) GPS receiver and to a Psion
Organizer handheld computer, and the necessary software. You will have to
buy the Psion and GPS receiver separately.
In this setup, the GPS is connected to the handheld computer, which in turn
connects to the Data Recording back, telling it what to print on film.
This system was introduced in 1994, and newer handheld computers are
available since. I'm sure they can update the software to work with any
modern handheld computer.
I'm assuming that the GPS interface is standardized, so that a Garmin will
work as well as the Magellan? But then, i'm 100% certain that a handheld can
be found that will interface with the Garmin GPS, and all you need then is
the Hasselblad software to interface with the DE-32.
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] WLF lens came out
Philippe Tempel wrote:
> The lens recently popped out of my Hassy WLF. It
> doesn't look to be in good shape. I can't pop it back
> in since the retaining ring is partially broken. Is
> this an easy replacement? Or am I looking at another
> WLF?
Latest style WLF? If so (must be if it has a retaining ring), the plate
holding the lens slides out to the back and is easily replaced with another
one. Take the WLF off the camera, push the plate down a bit, reach in from
below and pull it out (you'll need to give it a good tug).
The neutral diopter strength replacement is cat.no. 42331, and should cost
about US$ 25. Other diopter strength lenses are available, ranging from -4
to +3 diopters. They all cost the same.
From: Grand Master Chuck [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002
So, not to flog a dead horse or anything, but my two cents. First, I
will tell you my bias. I shoot with a Hasselblad 500C/M with a12 backs
(two, older style backs, but not the oldest), an 80mm lens, and a 150mm
lens. I shoot only negative film, 160 asa or lower, usually color, and
I print my own color negs in a darkroom with an enlarger and a
processer. Until lately, I always considered digital printing a waste
of time and money, until I took my film (14 rolls from a trip to Europe)
in to my favorite lab and they suggested I try their new digital
printing technique. It involves scanning the negs, and printing with a
laser onto c-41 paper, and then processing in a darkroom processer.
They prints turned out INCREDIBLE. I was skeptical at first, but I
appreciated the prints. Now I must say, I was only getting 5 * 5in.
prints, to use as contacts since I only print the best ones myself.
From what I understand, the benefit of this is that there is no
enlarging lens, so you remove all of the optical distortion in the
printing side of it. (I know very little about scanning distortion, but
they have very nice equipment, or so I understand OBTW, it's New Lab in
San Francisco, if you care about sources). But, I still take my negs to
the darkroom and print my own pictures roughly 17 * 17inches on 20* 24
paper. I like the feel of printing, the control I have in color
balance, when the negs have mixed light sources. But, to move on to the
question asked:
Things I would improve on my Blad:
My 150C's manual stop-down device sucks. The only way to undo it is to
open up all the way and re-stop. That's ridiculous. My 80 CF is
flawless, and I use the stop down all the time to check if multiple
things are in focus at different distances. I can't estimate distances
well enough to use the markings on the lens. I should mention that they
did fix this problem with the CF/CFE versions. As they did with the
flash sync connection, which sucks on my 150C. However, they didn't
make it good enough. My chord still gets disconnected regularly from
both lenses.
[Ed. note: see our Budget Hasselblad pages for tips re: Kiev..]
The biggest thing for me that I would like to see changed is the price
of accesssories that take no money to produce. i.e. plastic lens shades
($104 for an 80mm b60 lens shade? you've got to be kidding, how do they
sell these?) and things like lens caps and dark slides and things which
need to be replaced every so often, but I put off because it seems
ridiculous to pay their prices. I don't mind paying large amounts of
money for lenses and bodies, because I can see why I'm paying the money,
but for the accessories, I hate it. The price of backs should be lower
in my opinion too, though I understand that some disagree.
Another thing I'd like to see changed is: 500 series cameras still jam
on occasion. Mine jams when I remove my 55mm extension tube from the
lens, the shutter fires. I have had only two body jams in two years,
but one was serious and the little turn-the-screw fix didn't sove it,
and it took a $200 repair and 3 weeks (I didn't send it to Hassy New
Jersey, but to a local place, not my current favorite repair, but
still...). These jams are a known defect, and as far as I know, they
haven't been fixed on 500 series cameras. That's silly.
Filters that for other camera's can be picked up new for less than 40
bucks, on my Hassy cost upwards of 100-250 dollars. And I heard a
rumour (not necessarily true) that the Hasselblad brand filters were
produced by a Japanese company anyway. That's paying money for the
Hassy name....
I don't know, there are probably more things that I'd like changed, but
I can't think of any now. I love my camera more than I love any other
posession I own, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. But I would like
a 617 Fuji, or whoever makes it, or a Hassy SWC. I wouldn't mind a
203FE either, but for the time being, I will keep and treasure this
camera. For what i do, I can't imagine using a better camera. But the
key words here are 'for what I do'. We're all different, don't get
caught up in it.
Chuck
btw, how do I change that damn name so it doesn't say 'grandmasterchuck'
in the 'sender' box? I hate that, I sound like an egotistical prick.
I'm not, really...
Lourens Smak wrote:
> Bob Bidniski [email protected] wrote
>
>>Tell me 5 things that could be improved on your Rollei, and I'll tell
>>you 5 things that can be improved on my Hasselblads.
>>
> Sure, the Rollei isn't perfect.
> (wanted improvements below, in random order)
>
> 1 - magazines could be a little smaller in size. (weight is OK though;
> they're big, but not heavy.)
> 2 - real values in viewfinder display for 1/3 stop settings, instead of
> for example "5,6 ?"; you get used to the little dots and what they mean,
> but it's still not very elegant.
> 3 - a ttl-flashmeter built-in would be nice for studio flashes that
> can't be controlled by the camera. (but you can do this already with the
> additional master control unit*, or with the basic 6001.) very handy
> with close-up equipment, or when using filters and so on.
> 4 - the program speed/aperture curve is not right. (I don't use P
> anyway, but I might occasionally, if the curve was better...)
> 5 - the cable-release feel flimsy and could be more durable. (I've
> broken only 2 in about 15 years, so it's not that bad, but I sure hope
> Rollei redesigns it.)
>
> *) The master control unit (which I don't have) actually adds quite a
> bit of functionality, for example super-silent (also slower) film
> transport, very long exposures, very fast double-exposures (up to 10 per
> second), flash-sync at end of exposure, and shifting of the program
> curve, (still not right...) and much more; most of this can be used with
> the MCU detached again.
> well, that wasn't too difficult...May I remind you of the subject-line
> of this thread? It specifically mentions another make of camera. Still
> haven't heard a single thing that people who use a hasselblad don't like
> about the camera, or something that they think could be improved. I do
> NOT believe there is nothing. Either you people don't even have a
> Hasselblad, or you don't take pictures with it. (I bet Art just means he
> polishes his Blad weekly, when he says he uses it...) If you do use it,
> there's always a few things that could be better and you would know them.
>
> ;-)
> Lourens
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: want to use standard screw mount filters on Hasselblad Bay 60 and 70 lens - Adapters??
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video wrote:
>I am aware of the following adapters:
>Bay 50->Bay 60
>Bay 60->67
>Bay 60->77
>Bay 60->58
>Bay 60->62
>Bay 60->Bay 50
Henry!
I'm surprised at you. Bay 50 and Bay 60 are available in Series sizes from
Harrison & Harrison in California. Really well-made gear, too, better than
most of the junk on the market -- AND it is inexpensive!
Marc
[email protected]
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002
From: Charles [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] New Hasselblad Body (what to buy)
The hasselblad/usa site has a pdf file that describes
the differences between the 500 series cameras.
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/
go to products
go to FAQ
go to 500 series
click on the link to the second question
Ken Martin wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I am going to buy a new Hasselblad body in the near future. This
> will become my prime body and my 500 C/M will be become a back up. Since
> this is a retirement (I prefer to call it a change of career) gift for
> myself and unless this camera is lost, stolen or damaged this will
> probably be the last medium format camera I will ever buy. I am
> considering either the 501 CM or the 503 CW however am open to other
> ideas. This camera will be used for outdoor and nature photography.
> The camera will be used in cold weather (polar bears in Manitoba) and in
> other remote locations under a wide variety of climatic conditions. The
> only significant upgrade that I MAY want to make in the future is a
> digital back. Other than through the lens flash capability, are there
> other reasons to spend the extra money for the 503 CW? Cost is really
> not a prime consideration. Any thoughts and advice would be
> appreciated!
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 60mm f/4, f/3.5, f/5.6 differences?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
grandguru wrote:
> The (chrome) f5.6 lens is very old indeed, it was discontinued in
> 1961, the f4 is an improvement of this lens design but with more
> useful max aperture.
> The f3.5 lens (current) optical spec will be available from Hasselblad
> and may also be available on the Zeiss web site.
> The f5.6 60mm Biogon lens is exceptional well corrected and also very
> rare. Probably only available for use with the MK70 camera.
> The advice is the same as always, use the lens and draw your own
> conclusions.
Let me add that the current f/3.5 version Distagon is the best out of the
three (the 60 mm Biogon protrudes a long way into the camera body, so yes,
it can only be used on a MK70).
The f/5.6 60 mm Distagon goes all the way back to 1954, and was the first
(retrofocus) wide angle lens available for Hasselblad, first in Hasselblad
1600F/1000F mount, later (from 1957) in C mount.
If anyone has one of these in 1600F/1000F mount lying around gathering dust,
i'd be happy to be its new custodian ;-)
[Ed. note: caveat repairer - let the repairer be careful not to cause more harm than good!]
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Zeiss cb80 Shutter Stuck...Please Help!!!
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
"ephman" [email protected] wrote:
> hi,
>
> i have a hasselblad 500cm with a cb80 lens. the shutter seems to be stuck,
> it didn't open after i advanced the film, and now it's just closed. i took
> the back off and peeked through the box, and saw i could still adjust the
> aperture (probably not a smart thing but i was curious). i can't even take
> the lens off now. it seems as if the whole camera is locked up. any ideas
> how to fix this? any help would be so appreciated, i feel like my baby is
> sick...
Is it an old camera? do you feel comfortable unscrewing some screws? Do
you have other lenses? (because the body is probably fine) Have a good
light handy? (any desk-lamp will do fine) It's only a 10 minute job...
OK here we go. first, get a long screwdriver the right size. if it's
magnetic, that's even better.
and put the mirror up if it isn't up...
next, unscrew the tiny screw on the inside, next to the big one that
turns when the shutter is cocked. (Don't worry about the aux. shutter at
the back of the camera, you can push those flaps down without any
problem.)
an aluminium lid will come off. make sure you don't loose the screw!
also, be very careful with the metal lid, it's bent quickly. put it
aside in a safe place.
new screws will appear under the lid...
now, if you examine those screws, there will be one that only controls
how far the lens/body coupling-lever is out. if you turn this screw far
enough, you can un-couple the lens... and that's what we want. (If my
memory is correct you have to turn this one counter-clockwise to
withdraw the coupler.)
use the normal button on the front of the camera to remove the lens.
If the lens is off the body, go back in reverse order:
turn back the tiny screw that controls the coupling-lever/screw, so it's
back in it's normal position again. (Note: You can now observe better
what happens when you turn the screw; it's a very simple mechanism...)
put the metal "lid" back (careful!)
fasten it using the tiny screw you have kept in a safe place.
That's it! wind the body and mount another lens.
also try cocking the lens (careful!) with a coin or a screwdriver. It
may also suddenly work again...
Trust me, I've done this dozens of times. I wouldn't be surprised if
there's an illustrated guide on the net somewhere that describes this
repair. It's not hard at all. (but steel nerves help a bit...) ;-)
Note that it is *important* to always use a screwdriver that is the
right size for the screw you need to turn, and that brute force is
*never* needed to complete this operation.
;-)
Lourens.
From: [email protected] (grandguru)
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Zeiss cb80 Shutter Stuck...Please Help!!!
Date: 15 Aug 2002
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote
> Lourens Smak wrote:
>
> > Is it an old camera? do you feel comfortable unscrewing some screws? Do
> > you have other lenses? (because the body is probably fine) Have a good
> > light handy? (any desk-lamp will do fine) It's only a 10 minute job...
> >
> > OK here we go. first, [...]
>
> Don't do any of this until you know what the problem is.
Q. G. de Bakker is right! The advice is only partly correct and do not
re-couple a lens and body until you are certain what caused the jam in
the first place
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Zeiss cb80 Shutter Stuck...Please Help!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
> > Don't do any of this until you know what the problem is.
The problem is that it has locked up.
> Q. G. de Bakker is right! The advice is only partly correct and do not
> re-couple a lens and body until you are certain what caused the jam in
> the first place
If you have the lens and body separated you can very well examine if
body is OK. It's a simple machine, you turn a knob on the side and a
lever turns at the front. It will either lock up without a lens, or it
won't. I don't suggest mounting another lens, if it still locks up
without a lens... You can also easily check if the lens is OK, when it's
off the body.
Most likely the camera is just a bit worn out. Especially if it's a
2nd-hand body which was professionally used in it's previous life. play
in the mechanism causes this lock-up every now and then.
I have done this repair dozens of times, as I have told already.
;-)
Lourens.
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Zeiss cb80 Shutter Stuck...Please Help!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
...
> Most likely the camera is just a bit worn out. Especially if it's a
> 2nd-hand body which was professionally used in it's previous life. play
> in the mechanism causes this lock-up every now and then.
> I have done this repair dozens of times, as I have told already.
Also note that this repair does NOT involve disassembling complicated
mechanisms. it involves removing a lid and turning a screw. you really
can't do much damage. (unless you use the wrong screwdriver and hit the
rear of the glass with it.)
;-)
Lourens
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Zoom lenses
Joanne Simpson wrote:
> Am looking at buying a 2nd hand zoom for my 503CW. It's a nice piece of
> gear, but a lot of $AUD'000s. The camera shop I usually buy from tells
> me HB no longer make zooms. Does anyone know the history of HB zoom
> lenses and why they might have been discontinued?
The long time only Hasselblad zoom lens was he 140-280 mm lens made by
Schneider. It was available in two versions, with and without leaf shutter.
The leaf shutter version in turn came in two versions: first (1977) the 'C'
version with Compur shutter, later (1988) the CF version with Prontor
shutter. The shutterless 'F' version was discontinued in 1987, the CF
version is still listed in the last Hasselblad catalogue to date (the 2001
issue) but with a footnote saying "discontinued".
According to a 1999 Hasselblad price list (the last one i've seen that lists
this lens), you would have to find (the equivalent of) US$ 6400 to purchase
this lens new.
In 1998 a 'Hasselblad' 60-120 mm zoom lens was introduced. It is still
available today.
This is a shutterless lens, and can't be used with a 500-series camera.
Why they were discontinued? While a single Hasselblad zoom lenses is a
lighter, less bulky substitute for the brace of lenses you would need to
cover the same focal length range, it is a rather dim, long and heavy lens
by itself. Not at all as easy, or quick to use as any of the lenses it would
replace.
The 140-280 mm 2x zoom range too is rather limited, and does not cover the
range of focal lengths that would make more sense for a zoom lens. The
60-120 mm lens is a lot better that way.
[ed. note: replaceable serial number rings - may impact dates, hide thefts etc.?]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Oberkochen
Marc James Small at [email protected] wrote:
> There is a real problem with the serial numbers on many SL66 lenses, as
> these bear serial numbers which should date from 1959 or 1960. Either
> Franke & Heidecke had ordered a number of these lenses when they were first
> considering production of the SL66, or whether Zeiss simply had an empty
> block of numbers to use, or whether Zeiss had reserved the block in 1959
> for SL66 lens production, we probably will never know.
Or, perhaps Zeiss had already made a large number of front rings with serial
numbers already on them and passed these to Rollei. I know that Rollei
keeps these rings in stock for at least some lenses and if you buy one to
replace a damaged or lost one you change the lens serial number when you do
that. This is true on the lenses for SLX/6000 series as well. I had to
replace one a couple years ago when the front of one of my lenses just
unscrewed itself and fell off, and the name ring was lost in the woods
somewhere. The new ring was a special order from Germany and took some time
to get, but had a totally different serial number so I had to change my
insurance inventory accordingly.
Bob
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 60mm f/3.5, f/4, and f/5.6 differences?
[email protected] wrote:
> I notice that there are at least three 60mm Zeiss lenses. f/4,
> f/3.5, and f/5.6 varieties.
>
> I have also heard that at least one of these suffers from barrel
> distortion.
> In terms of linear distortion, contrast, and resolution, is one lens
> variety better than another? Is there a large size/weight advantage
> to using the f/5.6 version?
I own the 5.6 variety and it is my "normal" and most used lens. I've
noted no distortions of any type, and I use this lens for architectural
work -- verticals are vertical and straight; and horizontals are
horizontal and straight. Contrast is contrasty, but not as much as
with a T* lens. (The difference can be seen, but it is not all that
great a difference.) Resolution is high for a medium format optic.
Hell, the resolution is better than some 35mm lenses.
As far as size and weight: it is about the same depth as the 80, but,
of course, the front diameter is bigger. Not all that heavier.
There are those Hasselblad afficienadoes, who think the 60 f5.6 is
"superior" optically to either the 4 or 3.5. I can't say. Never
really compared them. All I can say is that I'm very satisfied with it
and would put it up against the modern incarnate anytime. Says a lot
about a lens made in the late '50s.
The only caveat? F5.6 makes for dark viewing, particularly when
shooting inside where light is not all that abundant. An Acute-matte
screen over the standard ones helps immensely.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Zoom lenses
Hi David,
an interesting question, but the answers probably vary a lot with the
lenses and timeframes, yes?
for example, I've read that hasselblad switched to zeiss lenses from the
original kodak ektars as the kodaks were more costly and going up, and
so the zeiss lenses were relative bargains - grins ;-) The shifts in the
leaf shutters used would also be an interesting story, as well as what
impact this choice has had on hassy lens designs (speed..) over time.
the issue of wide angle lenses in the early days (see discussion on 60mm
f/5.6 lens) would also be interesting; IMHO, the bronica Z cameras were
designed around the wide angle (50mm f/3.5) that Nikon could produce,
hence the unique falling mirror design and long lens registration etc.
Examples of folks adapting 52mm f/3.5 kalimar/kaligar lens to hassy 1000f
cameras are one example. The biogon provided another approach to building
the camera around the wide angle lens while still keeping a system design
I believe that there are cases where zeiss came up with a specialty
lens design (NASA..) and that there was enough demand for the lenses to
convince Hasselblad to buy up the zeiss production and sell them. Some
of the lunar lenses and other NASA optics may also have been custom designs
that ended up as available for special (mapping..) purposes - though some
have reportedly been used in fashion for a unique "spacey" look ;-)
I think there are also cases where zeiss made the lenses to a specific
request, such as the 24mm f/3.5 distagon - which was for a specialty use
by some mfgers (tire mfg? boiler checking?..) for which only 50 lenses
were made (per Mr. Nordin's excellent Hasselblad Compendium)?
Besides JSK, Sigma made zooms for hasselblad - this may be related to an
announcement Sigma made that they were going to make Hasselblad compatible
lenses under their own name - that didn't happen, but Sigma did get to
make hassy zoom lenses (which Zeiss seems not to have wanted to make?)
perhaps as a consolation prize for not cutting hassy's market or profits?
(see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/mfg.html#sigma2hassy posting)
my impression is that the CB lens line was an effort by Hasselblad to
improve sales against competitors (e.g., Rollei, which was cutting costs
fiercely in USA and other markets) which didn't work in the market as
hoped?
Of course, Hasselblad also went to Rodenstock for the arcbody lenses in
shutters, and to Fuji for the lenses for their Xpan camera (and body ;-)
screens are from Minolta - etc.
we also know that some of the changes recently have been neither motivated
by hasselblad or requested by zeiss - rather, European pollution standards
have motivated changes in glass formulas, hence the new biogon 38mm design
But I think it would be an interesting article to trace the various
suppliers to hasselblad of lenses and optics, and perhaps provide some
more info and examples to which I am only touching on herein...
regards bobm
...
David Gerhardt wrote:
> "David Gerhardt" [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Technically, I don't think Hasselblad EVER made zooms. Virtually all of
> > their lenses are made by Zeiss, Schneider, or (Fuji?).
>
> On re-reading this, my response sounds a little flippant; (sorry), but the
> REAL issue of the "need" for lenses is a good one.
>
> That is: "how" do new Hasselblad lenses come about?
> (1) Does Hasselblad submit a request to Zeiss? Or,
> (2) is it more common for Zeiss to make (unsolicited) proposals to
> Hasselblad?
>
> And (since Hasselblad makes virtually no lenses itself), WHO decides when to
> "pull the plug" on a lens (like the Schneider zoom)? Is it Hasselblad? Or,
> the lens manufacturer? (Somewhere in this discussion the question of how
> profit (& loss) on lenses is "shared" must come up...)
>
> Does anyone out there have insight into the relationship of Zeiss (etc) and
> Hasselblad in introducing (& terminating) new lenses?
>
> (ps: in the aerospace world, what I'm trying to describe would be whether
> new lenses are primarily a "technology PULL" (camera manufacturer
> "requesting" or "pulling" new capabilities from the lens-maker), or a
> "technology PUSH" (lens manufacturer trying to "push" new features to be
> included in the camera line).)
>
> --
>
> David Gerhardt
> [email protected]
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Zoom lenses
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> I believe that there are cases where zeiss came up with a specialty
> lens design (NASA..) and that there was enough demand for the lenses to
> convince Hasselblad to buy up the zeiss production and sell them. Some
> of the lunar lenses and other NASA optics may also have been custom designs
> that ended up as available for special (mapping..) purposes - though some
> have reportedly been used in fashion for a unique "spacey" look ;-)
The current Telephoto PowerPack was (according to Zeiss) initiated by Zeiss.
And sold by Zeiss, not Hasselblad too, until Hasselblad decided to buy up
the lot, spares and all, and started selling them.
So even modern day's "third party" lenses for Hasselblad were made by Zeiss.
Fitting though, seeing that all Hasselblad lenses are third party lenses
really.
> [...] but Sigma did get to
> make hassy zoom lenses (which Zeiss seems not to have wanted to make?)
Hmm... The appearance of the Sigma zoom more or less co�ncided with Zeiss
announcing that (after considering shutting down the Camera Lens Division)
they wanted to put new effort into designing modern, and better lenses,
including high performance zoom lenses.
It could be that Zeiss' decision came to late, and Hasselblad had looked
elsewhere for someone to make such a lens already.
Could also be because of Hasselblad thought Zeiss lenses were too costly,
even for them.
Which almost certainly was why they scrapped the Zeiss Mutar earlier in
favour of a no-name converter (well yes, it says "Hasselblad" on it. But the
same name appears on the XPan lenses that are clearly marked "Fujinon" when
purchased in Japan ;-)).
> my impression is that the CB lens line was an effort by Hasselblad to
> improve sales against competitors (e.g., Rollei, which was cutting costs
> fiercely in USA and other markets) which didn't work in the market as
> hoped?
And don't forget to count Hasselblad itself amongst their direct
competitors, taking away market share.
Zeiss' Kornelius Fleischer recently mentioned that Hasselblad wanted the CB
lenses as a low-cost second line of lenses, while Zeiss pointed out to them
that there already was such an alternative, cheap line of lenses: used
Hasselblad. That (tough competition from used Zeiss/Hasselblad) he said wa
also the reason the CB line failed.
The same must be true with camera bodies: there are very, very many of those
around in the market. Would be interesting to see how many transactions
involving Hasselblad products are sales of new products. My "Christmas wish"
(if you will excuse dragging another thread into this discussion) would be
that they stop making so many "different" bodies. They have to finance the
production of (now only) 6 SLR bodies so that we can have a choice when we
want to pick the one (!) we want to buy. Why not combine the very similar
features of the 203 and 205 into one body? And lower the price quite a bit
more... ;-) And why the choice between 501 and 503? And while the ELD is an
evolution of a "classic", and it would be sad in a way to see that line
die, do we really need it?
From hasselblad mailing list:
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Zoom lenses, and other decisions...
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:
> Robert Monaghan wrote:
>
>> I believe that there are cases where zeiss came up with a specialty
>> lens design (NASA..) and that there was enough demand for the lenses to
>> convince Hasselblad to buy up the zeiss production and sell them...
>
(Q.G.:)
> The current Telephoto PowerPack was (according to Zeiss) initiated by Zeiss.
> And sold by Zeiss, not Hasselblad too, until Hasselblad decided to buy up
> the lot, spares and all, and started selling them.
This is starting to get to the core of my original question on the thread:
how do the innovations in the Hasselblad line really come about? "Who" is
defining the Hasselblad vision of the future. Sometimes it sounds like Zeiss
has at least as much of a hand as Hasselblad.
Nikon, Canon, etc can "coordinate" the introduction of new technology or
equipment; they control both the body & the lenses. For a company like
Hasselblad, this is complicated by the fact that the introduction of new
optics is almost exclusively in the hands of a third party (Zeiss). And, of
course, the Zeiss (or any other 3rd party lens house) relationship is
complicated by factors like: (1) they must make MONEY on the lenses and then
be able to SERVICE the lenses with spare parts for decades, (2) Zeiss (etc)
have to balance the features & prices for their "Hasselblad" line with the
optics they supply for COMPETING cameras (Rollei, Contax, etc), and (3) Who
(Zeiss? Hasselblad?) pays for the IR&D to mature these new technologies, and
bring them to market?
I'm sure that some of the answers to these questions reside in contracts &
legal agreements between Hasselblad and the various optical houses. Some of
the folks in the HUG may have insights into this. And, let's all hope that
Hasselblad, Zeiss, and other companies have joint projects underway to
integrate specific technologies into a "long-term strategic plan". This is
where the real answers on the feasibility of new optics, and technologies
such as auto-focus, image stabilization, and simplification of the line of
camera bodies would take place.
If we understood this process, then we (the USER community) would know how
to more effectively LOBBY Hasselblad to make improvements in their product
line. In fact, perhaps a group like the HUG could provide important "input",
and be incorporated into the strategic planning process. Then, we might be
able to have an IMPACT on the future of the Hasselblad system... And start
bringing some of our "Christmas Accessories" wishes to real life!
(or, at the very least, be able to better understand why some of the
decisions regarding products & pricing are made... ;-)
--
David Gerhardt
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad CFI 120/4 macro?
Date: 18 Aug 2002
Q.G. de Bakker [email protected] wrote:
>Max Perl wrote:
>> The sharpness will probably suffer on longer distances because the lens is
>> made for close focus. But I assume that it will still deliver OK results
>on
>> "portrait" distances?
>Absolutely. Typical "portrait distance" is not long range for this lens.
In fact, it's pretty close to optimal for this lens (I think the lens is
optimized for 1:5).
>The sharpness at long range is indeed a bit less than that of, say, a 150 mm
>Sonnar. But you will have to look really, really hard to be able to detect
>the difference.
When I traded my 150C in on the 120CF, I actually tested this. I
used a large Bogen(Manfrotto) tripod, prereleased the body, and used
a cable release (of course), and shot distant details of a street scene.
On Velvia transparencies, I could see no discernable difference with a
15x loupe. I'm sure the 150 is slightly better at distance,
but I couldn't see it.
At "portrait" distances I'm sure the 120 is the better of the two
lenses.
>If you have a choice you might want to use another lens for
>long range photography, only to ease your mind. If you don't, the 120 mm
>will produce excellent results still. No worries.;-)
>> Has somebody used it for very close focus with extender rings or
>> bellows?....to give 1:1 magnification or more?.......how are the results?
>Again, excellent. They really are.
>Up to about 2:1. For larger magnifications, practical considerations
>(extension needed!) other, shorter special purpose lenses are preferred.
Well, I've used my 120 to photograph integrated circuits, flowers, and
insects with:
1) An autobellows cranked all the way out, plus*
2) Five (!) 55mm extension tubes*
3) The lens itself set to its closest setting
That works out to 202mm(bellows) + 275mm(tubes) + ~26mm (lens helicoid)o
of extension = 503mm extension. That's just a hair less than
4.2:1. The results were quite good, actually. They might
have been better with a Luminar, but they were damned good nevertheless.
*Hasselblad doesn't recommend combining this many devices between
the lens and body. I don't recommend that you else do it, either.
If you jam the body doing this, it's your own damned fault - don't
blame me.
Steve
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] polarizer and films
[email protected] writes:
I believe the Hasselblad part number is circular.
All Hasselblad polarizers are linear.
Dirk
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] polarizer and films
...
A circular polarizer is not the way to go. You get less polarization and
Hasselblads do not need a circular, which is more expensive. Buy a linear.
B+W, Heliopan, and Hasselblad are the brands to buy. 67 to Bay60 adapter
for B+W or Heliopan. A Kaesemann is simply a hermetically sealed polarizer,
which is not necessary either.
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002
From: Christopher Gonzaga [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] polarizer and films
I had the same dilemma. I eventually went with a $10 Marumi B60-67mm
adapter and an $80 Heliopan Linear Slim Polarizer. The Heliopan is very
nice and smooth as the filter mount is made of brass. The colour is also
very neutral. I have to warn you that there is a very small amount of
corner vignetting with this combination when using the 50mm CF lens. It
is very small and gets cropped when scanned or put in 2 1/4 negative
holders for enlargers. The filter and adapter does not interfere with
the use of my 4076 folding proshade. However, there is barely enough
room to manipulate the filter when the proshade is attached unless you
have tiny fingers. I usually remove the shade, adjust the polarizer and
reattach the proshade. A bit slow but since I don't use polarizers very
often I've learn to live with this inconvenience. If speed of operation
and 100% freedom from vignetting is required, I would suggest that you
go with a B60 mount filter.
Chris
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy & Kiev questions
Date: 22 Aug 2002
Martin Debuch [email protected] wrote:
>2000FC/W
>- Can use a special winder, the rest is like 2000FC/M
>- afaik featuring Acute Matte-screen.
No, the Acute Matte screen came in with the 2003 FC/W.
>2003FC/W
>- Features a ttl-flash like 503CX etc.
Nope. None of the 2000-series cameras have TTL flash
The 2003 has the improved Palpas anti-reflection coating in the
body, the Acute Matte screen, and some rubber patches on the body to
make it easier to hold. It also lost the "body cocked" indicator.
If you want the FP shutter and TTL flash, you need to get a
200-series camera.
>- This is the last model featring the focal plane shutter made of titan foil
>
>201F
>- same as 2003FC/W, but using a shutter made of cotton instead of
>titan-foil.
The shutter on the 201F only goes up to 1/1000 sec, rather than the
1/2000 of the 200x cameras and the other 20x series cameras..
Steve
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy & Kiev questions
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002
Martin Debuch wrote:
> [...]
>
> 2000FC/W
> - Can use a special winder, the rest is like 2000FC/M
> - afaik featuring Acute Matte-screen.
Nope.
Acute Matte screens only appeared with the "3"rd generation, 503 CX, 503 ELX
and 2003 FCW cameras. The 2000 FCW came with the old style screen.
> 2003FC/W
> - Features a ttl-flash like 503CX etc.
No. No TTL flash on any of the 2000 series cameras.
The first focalplane shutter Hasselblad cameras to have that is the
200-series 201 F.
The 2003 FCW is basically a 2000 FCW with a better screen, improved internal
anti-reflection coating, and rubber grip patches on the body.
> - This is the last model featring the focal plane shutter made of titan
foil
>
> 201F
> - same as 2003FC/W, but using a shutter made of cotton instead of
> titan-foil.
And unlike the 2003 FCW it does have TTL-flash control. ;-)
It has a slower top speed of 1/1000.
> 205TCC
> - build in metering
> - I don't know the differences between this bodys and the actual 205FCC.
Exposure meter program modes are somewhat changed. It would appear for the
better ;-)
> The 202FA, 203FE and 205FCC are actual models therefore see the catalog
> from Hasselblad.
>
http://www.hasselblad.com/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Brochures/Catalo
gue2001_English.pdf
The 202 FA is no longer available (introduced 1998, discontinued 2001/2002).
It can not use older (C type) leaf shutter lenses at all, and CF and later
versions only when the leaf shutter is disabled; has no shutterspeed setting
ring (speeds are selected by the camera's meter and can only be changed
using the program buttons); and sports a 'slow' top speed of 1/1000.
I don't think it will be greatly missed. ;-)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy Distagon & Sonnar pupil magnification
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002
Simo Salanne wrote:
> I am looking for the values of:
>
> pupil magnification (exit_pupil_diameter/entrance_pupil_diameter)
>
> for Distagon 4/50 and Sonnar 4/150?
The old C and non-FLE 50 mm Distagon:
- Entrance pupil: 12.8 mm
- Exit pupil: 23.0 mm
The later FLE 50 mm Distagon:
- Entrance pupil: 13.0 mm
- Exit pupil: 22.6 mm
Sonnar 150 mm:
- Entrance pupil: 37.4 mm
- Exit pupil: 28.0 mm
Lens Data Sheets available on request from Zeiss and Hasselblad, or online
on http://www.zeiss.de. You will have to 'click' your way to where the lens
data are.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] A NEW MEMBER IN THE 203FE CLUB
> Is there a 203FE user manual out there on the Net somewhere?
Well, kind of ;-) Go to the Hasselblad web site, and find their phone
number, and call them. They have send me manuals for free, and if they
charge you, it will be minimal, like $5...
Regards, and congratulations!
Austin
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002
From: Rick Nordin [email protected]
To: Quinten de Bakker [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], Charlie Chernoff [email protected]
Subject: "Hasselblad Historical"
Hi Quinten
I'm really pleased with your efforts in raising interest and provoking some
discussion on HUG regarding the possibility of some kind of organization of
individuals interested in the history of the company and its products.
I've been thinking about this for some time but my hopes of putting a
website together have been somewhat handicapped by the other parts of my
life (too many things to do!). I was very pleased with the note by Robert
Monaghan which I think offered some excellent thoughts on what might be
included on the web site part of the organization. I agree almost entirely
with his suggestions (partly because they match my own ideas). His medium
format site is an information treasure trove and one which I look on a great
example of what a useful and interesting photographic website.
I have been a "lurker" on HUG as I don't have the time to answer many of the
questions regarding equipment. You and others do such a excellent job in any
case!!!
Although there have been some creative names, there are some good reasons
for going with the rather pedestrian and anglo-centric "Hasselblad
Historical" or some variation. Perhaps "Square Roots" might be a good title
for a hard copy newsletter? The emphasis I think needs to be on an
electronic "vehicle" at this time.
As Robert mentioned, there is quite a selection of material that might be
posted on a "historical" site. Some of the things I have been compiling (in
anticipation of getting the website up) that I think would have some
interest are:
1. Covers and contents of all the Forum magazines since its inception.
Actually the scanning the whole lot is not an unreasonable task, but I have
not done that yet!
2. Transcriptions of the factory ledger books 1949-1957. I have only done
the 1600F and SW/SWA shipping records so far as it is quite tedious.
3. An index of all the promotional literature with titles, dates and codes
and the cover photo. All the early literature (up to 1960) has been scanned
in, in its entirety.
4. A big file of unpublished photos from the factory archives - prototypes,
development cameras and oddball stuff.
5. A huge amount of NASA stuff which has been gathered together by Charlie
Chernoff (and myself) in documenting that part of Hasselbald history.
6. Charlie and I have also been interested in original boxes and packaging
ing and have a big file on that.
7. My collection of magazine ads which (as Robert points out) are quite
fascinating on their own as comments on the times and competition.
8. User tips and gallery for older cameras. I use my cameras and I think
others do - or could be encouraged to if they saw what these 50 plus year
old cameras are capable of.
9. Lenses - adapting and using non factory lenses on 1000f and 2000
cameras. I have a lot of these. Robert Monaghan calls this "lens hacking" I
think?
10. People profiles - photographers, repair people, inventors, collectors?
- and Robert's suggestions are very appropriate.
There certainly seems to be no shortage of potential material and I suspect
there are many articles which might be easily solicited on subjects of
particular interest (like the 2000FCW 2003FCW serial number anomalies??? -
QG?).
I've had some discussion with the factory about getting permission to make
the factory publication materials available on the net. One specific item we
have discussed is the obsolete instruction books which they still provide in
photocopy form at great expense to owners. The suggestion was made that the
society might take on that function of supplying the older Instruction books
in reproduction form at a cost that might provide sufficient profit to
finance the administrative costs of the society (website maintenance etc).
That is still being discussed as some of the distributors wanted to have
Instruction Books available through them. Still being negotiated (before the
factory went on summer holiday) and the discussion not yet rejoined.
The key here is that I've suggested that the Society (whatever it is called)
can offer the factory some support and help with inquiries (which I've been
doing) and feedback on products in exchange for permission to use of the
name and support in the way of information. It is a tough time right now for
the factory as sales are down and there is more emphasis on sales of current
product and little interest in the history of the company. Many of the
people who were supportive of the interest in history have now retired and
I've lost a number of key contacts.
Anyway, my apologies for the rambling discourse. All I wanted to say is that
there are a number of very interested and knowledgeable people who would
support this effort that might not enter into discussion on HUG, but I was
certainly pleased to see the contribution by Robert to this discussion.
I thought I'd send this outside of the HUG just to let you know I've been
thinking about this and am thankful for your interest. I would like to
pursue this as it is something close to my heart. I'd appreciate any
comments or suggestions that you might have on how to move forward.
My best wishes
Rick
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] moving forward? Re:Voting_for_a_name
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> I think the cutesy names are problematic; if you want to be easy for
> folks to find you, or to quickly understand who and what you are, then
> names like square roots and square circle are not going to do it ;-)
I agree completely.
> a straightforward name like the Hasselblad Historical Society is clear
> and simple, easily remembered and found in listings on or offline. A
> cryptic name makes the group less accessible to new entrants or foreign
> non-English native speakers (like many of the people who build these
> cameras etc. ;-0)
Good point. But still, i like the idea to get away from English only names.
After all, Hasselblad is called Hasselblad, and nobody seems to have any
trouble remembering that. ;-)
> I'd be more interested in seeing topics discussed like:
Indeed. And these are topics that need (!) to be discussed.
> a) where will the website and archives be located and best setup? (a
> stand-alone domain name that can be repointed easily if the web support
> site folds or moves without breaking links would be a nice plus)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: Robert Monaghan
To: [email protected]
Subject: moving forward? Re:Voting_for_a_name
I agree. A domain name must be registered and owned by the "society", once
that it is founded.
Where to host the site should be a separate matter.
> b) call for participation of articles or photos by topics - e.g.
> users of 1000f/1600f cameras today, prototypes, NASA cameras, and so on
>
> c) review of books about Hasselblad and history elements; also a listing
> of books shot with 'blads (such as Ray Atkeson's etc.)
>
> d) ads - one of the fun things with the bronica med fmt site was seeing
> a series of ads for the camera over time, might be an interesting project
> especially if comparisons could be made of ads in USA vs. Europe, Japan..?
>
> e) permission to post and archives of hasselblad manuals, price lists,
> documentation, brochures and the like; and building up a library of scanned
> resources online
>
> f) Forum magazine indexes etc. It would be neat if someone with a library
> of such issues could get permission to post an historical review of each
> issue as an ongoing project (like pop photo's 25 years ago reviews..)
All excellent suggestions.
> I think such ideas would help clarify plans, what's wanted, and maybe
> encourage some folks to generate some resources.
Indeed. I did request suggestions like these at the same time i asked for
names, remember? ;-)
None were posted though. That is, until now. Thank you!
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
From: Dale Jehning [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Close-up equations
I know it is kind of cheating but I bought the hasselblad "close up" book &
a close up calculator on ebay. Respectively $3.00 & 15.00. Either item will
give you the answers you need. Contact me directly if you want the copy of
few pages with the charts. Dale Jehning.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
oSubject: Re: [HUG] Photokina 2002 Rumors
Andr�,
Rumors go, quite consistant, here in Norway that a Hasselblad 645 with
improvements for digital back shooting is up their sleave. Future high
end CCD's, - we might soon see digital backs with 24 million pixles in
about the size of the 135-format to the price of 50.000 Swedish Kroners,
the song goes, - will be all too small to utilize the 6x6 frame... The
future of 'digital medium format' ("high end digital") lies somewhere
'right above' the ordinary 135-system. Then a 'digital back optimized'
645 (with spot metering, AF and..?) will be the only logical solution.
Kyosera, Pentax and Mamiya are already there...
At the press conference at Schloss Hotel, the Hasselblad mangagment will
also present 'their vision of the future'.... Exiting.
Tom of Oslo
Oldani wrote:
>
> Pure rumour from the German "yello press" (one of the larger magazines):
>
> > Andre.....The Leica R series are SLR cameras..... there seems to be a bit
> > of crossed information.. could you please straighten us out?
> >
> > Is this a rumor that Hasselblad will offer an SLR to accept Leica R series
> > lenses?
> > Ditto a Rangefinder body to accept the Leica M series RF lenses?
> > Something else??
>
> They speculate that Leica brings out a new R9 and Canon a new EOS 3xx. Then
> there is the speculation about new top notch digital SLR's from Nikon and
> Canon (full frame chip?) as always.
>
> Another gossip was from a different list about a Hasselblad 6x4.5. The
> speculation went into the direction that it could accept Xpan lenses (image
> circle should fit). Next thing was that it is a small Xpan without panorama
> but acccepting Leica M mount lenses and a body from Fuji.
>
> For the sake of the RF hype it could make sense and the variant with the
> Leica lenses would offer instantly a huge range of finest lenses. But why
> should they do that? The body must be somewhere in the region of the Leica
> M7 at half the price...
>
> Its fun as this emerges always before a large fair...makes a lot of fun but
> lets wait for the facts :-)
>
> Andr�
>
> --
>
> Andr� Oldani
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] F to FE lens modification
I had one modified about 3 years ago and seems like it was nearly $500. Not
sure it was worth the money.............Terry
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
From: Adrian Bradshaw [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] F to FE lens modification
I asked Hasselblad Sweden about this last year and the answer is that whilst
they did once offer this service for some of the F lenses they don't any
more. Frankly this put me off the entire 200/2000 system since this lack of
support despite the premium pricing makes the 500 series look preferable.
Rs
Adrian
[Ed. note: great tips from a noted Hasselblad repair tech and author of DIY Back Repair Manuals..]
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1692
> > The reason this has to be done by a tecnician is that there are shims under
> > each corner of the screen,
Wrong. There are no corner shims :)
and they have to be aligned by someone who has the
> > correct gages.
Wrong. If you have ever seen a screen for the C that is new, you would
see included instructions for doing it yourself. :)
If you tried to do it yourself you might get it right by
> > accident, but you would probably have no way of checking the alignment if it
> > were wrong.
This is a very simple job :) Remove the old screen and put in the new.
Run the 4 screws down until they are snug. With your lens set at
infinity, put a lupe on the screen (any corner), and run the screw
either up, or down, until you have a sharp focus. Do this on each of the
4 corners. When done, do it again. YOU ARE FINISHED AND HAVE SAVED
YOURSELF SOME MONEY! :)
Dick
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>The lens shutter may not "synchronize" well enough with the focal plane
>shutter. That's all he's saying. He does not say that IT WILL NOT WORK!
>BUY A NEW LENS!!! All he's saying that it MIGHT not work. There's a huge
>difference.
What's not to work? The "C" mode on a 203FE/205FCC makes the focal plane
shutter act exactly like the back curtain on a 500 series camera.
There's nothing to synchronize.
Push the release, the curtain opens, the lens goes off, and the curtain
closes when you remove you finger from the release.
On a 203/205 series camera, you can pull out the battery (takes but a
nanosecond) and it works in the "C" mode just like every 500 series camera
made. No restrictions on lenses.
There IS NO synchronization problem with using C lenses on a 203/205
camera. In the "C" mode they are, for all intent and purposes, 500 series
cameras.
This is one of the cool things about 203/205 cameras. Pop the battery and
you have a completely mechanical 500 series camera. Nothing is missing. It
all works. Put the battery in and in C mode, you now have a 500 series
camera with a meter.
I use my 203FE in the "C" mode quite often. I'm partial to the lens shutter
for exposures in the 1 sec to 1/60th range. C mode, mirror pre release, and
a cable release. Very sharp photographs.
The 203FE is one hellova camera!!!!!
Jim
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
"Tom Christiansen" [email protected] wrote:
> The obvious disadvantage of using the focal plane shutter is that your
> flash sync speed is all of a sudden dramatically reduced (from 1/500 to
> 1/90).
And your NON-flash shutter speed is now dramatically increased (from 1/500
to 1/2000). Lucky for me I use more high shutter speeds than flash!
(...and, as Jim Brick has already mentioned: if you need the higher sync
speed, just use the shutter in your C, CF, (etc) lenses! They still work
fine on the 203FE).
--
David Gerhardt
[email protected]
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: [HUG]More Wildi [DISAGREEMENT]!
Austin Franklin wrote:
> That is not true, or you would expose the film while focusing. It works as
> follows:
>
> 1) depress shutter
> 2) lense closes it's shutter and stops down
> 3) rear curtain opens
> 4) lense shutter opens
> 5) lense shutter closes
> 6) rear curtain closes
>
> Aside from what I said in my other post about a possible lag issue between 5
> and 6 causing a potential problem,
There is no possibility of that happening unless you happen to take your
finger off the release button to soon. Just like when using a 500 series
camera. Since we all know how to do this correctly with a 500 series camera,
there should be no problem when doing this with a focal plane shutter
camera. ;-)
> there is also one other place a lense lag
> can hurt, and that's if #2 is too slow, and the lense shutter isn't closed
> before the rear curtain opens...
That's true.
There is a difference between 500 series cameras and 2000/200 series cameras
in the time it takes the rear baffle c.q. focal plane shutter to open when
the release is depressed. The baffle doors start opening after about 30 ms
and take another 25 ms or so to open completely. The C shutter should be
fully closed in about 15 - 25 ms after the release button is depressed. The
"early" curtain release in a 2000 series camera is at about 50 ms after the
release button is depressed, the shutter is fully open about 10 ms later. (I
don't know the numbers for 200 series cameras, but they will be very
similar.) So if the leaf shutter in a C lens is slowed down so that it takes
longer than 50 ms to close there may be a problem.
However, the same gummed up C lens would produce the same problem on a 500
series body...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
Jim,
I see one hassle (sic). Time delayed expose with a C-lense. Since you
don't have this little lever on the release button on the 203FE you'll
have to use a remote exposure line (see what I mean?) which holds the
button 'in' untill the release-sequence of the Compur shutter is
complete.
Tom of Oslo
...
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] What's the big deal...
Sharookh Mehta wrote:
>> What's the big deal about lenses being made in Japan?? The finest large
format lenses are... I own an Xpan and the lens is so good it's
unbelievable..and it's made by Fuji (as everybody knows). I own a couple of
Nikons and Leicas and although it may be blasphemous to Leica officianados -
sorry guys - my Nikon lenses are top quality stuff, and frankly trying to
tell the difference is like splitting hairs!!
I'm not under-rating European or Canadian products but just giving the
Japanese products their rightful due.
I am sure that even if these rumours are true, Hasselblad knows what it is
doing... you don't get where you are by being stupid. <<
To begin with the last bit: Hasselblad got where it once gloriously was
under the inspiring leadership that has long gone. There is a very marked
difference between:
"Those of us who took over from the founding generation had and still have
the guiding objective of developing the company and its products, with our
actions based upon an unaltered set of basic principles - with focus on the
customer and with the maximum possible quality down to the most minute
details. This is an element in the explanation of our success. Another
important element is niche strategy. What is then meant by a niche strategy?
Well, it means that we at Hasselblad have concentrated upon a small niche of
the market and have not leered after the large mass market."
Jerry �ster, once President and C.E.O. of Victor Hasselblad AB.
and:
"Hasselblad is one of Sweden's most well-known companies with a great
potential in its trademark. The primary goal for the company will be to
develop this potential into further volume growth through intensified
product development and marketing."
The then new President and C.E.O, G�ran Bernhoff in 1997.
Not leering after the large mass market v.s. developing the potential into
further growth; quality v.s. sales as primary goal. The first made
Hasselblad wat it is/was, the second will... what will it do in the end? Dep
ends on how they handle this in the shrinking market.
Times have changed, and sales have always been important. But the
association with Zeiss is a large part of the potential in the trademark,
and it would be foolish to brush that aside and start selling 'Hasselblad'
lenses instead.
Which brings us to the other part: there is nothing wrong with lenses made
in Japan. But what do we know about 'Hasselblad' lenses?
We still don't know with certainty who makes the 60-120 zoom. Not that that
matters if it is a good lens. And that's just it.
Hasselblad has never been a manufacturer of lenses. So suppose Hasselblad
introduces a new line of 'Hasselblad' lenses, made in Japan. How do we know
what to expect? "Hasselblad knows what it is doing"?
Now if they would let us know that such lenses are designed and produced by
a company like Fuji, someone we know, we could know what we might expect.
But 'Hasselblad' lenses...? Would you like to be one of those brave first
people sinking lots of money into a 'Hasselblad' line of lenses to find out
for the rest of us (waiting to see how you fare) how good they are?
And remember the CB fiasco? They were Zeiss lenses, clearly marked as such,
and still we didn't want them. As was apparently predicted by Zeiss, who
(according to Zeiss' Kornelius Fleischer) advised against the CB line.
Playing with reputations, "potentials in the trademark" can be quite tricky,
and hazardous.
So it's not about lenses made in Japan, it is about Hasselblad living
dangerously in an already dire situation. It's about fearing that Hasselblad
might come to an end soon...
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 45071 Grip
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002
[email protected] (DScheffold) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a Hasselblad grip that uses the interior links not the release cable
>model. It has the leather strap. I believe it is the model 45071. Now my
>question: I noticed that the flash shoe turns. Is this normal or is this
>supposed to be facing forward? I have one of the early models with the cable
>release and this head does not turn. It just faces forward. If you have this
>bracket please let me know how yours works.
>
>Thanks,
>Don
I've got the same grip (I think it's a 45072) and it had the same
problem. I drilled a tiny hole through the flash shoe and into the
plastic, and epoxied in a short piece of a steel brad. Solved, and
yes, the grip is no longer worth a nickel to a collector. However, the
flash stays pointed in the right direction. Also worth noting that I
cut off the leather grip--it wasn't large enough and forced my hand to
an awkward angle (usually use 45 prism).
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1692
[email protected] writes:
personally changed out a 500C's stock focusing screen
The reason this has to be done by a tecnician is that there are shims under
each corner of the screen, and they have to be aligned by someone who has the
correct gages. If you tried to do it yourself you might get it right by
accident, but you would probably have no way of checking the alignment if it
were wrong.
For a more complete discussion of this issue, contact Brad Sherman at email:
[email protected]
From: "Stefan Geysen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 1993 Hasselblad 500 C/M : Palpas interior coating?
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
Confirmation from Hasselblad: they have used the Palpas coating on all
cameras since more than 10 years back.
From: John Stafford [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 Film Canisters
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
MAbraham1 at [email protected] wrote
> Where is a good place to purchase 120 film canister for protecting exposed
> film? Thank you. Michael
You can pay up the butt for some fancy machined and anodized aluminum jobs
with finicky threads, or pay a nickle each for dark plastic, waterproof
prescription med bottles.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
> [...]
>
> Somebody at a Norwegian photo site told me Wildi does not reccommend the
> use of the old C-lenses with stopped down light metering because it is
> not accurate enough.
It's not the metering that would be a problem at all.
It is said that synchronisation between the camera's focal plane shutter and
the old C lens' leaf shutter might be problematic.
> I don't have this edition of the Hasselblad Book,
> only the old ones. Can anyone fill me in on this? What does Wildy
> actually say on this?
> [...]
"C lenses should not be considered for use on any focal plane shutter
camera. The shutter in these old lenses is not likely to be in good enough
condition for the delicate synchronization necessary between focal plane and
lens shutter."
So it's not just 200 series cameras: "any focal plane shutter camera" means
2000 series cameras too.
I suspect that what's behind this is that Hasselblad has had enough of
trying to compete in the market against their own old lenses, and are
attempting to persuade us to throw them out and buy new ones by telling
tales of disaster descending on us should we continue to use the old stuff.
If the shutter in your C lens works fine, there's absolutely no reason why
it couldn't be used in combination with a 200 series body, except, of
course, the 202 FA (discontinued). Try, and you will know.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
Tom,
I haven't used the metering system on my 203FE with my old C lenses yet
(just got the camera a few months ago). However, I've spent a week-end
in the studio (using a Sekonic lightmeter) shooting about 40 rolls with
mostly the 150mm and 250mm, and some with the 80mm on the 203FE without
any problem. Synchronisation between the camera and lenses doesn't seem
to be a problem. All those lenses are 'C'.
I also have read some warning in the 203FE user manual about not using C
lenses on the camera, but I still have to experience a problem with the
combination.
Enjoy your camera!
Manu
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
> Fellas,
>
> As mentioned. I have just bought myself a 203FE with a 80 mm/2,8, a E12
> magazine and a PM5 prism finder. I have a question to you of the guys
> with experience with this camera and the use of old C-lenses and light
> metering.
>
> Somebody at a Norwegian photo site told me Wildi does not reccommend the
> use of the old C-lenses with stopped down light metering because it is
> not accurate enough. I don't have this edition of the Hasselblad Book,
> only the old ones. Can anyone fill me in on this? What does Wildy
> actually say on this?
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
Tom of Oslo,
>Somebody at a Norwegian photo site told me Wildi does not reccommend the
>use of the old C-lenses with stopped down light metering because it is
>not accurate enough. I don't have this edition of the Hasselblad Book,
>only the old ones. Can anyone fill me in on this? What does Wildy
>actually say on this?
Wildi, "Hasselblad Manual", 5th. ed., p. 9: "Although C lenses can be
mounted in focal plane shutter cameras, use of this combination for
photography is not recommended. The shutters in these old lenses are
usually no longer in good enough operating condition to meet the critical
synchronization requirements that are necessary between the shutter in the
lens and the focal-plane curtain in the camera."
Wildi, "Hasselblad Manual", 5th ed., pp 99-100: "When the shutter in the
lens is used for the exposure (with the focal plane shutter set to C and
the lens aperture manually closed down on CF, CFi, or CB lenses), the
shutter speed that provides correct exposure at the set aperture is
indicated on the display together with the letters SET, reminding you that
you must set this shutter speed manually on the lens.
On the 202 camera, only the focal plane shutter can be used for the
exposure with any lens thus limiting the flash sync to 1/90 second. CB
lenses cannot be used because the have no F setting. CB lenses can be used
on 205 and 203 cameras, but you must use the lens shutter for the exposure.
C lenses should not be considered for use on any focal plane shutter
camera. The shutter in these old lenses is not likely to be in good enough
condition for the delicate synchronization necessary between focal plane
and lens shutter."
That's Wildi's scoop...
Tom of Seattle.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
This is all a "BIG CROCK" of you know what. All Wildi is trying to do is
sell you a new lens. All Wildi is, is a salesman. He is nothing more,
and nothing less. I would not call him a good salesman either. A good
salesman will at least tell you the truth and be honest with you.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the C lenses. If your shutter
needs a CLA, you do not throw it away to make Wildi happy. Hasselblad
"used" to be a great company, and now, they really should be ashamed of
themselves for throwing trash like this out there for the people to read
and think to be true.
Think for yourselves guys, don't be taken in with the Wildi trash. Just
remember that he is nothing more than a salesman.
As to his book, the Freytag book is and always has been superior.
My 2 cents :)
Dick
(quotes wildi quotes in above posting by Tom..)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
To: Hasselblad [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] F to FE conversion - follow-up
All,
a little while back I asked Hasselblad USA about converting F lenses to
FE and they told me it wasn't possible. Following someone's advice on
the list I sent an email to Hasselblad Sweden. For you information,
here's their answer.
Manu
You are right. Earlier we had a conversion kit, not in general for F
lenses but only for FE prepared lenses (F lenses manufactured just
before the time of introduction of the FE lenses). However these kits
are not available any more making this conversion not possible any more.
The conversion cost was substantial.
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Telephoto Lens Question...
RStephen Winter wrote:
> Hello All.. I have a 500CM and a standard 80mm lens a the current time. I
> am looking at getting a Telephoto that will also be used for portraits. It
> looks like a 250mm would be the better choice over a 150 or 180 just for the
> sheer "mm" of it. Am I making the correct choice? It seems that i'd need to
> get too close with anything smaller that a 200mm..
Yes, but... It depends.
For 'head shots" the 250 mm lens is very well suited. No problem.
But if you want to get a bit wider (head and shoulders), you do need to move
back quite a bit. A lens that is just a tad shorter would be nice. A 150 mm,
or even 120 mm still allows to keep enough distance to the subject. But they
definitely are too short for tight facials.
Perhaps the best, i.e. most versatile allround portrait lens will be the 180
mm.
> Being new to the Hassy system, I'm also unsure about the different "models"
> I've seen. (T*, Sonnar, Sonnar-C, Planar, CF, F, FE, ect..) Is there a big
> difference in the quility of the optics in the different models? Are they
> mostly just "age markers?" Is there a web site that describes the
> difference between the models??
With your 500 C/M the shutterless 250 mm F and FE Tele-Tessar versions are
not an option.
The C/CF/CFi shuttered versions, and the earlier 1954 shutterless version
for the 1600F/100F cameras, all are the same design. The only 'optical'
improvement was the introduction of multicoating in the mid-1970s. The real
difference therefore is the mount: improved ergonomics in each successive generation
The Sonnar is a truly outstanding performer at f/5.6, and it does not get
better when stopping down. The F/FE versions are equally good.
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002
From: Bill Pearce [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] the Xpan
I have had the Xpan with the 45 and 90 for a bit over a year, and the 30 for
about a month. Here's what I think:
The lenses are quite good, just as Fuji's lenses for 6x8 and 3x5. There is
little if any vignetting with the 90, and litle enough with the 45 that it
can be used without the center filter with most negative films (but never,
never with chrome). I found the handling to be strongly intuitive, and I
think that most of us that are familiar with manual camera equipment can use
it without a manual. It has proved to be quite reliable, no service required
so far. It gets decent battery life. And yes, it has uses other than
landscapes. I have even used it for shots at nearly the closest focusing
distance, and find the paralax correction to be accurate.
Three things that I don't like: There should be some sort of dark backing to
the finder LED's, as they can be hard to see in bright light. The lack of a
shutter speed readout in the finder is inexcusable. The finish is alarmingly
soft, and scratches at the slightest opportunity.
Buy it now!
Bill Pearce
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad H1
Hello Austin,
> They currently do not make a 220
> magazine for 645 format, as far as their main web site shows.
That's right. The discontinuation of the A32 sometime in 2001 was announced
in the 2001 product catalogue.
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002
From: Craig Roberts [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 220 film in older film magazines
Hello Pablo,
I use a couple of old non-automatic "Magazine12" back precisely because you
can load 220 film into them. The "tunnel" (the curcular hinged port with
the film speed/type settings on it) through which you view the frame numbers
on the film backing must be plugged, however. Hassie used to make plastic
plugs for just this purpose but I've been unable to find any (IF ANYONE HAS
ANY OLD "220" PLUGS FOR SALE, LET ME KNOW, PLEASE!).
Then, load your 220 film, reset your back to frame number 1 and wind it on
to frame number 7 and reset to 1 again. After shooting the first 12 frames,
reset to 1 once again and continue through the end of the roll.
Frame spacing can be a little off, I'm told, but I never had any trouble
with it.
Good luck!
Craig
Washington, DC
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Film backs
[email protected] wrote:
>A 120 film has paper behind the film. Therefore the pressure plate needs
>another position compared to 220 film, in order to put the film plane in
>the correct position. For the V-system there are no magazines availible
>that handles both 120 and 220 film. The A12 magazine handles 120 film and
>A24 handles 220 film. In these two magazines, the pressure plate has
>different positions.
Niklas,
It seems like Hasselblad could have, many years ago, re-designed the V
system back to accommodate both 120 and 220 films. Other mechanical cameras
systems do.
A simple selector switch that selected a take-up gear and stopped counting
at 12 or 24. By using the 24 back for both, the mechanical stop is set at
12 for 120 film and 24 for 220 film. The proper gear for winding paper
backed or non-paper backed film would be selected. This would be, compared
to the mechanical mechanisms in the 200/500 series cameras, duck soup! An
apprentice could design this with one arm tied behind his/her back.
Instead, we have to own a fortune in backs. Twice the number of backs we
really need. Because some films ONLY COME IN 120 while others are available
in 120 and 220. If a film is available in 220, one would be nuts to not use
it since it is more economical and requires less film changing. There are a
few situations where one might choose 120 over 220, but I suspect they are
few and far between.
Anyway, my Hasselblad is my favorite camera. I've owned Hasselblads since
1961. I cannot find fault in any other part of the system. But having to
have two nearly identical backs just to be able to use 120 or 220 film, is
a little ridiculous. Especially at $1000 each. $2000 just to be able to use
120 AND 220 film...
IMHO,
Jim
[Ed. note: Hasselblad/USA continues to get high marks from owners for service!...]
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kudos to Hasselblad USA Repair
My 203FE developed two different problems within its first year of
operation. I got 10 day turnaround from Hasselblad USA both times. And my
local dealer loaned me their demo 203FE while my camera was away.
Impeccable service all around.
Jim
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kudos to Hasselblad USA Repair
I have had nothing but excellent customer support from Hasselblad USA.
And all on used equipment from which they haven't made a dime in years.
Great people, makes owning a Hasselblad a pleasure.
Godfrey
> Jim said: "Impeccable service all around."
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film backs
Philippe Tempel wrote:
> Seems to make sense. Speaking of backs, I remember
> reading about Hassy having a film loading contest.
> The fastest time was around 11 or 12 seconds to load a
> roll. What's the secret for us over 3 minutes slow
> pokes? :-) I can see where the newer back that has
> the rocking metal clip versus the older metal clips
> that each swing away up to 90 degrees from the spool
> edge might be faster.
Not really. You don't have to swing them out all the way; just push the
spool under like you would do with the newer rocking clip.
The retaining clip (the one the paper leader has to go under) in the older
type back isn't as heavily sprung, so its easy to push the paper leader
under, without first having to turn the key to make it pop up again. Makes
loading quicker.
From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "X" model 'blad.. Re: H1 questions
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> the "X" model:
>
> I'd like to see a body in which the leaf shutter is in the body, not the
> lenses, along with IF focusing helical.
Probably not feasible. The leaf shutter needs to be close to the optical
centre of the lens. Anywhere else it causes uneven exposure, centre of
the image getting more light. That's why focal plane shutters are
curtains.
But then again...
> An series of lens heads could be designed, I think, which would just be
> the front ends that fit on the shutters and IF mechanism, with possible
> optical elements at rear shared between "lenses". <...>
Yes, I've been hoping for that kind of MF design ever since I heard
about the post-WW2 Zeiss Contaflex series with Pro-Tessars :-)
Even Kodak Retina folders of fifties had exchangeable front elements
(either Zeiss or Schneider - not mutually interchangeable). The same
lenses were also used in 126-size cassette Retinas, and Rollei SL26, I
think.
The range of focal lengths would be limited. IIRC, Contaflex offered
only 35mm to 115mm, or in 6x6 terms about 60 to 200mm. For a TLR that
would still be pretty nice...
-- Lassi
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: H1 questions
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> people have built tilt/shift versions of the SWC, and shift versions, even
> before the APO grandagons became available (see Simon Nathan's columns in
> Modern Photography, Holmason's Nature Photography, etc.). The tilt is most
> useful for macro nature closeups, and while the SWC doesn't have a lot of
> shift range, it was well regarded with the Alpa version using the hassy
> style biogon 38mm lens on the alpa with shifts for cityscapes. The APO
> grandagons are even better, per reports, with lots more coverage, even the
> 35mm and 45mm ultrawides. Unfortunately, we have to turn to the alpa and
> other small maker offerings for a rigid body camera with shifts/tilts that
> goes beyond the SWC's capabilities (IMHO..).
Comparing the SWC to cameras like the ALPA? Don't forget that the SWC is no
more but a mount for the 38 mm Biogon.
You only get shift out of the 38 mm Biogon if you use a small format. That's
the "ALPA trick".
It's not the SWC that is limiting things, it's the lens they built the thing
around. The Biogon is just not an option.
> I think if they had built a SWC with shifts, using the lower cost
> rodenstock 35mm, lots of folks would have bought them as an upgrade to the
> SWC for architectural shots - yes? ;-)
Like the many who bought the ArcBody? ;-)
Maybe.
One major consideration is that it still is not just an extra lens, it's not
just a wide angle lens you carry around because you do need a wide angle
lens, which happens to offer shift as well. And that's what we need: a wide
angle lens that fully integrates in the SLR camera system, and offers shift
too.
The SWC came about, basically, because they did not manage to built a good
(!) wide angle lens to fit the Hasselblad 1600 F and 1000 F cameras. Kodak
produced a 55mm lens that protruded far into the camera. Nice, if only the
cameras it was meant to be used on had the ability to lock the mirror up. As
it was it was utterly unusuable. The shortest retro-focus design (something
quite new in those days) eventually was the 60 mm Distagon (not the same as
the present day 60 mm Distagon. I'm still hoping to find one of those first
version Distagons and try it myself, but it is reported not to have been the
best lens thinkable.
The Biogon, non-retrofocus, lens however was (and still is) one of the best
lenses, too good not to use, but it could not be "integrated" into the
Hasselblad SLR concept. So it was given a special "mount", the SWA and SW
cameras, continued until today's 905 SWC. So it ( the SWC in all its guises)
is not an "system" lens, nor meant to (because it can't) compete with
cameras like the ALPA, Cambo Wide,and what have you.
The quest for a good SLR wide angle lens however continued, resulting in
better versions of the 60mm, a quite good 50 mm (later improved) and a 40 mm
(also very much improved). The 40 mm is, of course, very close to the
Biogon, suggesting the same type of application. And it is (in its present
day, FLE form) a very good lens too.
Now if only that lens could shift, and keep SLR viewing and focussing,
perhaps even auto aperture (and why not?)... Imagine, no more peep-through
distorted viewfinders, no more ground glass back upside down focussing: just
slap on a another lens on your SLR and you're cooking... uhm... shifting!
;-)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 501CM & Motor Winders
a good question. even from the very first 500's, hasselblad
intended on an add-on winder which never materialized. eventually
they went the EL route for motororized use.
i remember in the mid-80's NPC did make an add-on winder which
was intended to fit any old 500. i think i remember reading that
hasselblad complained about possibiity of gear wear or some such
problems.
to its credit, the 503CW / winder combination works very well in
practice. they claim a self-adjusting mechanism between the winder
and the body which mitigates the potential for gear wear.
-rei
...
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 501CM & Motor Winders
Ayan George wrote:
> I really want a 501CM but having a motor winder
> is becoming more important to me. Why can't the
> 501CM accomodate a winder? Is there a good
> reason for this or is this just a deffeciency
> that Hasselblad builds in to justify the 503CW
> and other models?
There was (is?) a third party winder available for use with the 500 C(/M
etc.). I believe it was made by a firm called APCAM, but i'm not sure about
that
The 501 CM has a fixed crank, but it can be changed to the removable crank
configuration as known from the 500 C(/M etc.). You will need to get a
'crank bayonet plate', either as a spare part from Hasselblad (part.no.
13163), or from the box the Hasselblad meter knob originally came in. The
crank on the 501 CM comes off (one screw) and the bayonet plate can be fixed
to the camera. You will then need another crank too, of course.
Whether this combination of 500 C(/M etc.) or modified 501 CM plus APCAM (?)
winder will be reliable, and not cause problems, is another matter. I don't
know.
The interface between the 503 CW and its Winder has two electrical contacts,
telling the motor when to start and stop again. There are no such aids in
the other 500 C(/M etc.) cameras, so the motor will be stopped by
resistance, stress. Perhaps not very good for the camera? But then, the same
thing happens when we wind manually: then too we apply force until we hit a
mechanical stop.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Stuart Phillips [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 501CM & Motor Winders
I believe the APCAM winder did induce undue wear on the gears. I have a 501C
and will soon ( in the next 2 years) upgrade to a 503cw for the winder
facility.
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002
From: "Dr. Robert Young" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] re:Underwater housings
Housings pop up on ebay regularly. There were (2) up there in the last
month. The nicest appear to be in the Houston area where several ex-NASA
custom housings recently popped up. They were used for the underwater
training pictures in the "neutral buoyancy" tank. Several of the others I
have see at ebay are for the older 500C cameras, I don't know if the newer
models would fit or not.
From: "Rumpis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best Option for Entry-level Medium Format
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002
I am from Riga, Latvia (guess where it is ;-)) As I have heard,
there are less than 10 Hassy users in our country. We have
there no specialised Hassy repair facilities at all.
Rumpis
...
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Viewfinder magnifier for PM45
I did a Google search on "Zeiss miniquick monocular" and the first hit was
this:
http://www.e-sci.com/genSci/5/1020/1036/10188.html
So here it is, what it does, how much it costs, and where you can get it...
Jim
[email protected] wrote:
>Help!
>
>I realized that I can't see thru my PM45 clearly enough to get
>maxium sharp focus wide open on my 250 SA. So I was set to get
>the Hasselblad viewfinder magnifier for the PM45 when I came
>across a comment by Dr. Fleischer on Photo.net about how he
>focusses for fine resolution using a Zeiss miniquick monocular
>(5x10). It's not clear from his post how he's using it -- whether
>against a prism finder or with a waist level finder. I asked B&H
>about it and they said they never heard of such a thing, didn't think it
>would work, and to just buy the Hasselblad magnifier (twice the
>cost).
>
>Cost really isn't an issue. But I am interested in the miniquick since
>it provides greater magnification, could be directed at various areas
>of the viewfinder instead of being restricted to the center, and also
>would be more generally useful just to carry around. I wouldn't want
>to use the Hasselblad magnifier all the time, either, but only for
>particularly high resolution shots (a cathedral shot wide open with
>infrared, for example). So I'm not wedded to a full-time, 100%
>Hasselblad solution.
>
>If anybody could shed light on this question it would be very, very
>welcome.
>
>G.
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Craig Roberts [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Strange: First Frame Light Leak?
If an old 12 back is used (with the "viewing port") the first frame could
possibly be fogged when the port is open to note the frame 1 marking on the
paper film backing. That's unlikely, though, and would not explain why the
film was fogged on one edge only.
The bottom edge of the transparency's frame, when viewed, is actually the
top edge of the film in the camera. Fogging on this edge could indicate
that the camera body to back seal wasn't complete. I often have to manually
move my backs' locking buttons to the left after mounting the backs in order
to make sure they're fully seated. It's possible that a partially seated
back could "snap" into place by itself after the dark slide was pulled out,
but not before the first frame was fogged.
Craig Roberts
Washington, DC
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Strange: First Frame Light Leak?
Folks,
...
If the barn doors don't close completely, you'd expect to see light leaks
on all the frames, right?
However, if you pull the film leader out too far when loading it, you'll
get fogging alone the bottom of the first frame. And when you load and
unload film, you really wanna be in the shade. Or at least handle the film
in the shade of your own body.
Tom
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Strange: First Frame Light Leak?
Craig (et.al)
>Fogging on this edge could indicate
>that the camera body to back seal wasn't complete. I often have to manually
>move my backs' locking buttons to the left after mounting the backs in order
>to make sure they're fully seated.
Hasselblad actually specifies this in the 501CM manual. Put the back on and
slide the button to the right (when the lens is pointing away form you).
Then pull the dark slide.
Tom
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Strange: First Frame Light Leak?
> Peter,
>
> Don't the barn doors open in the middle? The light leak is
> purportedly at
> the bottom of the frame...and only the first frame. Wouldn't a barn
> door
> leak be in the middle, more than likely, and be on every frame?
>
> Austin
While it seems logical that there would be light leaks on every frame,
experience tells me that there is almost never a light leak on every
frame. People tend to think of "how" in terms of light leaks but rarely
"how much","how long" and "when". The "how much" and "how long" gets
most of my attention. If you time how much time each frame (1 thru 12)
is without dark-slide protection you'll note, perhaps, that #1 goes, on
average, the longest. It's the load frame. #12 would be the shortest.
It seems to work that way.
Also... where the light strikes the film has very little, quite often,
to do with where the light originates from. Projection and all that you
know. Just because the opening in the barn doors is in the middle tells
me little of where the light should be on the film. If there is a gap
in the middle of the doors that means there is a gap from the lower
hinge, up, also. Light coming from UNDER the mirror could project
upward from ANY gap in the doors onto the bottom of the frame (top of
film gate). It happens a lot. Well... not a lot but sometimes.
Must take nap now... smoke coming from ears...
Peter
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(928) 779-5263
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Magazine conversion
To change the 16S into a 16 does require that you change the faceplate
of the magazine. That is it, except that you have to take the entire
magazine housing apart (gearing, etc.) to do so. Then the faceplate is
going to run you about $100 from Hasselblad. It is hardly worth it. Sell
the magazine on eBay, and purchase the A16 on eBay. It is going to be
far cheaper to do so.
Dick
Jim Brick wrote:
>
> Again, get Dick's back repair manual (tells you how to take it apart,
> repair anything, put it back together) and email dick about which part(s)
> you need to convert it to 645. I suspect it is only the faceplate. Dick can
> help you with part numbers.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~blackbird711/manuals.html
>
> Jim
>
> Harry Lock wrote:
>
> >Hi All
> >
> >When I bought my very old 500 I got a couple of film backs with it. One is
> >for the smaller then normal square format, sometimes called the 'super
> >slide'. I'm not sure of the proper term. Someone told me it is easy to
> >convert this to a 645 back as the gearing is the same. (Now that I type this
> >I
> >realise it must be a 4.5cm square format back) Anyway back to my question.
> >
> >Has anyone ever done this or had it done...or is there a conversion kit
> >available? The person that told me about this possibility said"you just swap
> >the plates" but I think this is an over simplification.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Harry
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Magazine conversion
The prior note was meant if you want to do it right. If you want to go
at it and hope for the best, you can file or mill the sides of the
faceplate out to get your 2 1/4, but remember that you will then have to
shim the faceplate on the rear side such that it will match the original
thickness.
You can contact Ross Yerkes at 323.256.1018 if you would like to have
someone do this for you. He has done them in the past, but does not like
to do so. He may do one for you if you talk long and hard :)
Dick
...
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Craig Roberts [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 16S back conversion
Hasselblad USA will indeed convert an old 16S superslide back to a 16 (645)
format. They charge $265.00 ($100 for parts and the remainder for labor).
The labor charge is the same as they ask for a basic overhaul of a back.
Craig Roberts
Washington, DC
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002
From: NewPhoto [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] ICQ Interest Groups - Hasselblad
Hello all,
For anyone who is interested I started a Hassy interest group on ICQ - for
those interested in "chatting" directly to other members. The link is:
http://web.icq.com/groups/boards?gid=11982453
Keep well all
Barry
From: I. N. Cognito [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
>I doubt if 99% of the people can tell the difference between images shot
>with similar quality lenses.
Jeff, you're probably right. I can see the difference in the color
rendition but it isn't just a sharpness thing. The whole point of my
post was that Hasselblad has since their inception pitched the lenses
first, and the bodies second. Their camera bodies up until recently
have been 1950s's designs. They built their reputation on the
reputation of Carl Zeiss, for better or for worse, thats been their
marketing angle. Now they are entering a new era trying to compete
largely with Mamiya and Contax in the 645 arena, and they no longer
have the Zeiss "crutch". Fuji lenses are very good, that isn't the
point. I think its going to be a tough road for them trying to play
catch up when they can no longer play their trump card.
From: "Jeff" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
Since Fuji lenses are substantially cheaper (cost) than Zeiss lenses, this
change could give Hasselblad a chance to pad the cost (like you suggested),
but also give them a chance to survive (make a profit).
Question: Are all Contax lenses made by Zeiss, or by Kyocera under Zeiss
license.
Jeff.
"I. N. Cognito" [email protected] wrote...
> "Jeff" [email protected] wrote:
> >I doubt if 99% of the people can tell the difference between images shot
> >with similar quality lenses.
...
From: I. N. Cognito [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
"Jeff" [email protected] wrote:
>Since Fuji lenses are substantially cheaper (cost) than Zeiss lenses, this
>change could give Hasselblad a chance to pad the cost (like you suggested),
>but also give them a chance to survive (make a profit).
True Jeff. It would seem they must be profitable, given their lines
are based on 50+ year old designs. Surely R&D has been recovered many
times over. Perhaps not so with their newer Focal plane bodies.
>Question: Are all Contax lenses made by Zeiss, or by Kyocera under Zeiss
>license.
They are built by Kyocera, using Zeiss specifications and tooling
equipment.
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!!
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
"I. N. Cognito" [email protected] wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy"
>
> >Only if you get the SWC. Otherwise, there are many Japanese MF lenses just
> >as good.
>
> Afraid I'll have to disagree. The complete line is excellent. "Just
> as good" is again subjective, quantifiable MTF scores not
> withstanding.
I understand. You are completely oblivious to reality. Especially the
reality that the Mamiya 7 and Fuji GW/GSW wide angle lenses are
significantly better than the dogs Hassy charges you 5 times the price for.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002
From: Graham Hill [email protected]
To: Hasselblad [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] comments 135-S Planar
Gentlemen
When I was much (much) younger I decided that I would concentrate on the
Hasselblad brand of macrophotography and went out and purchased a 135-S Planar
lens, various extension tubes etc and of course a bellows. I have long since
decided that this type of work was out of the question given the amount of $ I
was able to generate and the amount of work involved setting up etc. hence the
equipment sits idle. I have mentioned selling it to various dealers in
Vancouver and you get 2 answers. Question #1, What's a 135-S Planar worth
these days. To a man they will say peanuts because it's so rare no one uses
it, "fair enough say I". Question #2. How much to purchase one? Verrry
expensive if we could locate one, Sir do you know how rare these things are?
No one as suggested a fair market value for this amazing lens so I'm wondering
if this erudite panel would care to comment.
Thanks
Graham Hill
BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Zeiss miniquick monocular
Well, for anybody possibly thinking of using the Zeiss miniquick as a
focussing aid, my experience suggests it may not be the best thing
for eyeglasses wearers. It's kind of clumsy to use, and, frankly,
gives me a headache. So I ended up ordering the Hasselblad
viewfinder magnifier for the PM45 after all...
G.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] What is the difference?
Ken,
the CFE lenses have databus contacts that transmit information about the
chosen aperture to the camera body. CFi lenses don't. This is only
interesting if you use Hasselblad 202, 203 and 205 cameras with inbuilt
meter.
Ulrik
> Hasselblad makes both a CFE and CFi lens. Understand they do not make both
> in the same focal length. Is there a difference in capability between a
> CFi and a CFE lens?
>
> Ken Martin
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002
From: Stuart Phillips [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Thinking about getting a PME45
You can get them new out of Hong Kong on Ebay for about $1000, just to give
you a guide.
...
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002
From: "Nelson L. Mark, SC001" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] The 160 CB
I own a CB160, CF150, and CF180 (I got the two CF's real cheap, with the CF
in the shop right now with a busted aperture spring, and have the CB on
loan). I've been shooting the CB for 2 months now straight and it isn't bad
of a lens, but I don't like the f4.8 min on the lens. The 3.5 makes a hair
difference on some of my high key/low key work with a Softar I/II and the
CB loses some of the softness. I (personally) like the handling of the
CF150 and it's size more when I travel (I just got back from Vancouver and
the CB was a bit bulky). For my portrait work, I prefer the 150 in smaller
spaces and the 180 outdoors, but the 160 isn't bad (except when it's
getting dark out). Personally, I'd rather shoot with a 250Sa, which has
always seemed to handle better as an "all around" long lens.
The poly build of the front of the 160 is nice, it holds my Heliopan
filters on REALLY tight. But, looking into the rear of the lens, which is
open, makes the whole thing seem cheap (no baffling, open space). I don't
really care about the MTF curves and sharpness "tests" on the lens, of
course, with respect to Dr. Fleischer's excellent comments...it's the end
work which I look at.
For my landscape work, I usually prefer wide lenses (40CF), but when I need
to cut in tight, I like the 250SA, again. The 150CF's always been good, but
a hair soft. The 180CF I never carry. The 160CB over the last week has
performed decently, as I look at my shots on PanF and no tripod, the 16x20
prints are still sharp. It does make my 503CW/Winder front heavy when
hand-held.
The CB lenses aren't really all that bad (except for the cheap *ss CB80)
but, I use a 100CF instead. Of course, I guess if you really want something
for wide-open shooting, the 110/2 is the best...if you can get the 160CB
for cheap, I'd get it. But, I still think the 250Sa is better (personall
Just my 2.5 cents worth...
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] hasselblad markups
Robert,
Here in Norway (with some of the highest hourly sallaries in the world)
the 'Hasselblad Service' is regarded as 'cheap' to 'reasonable'.
Compared to the same service fees demanded by the Japanese importers.
It is worth noting that the dollar has fallen steadily both towards the
Swedish Kroner (Hasselblad) and Euro (Carl Zeiss) in the last 1 - 2
years. I noted that today the Euro is higher than the Dollar...
Hasselblad's sales dropped dramatically after 1996. Then it picked up
(just as dramatically) when XPan was released, has then flattened out
again. The Hasselblad managment has hopes that H1 will bring volumes up
again. I am sure it will...
Tom of Oslo
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 500cm kit for $1500 or 501cm kit for $2200?
If you want a reference point for Hasselblad prices, always check
out eBay.
Here, for example, is a new, in the box, 501 cm system for $1,980:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1394734247
This vendor happens to be in Hong Kong. There are other vendors
who operate out of California and elsewhere, who import from Hong
Kong, and have equivalent or lower prices than above. And keep in
mind that further negotiation below the asking price is often possible
when advertised items don't sell...
It is also important to note that these Hasselblad items (for now at
least) will be covered by Hasselblad USA for their international
warranty. Unlike Nikon and Mamiya, Hasselblad USA accepts grey
market items for repairs under international warranty, without any
argument.
Prices are now lower on eBay than anywhere else in the world, to
my knowledge. It is, however, interesting to compare prices in
Canada and the UK. Importing Hasselblad items yourself from
reputable dealers abroad is always another option, and on certain
items you can find great deals. (Robert White in the UK, for
example, recently had a one day sale where I picked up a new, new
model A-12 back for $300.)
In short, it pays to shop around. And unless you don't know what
you want and must have the security of dealing with a store where
you can talk to people and examine the merchandise, it makes
much more sense to buy online.
Hope this helps,
G.
[Ed. note: sold by now, but for your info on prices, esp. the 300 f/2.8]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002
From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Friday FS
For sale
All like new minus
50/2,8 FE $ 1.370,-
110/2,8 FE $ 1.440,-
150/2,8 FE $ 990,-
250/4 FE $ 1.370,-
300/2,8 Powerpack with 1,7ApoMutar $ 13.500,-
350/5,6 CFE $ 5.600,-
E-mail for more information and photos
Carl Zeiss Center
Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS
Berg
N-3320 Vestfossen
Norway
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Sunny 16 rule EV
Andreas Fischer wrote:
> >nor do the new FE lenses interlock the aperture
> >with the shutter ring
>
> When did they change that?
> My 150/2.8 FE does interlock with the shutter ring.
> I don't know exactly how old it is, though.
Interesting. I think the question should then be: "When did they change it
back?"
It was one of things i noticed when they introduced the 205TCC back in 1991:
the little fork was still present on the lens, but there was nothing in the
camera's lens mount it could grip. They said the fork was still there so you
could use the FE lenses on 2000 series body without functional restrictions,
but that a link with the shutterspeed ring would be of little use with a
camera that decided what speed to use, no matter what speed is set on the
ring. Made sense.
What body are you using this lens with?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] 2000 model differences-pros/cons
Robert,
as the 2000 model bodies are out of production for about 13 years your
choice will likely be restricted to used cameras. Buy only a camera where
the shutter which is the most vulnerable part of the camera is in top
condition and has no wrinkles or bigger dents. When I spoke to a Hasselblad
repairman he could not see differences in reliability between the four
models (2000 FC, 2000 FCM, 2000 FCW, 2003 FCW). He said that the shutter
should be serviced every few years. If this is done it gives very accurate
exposures.
I bought a 2000 FC recently which was serviced by Hasselblad/Germany for 300
Euro (add this to the price you pay for the camera). An independent
repairmen measured the shutter times out of curiosity and was surprised that
they were within specs (I think he is more used to Kiev cameras).
Differences between the camera:
2000 FC: great camera
2000 FCM: retracts the shutter automatically when you take of the magazine,
therefore it is more difficult to ruin the shutter
2000 FCW: adds the possibility to attach a winder, does not depend on the
battery when using the lens shutter
2003 FCW: adds a brighter screen and the better light absorbing "Palpas"
interior coating.
Some spare parts may not be available for these cameras any more.
Ulrik
BTW: I still have a 80 mm F-Planar in perfect serviced condition for sale
that would be a great adition if you buy a 2000 series camera.
> Betreff: [HUG] 2000 model differences-pros/cons
>
> I am thinking of getting one of the 2000 series bodies..most likely used.
> Is there any particular model one should avoid?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] FE f/4 350 mm lenses
Hello all,
For those of us not following what goes on on Photo.net, it apparently was
confirmed by Zeiss' Kornelius Fleischer that the FE f/4 350 mm lens has been
discontinued.
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], "[email protected]"
Subject: Re: [HUG] Where's the "V"?
Steve Baker wrote:
>Just ran a few test rolls through my new, used 500cm and I love the camera!
>I had also recently purchased an Xpan and I was so disappointed in how
>everyone just looked at it and said, "How do you like the Fuji?" (smile).
>Think this 100% hassy is a keeper. My biggest disappointment (if you can
>call it that) is the lack of a "V" in the negative. I remember reading on
>the list a few months ago about the "V" showing up on the negative and I
>can't find it. I mean, hey, if I'm going to dole out this kind of money for
>a hassy, you'd think I could, at least, get a "V" in my negatives! :) Does
>it have something to do with where I get it developed? This is not a
>"biggie issue", of course, but I'm curious if I am recalling this correctly?
>
>Steve
It is easy to have all of your cameras produce "V"'s. All it takes is a
small triangle file. Use one corner of the file and put the V anywhere,
along the film gate edge, that you want. Photographers have used this to
identify their cameras by using a series of V notches along a film gate
edge. They can then identify which camera or film back produced a
particular film.
Years ago I had all of my Leicas notched with a square and then stuck in a
piece of microfilm that had my name, a number, and the year. Every frame
produced this info along the edge of the film. But the company that did
this work, and supplied the microfilm for a dozen years to come, has gone
out of business. So all of my new cameras do not have this.
Jim
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Tripod socket
Camera base plates (foot) have six screws. The SWC foot has four.
The 1/4" & 3/8" threads are in the foot. The late foot has both 1/4" & 3/8"
threads so either tripod screw will work. I offered my extra foot(s), which
are from cameras and an SWC and have both threads, for those with old feet,
who need a different or both threads. Two camera feet and one SWC foot left.
These will also adapt an old camera to the later Hasselblad quick release
clamp.
Jim
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad bellows?
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002
Max Perl wrote:
> How do you find the older Hasselblad bellows which consist not just of one
> rail but has four round alluminium rails?
> It has marks for 80,120,135 and 150mm lenses. It is much cheaper to buy
this
> 2nd hand than a new one. This is the reason I ask. I use a 500C/M.
I use the "old style" bellows far more than the automatic. There's nothing
fundamentally wrong with the "old style".On the contrary: the automatic
bellow's rail/unused extension extends to the front, poking into your
subject, pushing it away. The "old style" bellow's rail moves to the back
underneath the camera body, out of harms way.
Using the double cable release to synchronize camera and lens is rather
awkward. So i don't do that.
Instead, i use the "view camera" method, taking each step that needs to be
taken separately*. Works absolutely great, unless you don't have time to do
it the slow way.
* Sequence:
a) close the lens shutter and diaphragm using the (single) cable release
attached to the bellow's front standard, pressing it halfway.
b) open the camera using the prerelease button on the camera's side
c) make the actual exposure by pressing the cable release the rest of the way
d) close the camera by pressing and releasing the camera's release button
e) reset the camera (wind crank) and lens (wind button on bellows).
The lens shade made for the non-automatic "old style" bellows will not fit
any bay 60 or bay 70 lens. And you can't use the bellows made for the
automatic bellows on the "old style". But all the regularshades can be used,
so it's not a big problem.
Unless you want to use the bellows + shase + slide copying attachment to do
copy work.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: NPC Polaroid Back for Sale
you wrote:
>NPC Polaroid Back for Sale
NPC has/had four different backs for Hassy. They are the MF1N, MF1, MF2, &
MF52.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] 500CM floating focus?
The only single thing in the "focus" path is the mirror. I believe you have
a mirror return problem, that is, your mirror settles in a slightly
different place each time it goes up, then down.
You can prove this easily by using a ground glass adapter in place of your
film back. Compare the focus on the GG back vs the GG viewfinder.
Jim
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] 500CM floating focus?
I was informed by a repair tech that the Hasselblad mirror position
floats on a couple of small damping cushions and that over time they
become less resilient and shrink, which affects the frame to frame
mirror position. His recommendation was that these damping cushions
should be changed every 8-10 years, depending upon the environment in
which the camera is stored (dry conditions tend to make them shrink
faster, in his opinion). I don't know the truth of this, but it sounds
like a possibility.
The other thing is that it's unclear from Chris' post whether he is
examining negatives or focus on the groundglass. If negatives, and he's
working with the camera secured to a tripod mount, then it sounds like
he's got a pressure plate problem: the film plane is changing a little
bit from frame to frame. That might mean it's time for a back overhaul.
Godfrey
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] 500CM floating focus?
That I don't know either. His impression was that a lot of technicians
are unaware of the issue and thus many cameras become inconsistent in
their focusing quality for reasons that people don't understand ... "I
just had a CLA done and I'm still not getting good negatives..." etc.
The tech I was talking to was Bill Maxwell, btw, the guy who makes the
focusing screen I use. He's generally very savvy about such things.
Godfrey
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: "David S. Odess" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] 500CM floating focus?
While it is true that the Hasselblad bodies do have a piece of dampening foam,
the foam has nothing to do with the position of the mirror. The mirror
position, when the body is cocked (or wound) is determined by a metal stop.
This
stop can be adjusted to the proper position if the technician has the proper
tools.
The only piece of foam that the mirror comes in contact with is at the top of
the front plate. This piece of foam acts as a dampener when the mirror flips up
for an exposure.
David S. Odess
Factory trained Hasselblad technician
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] re-PME3 questions
[email protected] writes:
> also, what exactly is the difference between the older PME finders? Such as
> the PME3 and PME51, etc.? thanks for any info!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to get you too spend money, but the Hasselblad System Compendium by
Richard Nordin is a great resource.
PME introduced in 1981
PME-3 recalibrated for the Acutte-Matte screen.
PME-5 Cut out for use with the F/TCC body.
PME-51 I believe the electronics were improved.
PME-45 Newest prism with spot, average, and center weighted metering.
I have the first PME and it meters perfect along side my Nikon F100.
Peter Peterson
From: Randy [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: Hasselblad Pinhole Body Caps
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002
http://www.holgamods.com/pinholeblad/pinholeblad.html
Randy
www.holgamods.com
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy Back Problems?
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002
"Scott Chapin" [email protected] wrote:
>> My experience is that occasionally a back will space incorrectly. The
>> usual problem is overly large gaps between frames, resulting in a lost
>> frame 12. Normally the problem does not persist. I expect to see this
>> in one out of maybe 500 rolls with no repairs or service done. There
>> was a long discussion recently on the Hasselblad listserv about
>> whether or not Ilford spools have something to do with problems like
>> this.
>>
>Hmmm.......my spacing between frames was normal, it was just that frame 1
>was unexposed. The film was Portra 400 VC, but the take up spool was from a
>roll of Ilford B&W Delta 100 that I had just shot. Perhaps that might be the
>problem.
>
>How do you get to the Hasselblad listserv?
You can get to the Hasselblad archives and sign-up info at this link:
http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002
From: "McLeod" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy Back Problems?
After working with Hasselblad cameras for 17 yrs I am almost 100 per cent
sure what happened. You didn't wind the film to the first frame. The
shutter will still fire. You don't take your last frame on paper, you take
your first frame on paper and the camera shutter wont take more than 12
exposures, so you only get 11 frames. I won't bother telling you how many
times this has happened to me...but it has never cost me a shot since I
always shoot duplicates.
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Zeiss Planar chrome 80mm f/2.8 C coma - wide open
Stuart Phillips wrote:
> I _am_ looking at the 100 f/3.5. From what I've read, it is a very
> sharp lens. "
>
> I think it's supposed to be the *sharpest* lens.
Hmm... I don't know.
It is sharp, sharper that the 80 mm, wide open. Not a lot of difference
between the two at f/8.
The 180 mm Sonnar too shows very impressive MTF-test performance (i have
never used this lens).
The 250 mm SA is not far behind the 100 mm too (if at all).
Even the f/2 110 mm is it's equal, but only in the center of the image, and
only at f/8 (at f/2 it really is very soft. Don't protest; i have one too.
So i know ;-)).
I think the main feature that really sets the 100 mm apart is its extremely
low distortion.
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: Wide Angle Lens
Michael
I have seen test shots made by a prominant Oslo photographer of Scanpix,
Oslo, showing quite visible light fall-off and distortion on the part of
the CFE 40 mm /4,0 compared to the 903SWC. (Sharpness was not an issue
since the copies I saw was quite small) The shots were made inside the
Grand Church in Oslo the day before the marriage of our Crown Prince
Haakon and Prinsess Mette Marit a few years back, to test the marginal
light conditions etc. before the Big Day. He tried an Archbody (I did
not see those pictures) and an Arca Swiss 'Discovery' 4 x 5 too, but he
decided on the 903SWC.
He had experimented with different cameras and different positions to
find the ideal location that would give the least visible distortion and
falling lines, most shot from the choir mezzanine. The shot he finally
used were made with the 903SWC. One of the pictures 'went around the
world' and was among the most used as illustration of the sermony,
almost centering the couple from behind and covering the roof artwork as
well as all the people attending.
The advantage of the CFE 40 mm/4,0, however, is that close up focusing
can be done with dead accuracy by simply focusing through the
viewfinder.
Tom of Oslo
From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 01 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: Hasselblad sold to The Shriro Group
Where does this put Hasselblad?
Considering that they were on the block for 5 years and owned by an investment
company (bank) during that period, the guys I know from Hassy USA are pretty
pleased.
===
regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: Hasselblad Users Group [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad Newsletter
Subject: Hasselblad Newsletter
2003-01-30 Shriro acquires Hasselblad, the Swedish camera manufacturer
The Shriro Group acquires the majority shareholding in Victor Hasselblad AB.
The purchase agreement was announced today at a press conference at the
Hasselblad premises in the centre of Gothenburg.
- Shriro is well-known to Hasselblad, and has succeeded very well in selling
our products into the key markets in Asia, says G�ran Bernhoff, President
and CEO of Victor Hasselblad AB. Shriro is our distributor in several key
Asian markets and has, amongst other things shown its capability together
with Hasselblad in developing the Japanese and Chinese markets as major
outlets for Hasselblad.
Seven years ago Incentive (today Gambro) sold Hasselblad to UBS Capital BV
in Holland, Cinven in Great Britain and the Hasselblad management. This sale
was in line with Incentives wish to concentrate its operations. The aim of
the purchase was to modernize Hasselblads operations as well as to renew
the product portfolio, which has been substantially achieved.
Michael Binns, CEO of Shriro Group and G�ran Bernhoff, CEO of Victor
Hasselblad AB standing by a poster of the new H1 camera.
- We buy a company in a very good condition with a new, world-leading
product on its way to the market, says Michael R Binns, CEO of Shriro. We
have a long experience in marketing strong brands and we see Hasselblad as a
great opportunity to expand our operations. This acquisition will mean
significant synergies between our two companies, in particular in the field
of distribution.
Shriro is a 90 year old family business with production and distribution of
several well-known and worldwide brands. The company has its major operation
in the Asian Pacific region. The head-office is situated in Hong Kong and
Shriro employs around 3,800 people in 13 countries and has a turnover of
more than 2.5 billion Swedish Kronor, equal to 300 million US dollars.
The Hasselblad family started its company in 1841. Since mid 1870 Hasselblad
has had its centre of operations in the same building downtown Gothenburg.
In May this year the company will move to new office and production premises
in a newly established high-tech industrial and university area, named Norra
�lvstranden, Gothenburg.
The company has recently carried through a successful, worldwide launch of a
new unique camera system, built for traditional film as well as digital
photography. The H1camera, which took nearly 6 years to develop from idea
to a finished product, opens up new markets for Hasselblad. Deliveries of
the new system started in December 2002.
Hasselblad today has the most wide spread camera system in the world within
the medium format, the so-called V system. This system originates from 1948
and will also in the future be an important part of the sales.
During the latter part of the 90:s Hasselblad has gone through extensive
structural changes and when the company moves into the new premises the
efficiency gain will be substantial. This move marks the completion of this
period of manufacturing and product renewal, and the company is now ready to
embark into a new era.
The change of ownership will not mean any major changes of the Hasselblad
business philosophy. Mr. G�ran Bernhoff will remain as President and CEO of
the company and the new owners also stress the importance of the continuity
of the management in the years ahead of the company. The management will
remain as minority shareholders.
G�ran Bernhoff, CEO of Victor Hasselblad AB together with Michael Binns, CEO
of Shriro Group inspecting a model of the new Hasselblad premises.
About Victor Hasselblad AB
For over half a century, Hasselblad cameras have been the preferred tools of
discerning photographers the world over. Hasselblad cameras were the first
cameras on the moon and are renowned for their outstanding image quality,
long-life, and rugged durability.
Hasselblad produces and markets three distinct camera systems: The legendary
Hasselblad 6x6 V System, with its classic, compact design and unmatched
adaptability, still the most comprehensive medium format system in the
world; the unique dual-format Hasselblad XPan, which takes full, unmasked
panorama or standard 35 mm shots on the same roll of 35 mm film; and the
new, auto-focus 645 Hasselblad H System, which seamlessly combines film,
digital, and slide photography and provides a level of user-friendliness
previously found only in 35 mm SLR cameras.
Over 97% of Hasselblads products are exported for sale in foreign markets
and the Company has offices, distributors, service outlets, and
representatives worldwide. Victor Hasselblad AB is a privately owned company
based in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: [HUG]Single sheet film holders
Kelly Adams wrote:
>If anyone has experience loading single sheet film holders for the
>Hasselblad, please share. I am having a problem centering cut roll film so
>that each edge is covered by the 'masking' frame.
>TIA
>Kelly Adams
I've been using the cut film holders since the early 60's. But always with
2-1/4 x 3-1/4 sheet film cut to size via the Hasselblad film cutter. The
system is made for sheet film cut to size. I cannot imagine using cut roll
film since roll film is so thin and flimsy compared to sheet film.
Jim
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Single sheet film holders
2-1/4" x 3-1/4" Ilford FP4 is no longer made. APX-100 smallest sheet film
is 6.5 x 9cm, which would be a pain to cut down both ways. The smallest
Ilford Ortho +, I believe is 4x5, and I would be really surprised if Foma
came in US size of 2-1/4 x 3-1/4.
Jim
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>Henry Posner wrote:
>
> > >The only film I could find of that size (2-1/4 x 3-1/4 ) is HP5 which I
> > >have just
> > >received a package. Are there any other films available?
> >
> > That's the only one I know of.
>
>Ilford FP4 Plus, Agfapan APX 100, Ilford Ortho plus and Foma Repro 05 should
>also be available in this format. Perhaps others too?
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003
From: "Mose, J P" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: 150mm/180mm tests
Hello,
I know the 180mm is praised by Hasselblad owners. Yet Kornelius Flesicher
responded to the following question in Photo.net last year......
"Has anyone experiences with the Sonnar FE 2,8/150 regarding lens quality???
What about the combination Sonnar FE 150 and the Hassi-Converter 2XE???"
Thanks,
Thomas Kloschinski
KORNELIUS FLEISCHER'S RESPONSE:
"Not many responses yet. That exactly seems to be the pity with the Sonnar
2,8/150: It is the sharpest lens in the 120 to 180 mm range of the
Zeiss/Hasselblad program (Makro-Planar 4/120, Sonnar 4/150, Sonnar 2,8/150,
Tessar 4,8/160, Sonnar 4/180) and almost no one knows it. Therefore almost
no one bought it. Therefore Hasselblad decided to discontinue it. It is my
favourite in this focal length neighborhood, it is quite small (same housing
as the Planar 2/110), very bright (f/2.8), and is capable of resolving
phantastic 200 linepairs per millimeter, like the famed Biogon 4,5/38! Get
one if you can! You won't regret it."
I realize that a 150mm F/FE lens is limited to the 2000/200 series cameras,
but I wonder if anyone out there has compared this lens to the 180mm?
Sounds like Kornelius has! Any thoughts?
J. P. Mose
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 110mm f2 F vs 110mm f2 FE?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003
> I think the lens can amaze other people. I have only had the lens
> in my hand once.....and it amazed me. There are a lot of glass.
> Maybe there are to much glass?.......has it the same build
> quality as the other Zeiss lenses?
All those F/FE lenses have lots of glass. Very large front lenses in
particular.
Too much glass? I don't think so.
Yes, the 100 mm has the same build-quality as all the other Zeiss lenses.
Except, maybe, for it's diaphragm unit.
It is a double-set of blades (not the 'usual' five) forming, more or less,
circular openings all the way down to f/5.6, while at smaller openings the
well known pentagonal opening appears.
I have had the bad luck of needing some work done on the diaphragm assembly
in my 110mm lens (diameter of the opening varied with "previous" setting,
i.e. the opening formed at, say, f/4 was appreciably different in size
coming from f/5.6 than it was coming from f/2.8. And there was some loss of
"click stop"). I phoned (local) Hasselblad, and their repair person
immediatley "guessed" what the problem was when i mentioned my 110 mm Planar
was having troubles (though it must be said that it is somewhat of an easy
guess, since there is very little inside an F/FE lens that can go wrong at
all). But still, he apparantly had seen this more.
In the end, i had to send the lens in to Hasselblad twice before it was
fixed. The repair technician said that these double-set-of-blades thingies
were difficult to get right. And even now, after two attempts at setting it
right, i can still see the above mentioned defect, albeit very much reduced
now (and within acceptable tolerances, according to Hasselblad, and
according to my exposure tests).
Bad luck? Or is this indeed an inherently more vulnerable construction than
in other lenses?
I'm really not sure. I do know however that i am not the only one having had
problems with the diaphragm unit in a 110mm Planar.
From: "andy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A16 back and uneven space between frames
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002
You could send it to hassy or you can do the light seal your self. I bought
some from a guy on eBay selling oem seals. It was a snap and it had easy
instructions. I take my stuff to Garland Camera in Garland, Texas. They are
near Dallas. $75.00 for a flat rate CLA and seal replacement on a back. They
do a lot of mail order repairs also. To be sure the black streak is a light
leak from the dark slide seal, load the a16 back with a roll of film. Put
the back either near a light source, like a bright lamp, flashlight or go
out into the bright sun. While the back is on the camera rotate the camera
in the sun or near the light source of your choice. Have the film processed
and look at the light leaks. I use B&W film for this. Do not take any
pictures just advance the film through the back, put in the dark slide and
remove it. This will reveal the real source of the errant light.
From: "andy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice on service for Graflex; Mamiya TLRs
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002
I have had great service for my Hassey stuff here
http://www.cameraandrepair.com/
I also have some Graflex equipment, and plan to habve it serviced here.
Check out the prices. They also take a bunch of mail order repair from
around the world!!!
www.HollidayPhoto.com
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad focusing screens
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002
unos wrote:
> I have decided to enter into medium format cameras after many years of
> Nikon F3 use. I think my choice will be the Hasselblad 500-CM or the
> 501. Question 1, how can I determine whether an offered camera body has
> the Acute-Matte focusing screen installed or a standard one?
The latest generation Acute Matte-D screens have two semi-circular cut outs
in the frame holding the screen.
The earlier generation Acute Matte screens does not. You can tell the
difference best comparing an Acute Matte and an old style screen.
The Acute Matte will be brighter, and clearer. When placed on, say, a page
of writing it is very easy to see the writing through the Acute Matte, less
so with the old style. The Acute Matte acts like a lens or loupe of sorts
when you lift the thing above the page; the old style screen just diffuses
what is underneath.
But perhaps the best way of telling them apart is the reference cross. On
the old stylescreen it is made up of black lines underneath the glass, above
the plastic Fresnel lens, on the Acute Matte it consists of four lines
scored into the underside of the plastic screen
> Question 2, The offered Hasselblads which I have been considering
> doesn't come with any operators manual, is there any such to download on
> the Internet?
No. Not yet anyway.
But the cameras are really easy to use. The person selling it to you should
be able to explain everything to you in less than 5 minutes. And you can
always ask here, and/or join the Hasselblad User Group
(http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad) and get allthe
help you need.
By the way, you do know about the differences between the 500 C/M and both
(there are/were two) 501 models?
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Sunny 16 rule EV
Andreas Fischer wrote:
> > Interesting. It does not on a 205 and 203.
>
> I think it is quite reasonable that it does on the 201
> since this body doesn't have a built-in meter.
> OTOH, I don't see the point in not having it
> in the other cameras. I can hardly believe that
> it has to do with cutting down costs . . .
The other cameras' metering system largely ignores the shutter-speed ring
anyway, except in manual mode, of course.
And except on the first 200-series camera (the first one not having the
interlock), the 205 TCC, which protested when it wanted to do longer times
than the one that happended to be set on the shutter-speed ring. The way to
avoid that was to set the shutterspeed ring to the longest possible time, 1
second, and leave it there. A good way of keeping it set to 1 second was not
to allow the EV-interlock, which in all but manual mode did nothing anyway.
Perhaps that's (part of) the reason?
This behaviour was "fixed" in the 205 FCC and 203. But i imagine retooling
to produce the ring without the teeths had been costly enough ;-) *, and
(with any of the auto-modes being the most likely mode to be used, and none
of them can use the interlock) there was little incentive to again change
parts.
(* When i asked Hasselblad why it took them so long to produce the Rear
Cover Multicontrol (seven years between when it was suggested and when it
finally appeared) they mentioned as one reason the costs of producing the
new mold: "A new mould for a different rear cover was out of the question at
that time. The cost is about NLG 35.000!" (approx. equivalent of) $16.000.
So maybe costs are indeed a consideration? At the time, that amount of money
would not quite be enough to buy you two complete 205 FCC sets (body,
magazine and standard lens). Expensive?)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] 500cm kit for $1500 or 501cm kit for $2200?
> > > FE lenses do not interlock because FE cameras don't speak [or hear] EV.
> >Well, yes. Sort of... FE lenses DO interlock. ;-)
> Interlock what?
>
> Mine have an EV scale but nothing else. Nothing to interlock with.
Hi Jim,
Just like the shutter speed and aperture can interlock on a CF lense, by
pushing a little button, so can the F/FE lenses, with a body that has the
corresponding "teeth" on the inside of the shutter speed ring.
The F/FE lenses have a little button on the aperture ring that pushes little
teeth out...that, on a 200x series camera, and apparently the 201, interlock
with the teeth in the shutter speed ring. These matching teeth in the
shutter speed ring were removed on the 203/205 cameras, so there is nothing
to interlock with on these cameras.
I hope that explains it for you.
Regards,
Austin
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Lenses (What is T*?)
Ayan George wrote:
> I am sure I am the only person on this list who
> does not know what at T* lens is and how it
> differs from a non T* lens.
>
> Can somoene point me to a resource that has this
> inforamtion about Hasselblad lenses?
T* is the Zeiss name for their 6 layer multicoating.
Early Zeiss Hasselblad C lenses did have a single layer coating. These
lenses are commonly referred to as non-T* lenses, the later lenses with
multicoating as T* lenses.
The change did not happen for all lenses at the same time, and did partly
coincide with the change from 'chrome' to black finnish lens barrel during
the 1970s. All Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses since are T* multicoated lenses.
From: [email protected] (Karl Winkler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: New Hassy Gallery Added to Site
Date: 20 Jan 2003
Well, I finally got around to uploading some B&W MF landscape images
that I've taken during this Winter's surprisingly snowy first few
months. Scanning has proven to be a challenge, but these have come out
OK, IMO. Comments welcome.
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler
-Karl
From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 2/23/2003
Subject: Re: [HUG] Do the Hasselblad Polaroid backs yield square prints?
T r i s t a n T o m wrote:
> I'm wondering if any of the Polaroid backs yield square prints? Or, do
they
> all put a square image on rectangular film?
Yes, they produce square images on rectangular film.
> Also, what are the difference between the different Polaroid backs?
The current Polaplus back has a catch allowing you to draw the dark slide
only as far as needed to clear the film gate.
The older Polaroid 100 backs did not have this. The earlier version of the
Polaroid 100 did have a steel bracket that locke dthe back shut. On the
later type it was the same as on the current Polaplus. No functional
difference.
The older Polaroid 80 back was made to accept different types of Polaroid
film, no longer current (i believe).
All (Hasselblad supplied) Polaroid backs have a glass compensation plate in
front of the film, to correct for the slightly longer lens to film distance.
The plate in the Polaroid 80 backs protrudes so much that it will damage the
focal plane shutter in 2000 and 200 series Hasselblads. So take care.
Other manufacturers (NPC, Arca Swiss) too supply Polaroid backs for
Hasselblad. The main difference is in what side these backs protrude, above
or below the camera. Hasselblad supplied backs all stick out above the the
camera, causing no problem on a tripod nor with the motor housing on EL(...)
models. But they are in the way of some prism viewfinders (all 90 degree
finders, and the old style metering prism and NC-2 prism).
Some "third party" backs stick out below, causing problems with tripod
heads, and they will not fit the EL(...) models.
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 3/13/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad 208FECC
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
>A combination of the 203 and 205 would be the ideal camera, but a very
>expensive proposition.
Actually, it's basically a software (firmware) change and a meter cell
change. It would be easy enough to put both the 203 firmware and 205
firmware in the same ROM and select between the two programs via a program
mode function. It's just a single bit to a high order address line on the
ROM. I do this all of the time with firmware that I write for devices and
instruments. The meter cell(s) being switched between large spot and small
spot would be a little more work. But not much to folks like Hasselblad.
If Hasselblad had the longevity of the 200 series camera in mind, that is
the further promotion and generation of CFE lenses, they would introduce
this camera (perhaps as a 208 as 3+5=8) at Photokina in 2004. And at a
price not out of line with the current 203 price. If the 208 came in around
the $3000 price range, it would be a killer product. I would definitely buy
one.
I have helped Hasselblad put on workshops in the past and besides
personally owning a 203FE, I am intimately familiar with the 205FCC. I have
used my local dealers demo 205. Fine camera but it still is a less general
purpose camera than the 203, and at nearly twice the price of the 203, I
wonder how they ever sell one other than to a dot com'er that got out of a
dot com before the crash.
The Zone mode does not offer $3000 worth of extra camera function. And when
the camera is on a tripod, the spot meter is very limiting. To be useful,
Hasselblad should make an external spot sensor (basically a lens,
viewfinder, and sensor cell) that has a cord that plugs into the 205 (208)
body. That way the user can set-up for a photograph and then spot meter the
appropriate parts of the scene, for the Zone mode, without having to move
the camera around to do this. It is just simply a pain to use the 205 Zone
mode since you have to move the camera around to do the metering. If the
light changes, you have to do it again. This is why external spot meters
are congruent with the Zone system. Making the 205 (208) spot meter
externally usable would be "SUPER" useful as well as a "SUPER" selling point.
Phase out the 203/205, phase in a 208 with 203 and 205 functionality PLUS
external umbilical metering capability would be a killer camera. As I show
more and more Hasselblad users how to use the 200 series cameras, this
needed functionality has become abundantly clear. At least to me...
IMHO,
Jim
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad extension tube help
Date: 12 Mar 2003
Victor Bazarov [email protected] wrote:
>"Christopher Bush" [email protected] wrote...
>> I can't seem to find any data on focus ranges of the 80mm Planar with the
>> various extension tubes available for a 500cm. I can find maximum repro
>> ratios, but I'm more interested in the farthest focus distances.
>> Specifically, I want to shoot a very tight face shot or a 13" TV screen.
There's a closeup brochure on the Hasselblad web site that gives
maximum and minimum field (subject) sizes for various combinations of
extension tubes and lenses. It's in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format, so
you'll need a copy of Acrobat Reader or xpdf to read it:
http://www.hasselblad.com/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Information/Closeup.pdf
Steve
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 4/22/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Advice Sought
Austin Franklin wrote:
> You are merely pointing [...]
Austin, i could try and answer this point for point, but i'm afraid that's
impossibe without first drawing the line, over and over again, between what
i actually have said, and what you think was said. You are projecting, and
projecting heavily, getting entangled in a would-be discussion between you
and some chimera substituting for what you think i have said and why you
think i would have said that.
So just a few, i hope brief, replies.
First: no, you're absolutely wrong in your "apparent crusade" assumption. I
don't know what gave you that idea (except perhaps you thinking you have
some axe to grind with me about some focussing screen business, making you
want to seek confrontation, no matter what was actually said. ;-) )
All that happended here was an exchange of experiences with the 110 mm lens.
Ragnar said why he likes this lens, i have said where my experience differs
from his. The resulting conclusion is that it is a personal preference
matter. And, i see, you agree.
But whatever gave you the idea i was "miffed", and only looking for a reason
to vent some anger i am presumed to have against this lens? Now it's my turn
to say "good grief!" The very thought. If i didn't know you "better" from
earlier exchanges, i would think you were deliberately trying to insult me.
;-)
Let me point to a small example that may illustrate the fact that you are
indeed projecting, and not half, in this matter: you say i "seem" (!) to
dismiss the lens. I "seem" to remember saying i like the lens. And i do.
But yes, in my opinion, there really is nothing about this lens that would
make me (!) call it "spectacular". In your opinion there is? Fine. But don't
let that blind you, don't let that make you think there is absolutely
nothing less good about the lens.
Yes, i know i started this by picking up on the "if i could have only one
lens" theme that surfaced again (!), now in the HUG. But, Austin, asking
why, and starting a crusade are far from being the same.
But it's that i don't agree with your opinion (!) that makes you think that,
isn't it really?
Next. You say you think the comparison i make is invalid/unjust.
Let me explain to me why i think it isn't.
What i am comparing is the practical use of lenses, and how they all, even
with their own, different practical uses, have one thing in common: the
fabled "Zeiss quality".
Obviously different lenses get used differently (we would only need one lens
otherwise). But that doesn't mean we can't compare their performance. And
when we do, we see that despite their widely differing character, and in
their ensueing differing use, their performance is pretty equal. Contrary to
what you suggest, their obvious different use apparantly isn't (!) reason to
have equally different performance.
And that's how it should be. We must be able to shoot, using all different
lenses to our disposal, in their own peculiar way, knowing that the results
will be all pretty much matched.
And (no big surprise) the results, accordingly, all indeed are. That is, not
quite all. This lens, when used in its intended way, the only way in which
it can distinguish itself from other lenses (wide open as a fast f/2 lens)
fails in this particular regard. (It's not unique in that: longer focal
length lenses "traditionally" suffer the same failure. Breaking with
tradition, in newer, modern designs have done a lot for them.)
There is a price to pay. That's all understandable, even acceptable, but
there is a price to pay. You may not like it, even deny it, but there it is.
You then say you don't believe (!) that the f/2 110 mm lens is soft at f/2.
And even if should it be, one can't see it anyway.
Maybe taking a look at the, impartial, MTF graphs may help? They show the
110 mm at f/2 being worse than the wide open performance of 50 and 60 mm
Distagons (while not giving the impression it can beat the 40 mm Distagon
either), worse than the 80 mm through 135 mm Planars, not up to 150 mm and
180 mm Sonnar performance, and close, but not really better than 250 mm
Sonnar performance.
And you don't need to go to extremes to see, in normal photographic practice
(as opposed to on MTF charts only) where the 110 mm lens is lagging behind
other lenses.
Stopped down the 110 mm is indeed a very, very good (in terms of MTF
performance) lens. But at f/5.6 it isn't that fast lens anymore. It has lost
its most distinguishing feature.
Finally. I know there are more qualities to a lens than its resolution
performance. I haven't suggested there weren't. And i haven't judged this
lens on it's resolution performance only.
You like its Bokeh. That's fine. Another example of the "personal preference
matter" conclusion, since bokeh is not high on my list of qualities. I don't
think that constitutes a violation of some unwritten law. Just that personal
preference again.
So, in all, one and the same lens can evoke reactions like "superb" and
"spectacular" as well as "good, but nothing special". I'm fine with that. Do
you think you can come to terms with that too?
From: Peter Rosenthal [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 4/22/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Help for a wet screen
J Laird-
If you don't feel comfortable disassembling the screen... use compressed air if it's available. Keep in mind water does no harm at all.
It's the minerals that come out of solution when drying that will be very permanent and that do the damage, although just cosmetic.
Many newer screens are taped at their edges to help keep out dust. This will slow down the removal of water. Maybe completely.
I'd disassemble the screen if I were you. Very important!: Make sure you have the layers marked as to position. Don't use any solvents
at all and put it in distilled water to PREVENT THE WATER FROM DRYING prematurely. Lots of running water with a little soap and
perhaps not so little vinegar to help with any dried minerals. Use only cotton balls. Blow off the water with compressed air and it'll be
as clean as is humanly possible. You can use scotch tape at the edges to re-bind them together and then trim away the excess with a
very sharp razor blade.
One other thing. The screen frame may (probably) be welded together with spot welds. You can easily break the welds with a razor blade.
Think clearly, move slowly and your screen should be fine. You have little to lose at this point. Ruined is ruined. Only you know if you
can live with the screen in it's present condition.
Good Luck-
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
ps.
I thought the OT mark on your original post was cute. A wet Hassy screen is OT!? Only on this forum would someone think
your post would be OT. Something for others to consider perhaps...
From: Patrick Bartek [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 4/20/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] wide angle lens
you wrote:
> I am relatively new to Hassy and have decided that I need a wide
> angle lens for nature photography. I have a 503CW with a 120mm
> lens, 2x telextender and proxars. I have been shoting landscapes
> and flowers. I think I want the 50mm. My questions are:
> 1. Do you agree that the 50mm is better for this application than
> the 50mm or 40mm?
Do you mean 60mm or 40mm here?
The 60 is my preferred "normal." I don't even own an 80. The 60
works well (for me) as a general purpose landscape lens, but I prefer
quiet studies rather than sweeping vistas. I use a SWC for the
sweeping vistas. Since you already have a 120, a 60 would "mate"
well spacing-wise with it. Adding a 40 or SWC would make an
excellent, well spaced, 3 lens system.
If 3 lenses is just not in your budget, either now or in the future,
and all you want is a 2 lens system, get the 50. (The 50 is 10
degrees wider than the 60.) It will do the most for the least amount
of money: 40's and SWC's are quite expensive; plus, the 40 is only
11 degrees wider than the 50, a giant step or two backwards with the
50 is all you'll need to match the angle of view.
> 2. At B&H there is about a $1000 to $1300 difference between a new
> 50mm CFi and a used 50mm Black Star T or CF. Are the differences
> between the lenses significant and are they worth the price
> difference. The used lenses are 9 or 9+?
If you can get a good deal on a black 50 T*, get it. Optically,
there is little difference in the performance of a 20 year old T* and
its modern counterpart. Some are of the opinion, that the older
Compur shuttered T* lenses are actually "better" than the much newer
Prontor ones, but that's another discussion entirely.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From: Len Eselson [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 4/20/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Advice Sought II
Uncle Dick, I feel as though we are old friends, having mostly
lurked on this list. However a topic has been raised which I must
speak to.
There are restrictions about the use of some older extension
tubes with 200 and 2000 series cameras. See Norden p 202.
According to Norden, The older 10 and 21 mm tubes may not be used
next to the body, The newer 8 mm tube may not be used next to the body.
The 16, 32 and 56 mm tubes are OK in all their versions.. It is not clear as
to the staturs of the older 55 which he mentions.
My Opinion (I formerly owned 500CM, and now own 2000FCM and 201F)
The 201F is a lovely camera. You may use C or CF lenses with
the lens shutter, but you can also use them with the more accurate and faster
focal plane shutter. You can synch them for flash with the lens shutter, or you
can synch with the focal plane shutter up to 1/90 sec. In the latter case, you have
a choce of PC or TTL metering if you have a flash that takes TTL (via SCA adapter,
or dedicated). The cloth shutter is smooooooth. It will remind you of your Leica.
And of course you have the opportunity to acquire some great F lenses
including in addition to the 110 F2, the 50 F2.8 and the 150 F2.8 (and more).
The prices for the older F lenses have dropped substantially of late.
Also do not neglect the 2000 series bodies which have been unjustifiably maligned
on these pages. True that one can easily damage a shutter by poking ones finger
through the foil, but if you resist that temptation, it is as sturdy and reliable as any
Hasselblad. The prices of these bodies also have dropped substantially.
Rgds
Len Eselson
Hasselblad wrote:
>Dear Friends,
> Thank you for the advice so far - it is all useful. Could Bernard or
>someone tell me how exactly the "C" setting on the 201F works in conjunction
>with the leaf shuttered lenses? And how the "F" setting on a CF lens is tied
>into the 201F.
> These sound like basic questions, but this is the first time that I
>have considered anything outside the 500 line. The rest of the camera deal
>includes an 80mm 2.8 CF and an A 12, which I am familiar with, and a PM
>prism that I was able to look up in the Compendium.
> I am thinking hard about the superwide angle Arsat lenses and my old
>faithful Imagon as new departures for the front of this body. I assume that
>the bellows unit and/or extension tubes that work on the 500 series will
>work on the 201.
> Uncle Dick
>PS: What sort of battery is used in the 201? Easily found?
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 4/19/2003
To: rstein; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Advice Sought II
rstein wrote:
> Thank you for the advice so far - it is all useful. Could Bernard or
> someone tell me how exactly the "C" setting on the 201F works in conjunction
> with the leaf shuttered lenses? And how the "F" setting on a CF lens is tied
> into the 201F.
It's quite simple.
At "F" setting, the lens shutter does not work at all, making the camera's
focal plane shutter do all the work (rather, preventing the two shutters
getting in each other's way).
At "C" setting, the focal plane shutter is released a bit earlier than at
"B" setting, making synchronization between it and lens shutter a bit
"safer" by making sure the focal plane shutter is fully open when the lens
shutter starts opening.
> [...] I assume that
> the bellows unit and/or extension tubes that work on the 500 series will
> work on the 201.
Yes, they will.
> [...]
> PS: What sort of battery is used in the 201?
6 V silver oxide PX28 or Lithium PX28L, or alkaline 544 or 537.
> Easily found?
Depends. My local shop has plenty of them, even though some of the people
behind the counter are completely ignorant about them. On more than one
occassion i have had to point to where they kept them, because they couldn't
find them themselves. And all the while, they were in plain view, among all
other batteries they sell. So what's "easy"?
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 4/15/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Newbie Question: 80mm CB vs CF vs CFE
[email protected] wrote:
>Sorry to bother the list with what is probably an old question, but is
>there an *optical* difference between the 80mm CB, CF and CFE? If my
>intention is to use the lens *solely* with my 555ELD, is there any
>advantage for paying the extra bucks for a CF or CFE vs the CB?
>
>J Laird
There is a design difference between the CB and the other two. The CB has
one less element (if I remember correctly) and the MTF chart on the
Hasselblad web site shows a difference.
Who knows whether or not this difference can be seen in real world
photography. I doubt it.
However, I personally would probably buy a used CF over the others for
dedicated use on a 555ELD. I like the feel and operation of the CF lenses
over the CB, CFi, and CFE lenses. For one, it's easier to turn the f/stop
ring with your left hand on CF lenses.
Jim
From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 10 & 20mm extension rings on Pentacon-6
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003
I wrote:
> Now, if only I could find the darned thing.
>
> Stay tuned....
Ha! :-)
compensation factor
Extension mm f=80 mm f=120 mm
10 1.3 1.2
20 1.6 1.4
30 1.9 1.6
40 2.2 1.8
60 3.0 2.3
120 6.0 4.2
The exact title of the little booklet is "Pentacon Six - Praktisix,
Ger�te f�r Nahaufnahmen". No idea if it exists in English.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Ralf
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
From: "Paul Fisher" [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Hi anyone use Hasselblad x-pan or Fuji Tx-1?
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003
I have a TX-1 bought second-hand. Nice solid, compact system with an
excellent 45mm lens. Prone to fairly severe light fall-off wide open, and
to a lesser extent at all apertures. Which means you need the centre-filter
that costs almost as much as the lens.
It gives 21 panoramic exposures from a standard 36mm roll, but can mix &
match panoramic with normal 36x24mm frames on the same roll.
I believe the Bulb setting is now good for 270 seconds, but I haven't tested
this on mine.
Some of the very first production runs had very poor quality control and
there was a product recall. This was apparently fixed on later runs. The
TX-1 has bare titanium finish, while the Xpan is painted black over the
titanium. There are numerous reports of the black paint brassing off very
rapidly.
Scanning of chromes is expensive, and I haven't found anyone in Perth who
mounts them. Proofing from negative film is also expensive. DO NOT send them
to your local minilab, as they are likely to cut the film to standard 35mm
frames, thus lopping some of your panos in half :-(
"ezara" [email protected] wrote
> Hi
> I am interested in panoramic photography and am wondering about these two
> cameras. Anyone used one? What are they like? I have read on the net that
> bulb is no loner than 30 secs, is that true? Is there some way to by pass
> this? Sometmes my expsures go up to for 5 Minutes.
> Thanks
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 4/25/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] What 120 or 150 lens should I get?
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> about half of the 80's number. The rest fell well behind. But the
> thinking "greatest potential sellers" doesn't fully explain the
> choice of focal lengths for the CFE line. The greatest sellers
> historically are the 80, 50 and 150. There must be some other
> criteria.
> Perhaps, those who desire such a camera and its unique
> features, because of what they as a group shoot, have little need for
> those traditional "in-between" focal lengths. And Hasselblad,
> knowing this, made just those lenses preferred, even if it was an
> "odd" selection.
One consideration may have been that there already were 50 mm and 150 mm
lenses with Databus. CFE 50 and 150 mm lenses would have been in direct
competition with those two.
The 80 mm lens was the same lens in shuttered and shutterless versions. Good
economy to produce just the one, CFE version.
One thing i think we can expect is that both lens lines will be merged into
one. That means duplicates (and low selling products?) will be dropped, the
rest will be available in CFE version, with perhaps only two left in
shutterless FE version: the 110 mm and the (already out of production) TPP
300 mm.
The FE 150 mm lens is discontinued. So i think we can expect an CFE version
of the Sonnar soon. That is, if it still is one of the top 3 selling lenses.
If not, it may be discontinued.
The (already CFE) 180 mm may well have taken over the role the 150 mm played
as "first longer lens" choice.
The FE Tele-Tessar 250 mm already has been discontinued. The Sonnar
Superachromat 250 mm is available in CFE version. So i expect the Sonnar CFi
250 mm to be discontinued as well.
There is a CFE 350 mm lens, that replaced the non-Databus CF 350 mm. So the
FE 350 mm has been struck off too.
The CFi 100 mm lens may be a low selling product, and maybe we will see it
disappear too.
The 60 mm was relegated to the CB rank, B standing for Basic/Budget. When
the CB line flopped, the Distagon apparently was popular enough to promote
it back to CFi status. But seeing that 50 mm and 80 mm lenses are both top 3
selling lenses, and the 60 mm is pretty close to both, it may well be
another candidate for discontinuation, rather than for promotion to CFE
status.
But then, it is a nice lens, and a good match to 40 mm and 120 mm lenses.
The 120 mm Makro-Planar is a popular special purpose lens, which is also
very good as general purpose lens, and it has been "pushed" as the ideal
Zeiss/Hasselblad lens for digital photography. I can't see them
discontinuing this one in a hurry.
The 30 mm Fisheye?
That leaves us with the two 50 mm lenses. What way will the decision go?
Promote the CFi to CFE status and abandon the FE version? Or put a shutter
in the FE somehow, possibly without limiting its capabilities? Or a
completely new, CFE, design replacing both?
Or maybe Hasselblad will decide do something completely different. ;-)
> Only Hasselblad knows for sure.
Indeed.
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 6/9/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Variable extension tube?
George Kenney wrote:
> Quick question, please. Does anybody happen to know why Hasselblad
> discontinued the variable extension tube? It seems to me that it and the
> bellows aren't necessarily always used the same way, and that the
> bellows might not always be a perfect or even good substitute for it. But
> that's just conjecture -- I'd appreciate hearing from somebody(s) who
> uses or used either or both.
The variable extension tube basically was a focussing mount, allowing use of
the 135 mm Makro-Planar, off-bellows.
Sometime when the decision was made that this lens would be discontinued
(i.e. no longer produced once stocks ran out), because (i suspect) it wasn't
selling very well, the decision to discontinue the variable extension tube
must have been the logical consequence.
I think that the variable extension tube itself may not have sold very well
too. The combination of non-variable extension tubes was quite capable of
dealing with situations requiring no more extension than the amount the
variable tube provides. And one would need to have those anyway, to cover
the range upto where the variable tube begins (and thus provide a good
substitute for the bellows and (!) variable extension tube).
The bellows, though indeed not as easy to use as the tube, obviously
provides more extension, making it a different and far more useful tool than
the variable tube.
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 6/13/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] clearance Screens
Eric Maquiling wrote:
> However, I think the 500C/M is the transition body that has the
> removable screen and rapid wind crank.
Just to avoid confusion, cameras marked "500 C/M" are cameras with user
interchangeable screens.
The "transition" bodies are cameras that do have this modification, and thus
are "500 C/M" cameras, but are still marked "500 C".
As per Richard Nordin's most excellent book, "Hasselblad System Compedium",
serial numbers of "transitional" 500 C cameras that do have user changeable
screens are in between 106701 and 120000.
The rapid wind crank was introduced in 1957, with the 500 C, and is useable
on all 50(x) C(...) cameras, except both 501 C(...) bodies. It became
"standard issue" (in second version, modern (but not quite present) form) no
sooner than the mid 1980s.
From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 6/17/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Help! Time exposure on 500C
Marvin Born wrote:
>but just hit the button, the
>shutter will close when you release the button, even if the 1/2
>sec is not completed.
Actually, it's the back light trap (barn doors) that close. The shutter
actually goes its full 1/2 (or whatever set to) second. The barn doors are
connected to the shutter release. Release the release and the doors close.
Jim
From: Peter Rosenthal [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 6/15/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Focus Play
Harry Lock wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Here is a question for all the technical minded members.
>
> My 80mm (silver C) lens has some play on the focussing ring. Once you have
> focussed the ring can move left or right about a quarter inch (8mm) without
> it affecting the focus. This is however only the case when the lens' shutter
> is loaded. Once the shutter is released the focus is smooth - on play.
>
> Has anyone had a similar problem?
>
> Cheers
> Harry (South Africa)
Yo Harry-
Due to the design of the old C lenses (up to the 250), the play you
describe is quite common. It's due to wear (primary) from little nylon
pads that also need to be lubed (secondary). The focusing-while-cocked
problem you mention (tertiary) is due to the fact that the telescoping
sleeve and shaft (allows you to cock and fire the shutter with the
barrel at different amounts of barrel extension) is a considerable drag
on the focus mechanism, holding it back, as it were. It resists
extending and compressing when under the considerable spring tension
(there is none after firing) of the shutter mainspring. Cleaning and
lubing this shaft with the proper grease helps, some. When focusing
under tension, the slop and drag between these nylon pads and the
secondary focus helicals becomes evident. I suspect that these older
lenses (even I'm not that old!) did this even when brand new to a small
degree.
In other words, manufacturing tolerances and wear allowed enough play
for free movement while the telescoping shaft added enough drag to make
the play evident. This problem is highly variable, however, from lens
to lens. Differing amounts of wear, cleanliness of wear-points,
appropriateness of lubes in these three points would make it so.
Sorry for the ad-nauseum explanation. Hope this answers your questions.
One other thing of interest... the shorter focus lenses (the 40 is
notoriously bad) had another problem in that there was so much weight
forward of the small focus helicals that another source of drag was
created making it's focusing effort worse than others. Very small
errors (see above) created huge amounts of focus effort.
Peter
PR Camera Repair
1020 N. Manzanita Way
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779 5263
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 6/24/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>I was reliably informed that the screen in the FlexBody GG back has a
>regular Acute Matte, including Fresnel lens, and that the SWC GG back has an
>additional, second, Fresnel lens.
>Still a difference in Fresnel lenses, just not quite as described above. ;-)
Not true, since I have both and have had both apart. The Flex GG back has
clear glass instead of the Fresnel.
Jim
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 6/25/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] You win. I lose.
After reading this note from Per, I decided to check my screens.
I took apart a split image Acute Matte screen and Per is correct, I am
incorrect, in that there is a very fine Fresnel like etching on the back
side of the GG Acute Matte screen. You cannot see it, it reflects like
clear glass or polished plastic, but if you gently move your finger nail
across it you can just feel the concentric Fresnel landscape. You cannot
see it via a loupe either. But it is there. This is what makes the Acute
Matte bright out to the edges I'm sure.
However, it is not good enough to be able to be used on a SWC. The SCW GG
back requires a real (easily recognizable) separate Fresnel lens, large
visible concentrics (a tribue to Augustin Jean Fresnel,
Born: 10 May 1788 in Broglie, France, Died: 14 July 1827 in Ville-d'Avray,
France)
to be coupled with the GG screen, whether Acute Matte or not, and
separated by about 2mm.
Therefore, Austin is correct that a Fresnel does not have to be separate.
The Acute Matte has a very stealthily applied Fresnel to its back side. And
QG is correct that the current SWC GG backs have two Fresnels, the stealth
Fresnel on the back side of the Acute Matte and a separate real Fresnel.
Sorry folks for my mis-interpretation of an almost invisible Fresnel. But
it is there!
And I stand corrected.
Thank you Per Norlund of Hasselblad.
I apologize to QG and Austin. Now please behave!
:-)
Jim Brick
you wrote:
>Date: 06/25/2003 From: Per Nordlund
>To: "[email protected]".TFS.GOT84; "[email protected]".TFS.GOT84
>Subject: Ang: RE: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System
>
>Hello Jim,
>you've really confused me here. Had to check our service manuals.
>According to them the Acute Matte part used for the FlexBody Adapter has a
>Fresnel lens on its back side. You're absolute sure your doesn't?
>As far as I know we don't use any Acute Matte parts without a Fresnel lens
>on the back (top) side, except when evaluating diffusion characteristics
>of prototypes.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Per Nordlund\Optical Design\Hasselblad
From: Tom Christiansen [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 6/21/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503CX Mirror
you wrote:
>I am planning to take some long exposures of fireworks on the 4th of July.
>My tripod is not the strudiest piece of equipment so I need to avoid as much
>camera shake as possible; I have a cable release but have also read about
>locking the mirror in the up position. Can this be done on the 503CX? If
>so, how?
On the 500 and 501 there's a rectangular button/slide thingy below the film
winding knob on the right side of the body. Push it upwards (towards the
winding knob) to 'pop' the mirror. Once you've pop'ed the mirror, you can't
un-pop it (other than by taking the exposure).
Tom
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad configs
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003
Bob Monaghan wrote:
Good points, i generally don't disagree with. But some notes need be added:
> the flex body and arc body have issues with various C/CF.. lenses (e.g.,
> 40mm with zero shift), so much so that specialty lenses are recommended.
The (discontinued) ArcBody does not work at all with 'regular' Hasselblad
lenses, and had its own line of Rodenstock lenses.
The FlexBody (which apparently is on its way out too) however will take any
'regular' Hasselblad lens you want to put on it. There are no "speciality
lenses" available. Of course, Hasselblad lenses were not designed to cover
more than 6x6 format, so any amount of shift available in a particular lens
on the FlexBody is 'accidental'.
It's a major error by Hasselblad to market this thing as having shift. It's
a 'tilt' camera, very good at repositioning the plane of focus. All the
shift capability it has is there to allow keeping the film in the image
circle of the lens when that is rotated. And as the tilt camera it is, the
FlexBody has issue with no C/CF.. lens i know of.
> there are various glitches with certain older bellows and controls on
> newer bodies etc.
"Various"? The type of bellows discontinued almost 25 years ago will
interfere with the collar around shutter release button on cameras younger
than 10 years. That's it.
And that does not mean you can't use the old bellows with newer cameras.
Just take the camera mount off the bellows, rotate it 90 degrees
counterclockwise, and put it back on again. Easy to do: no moving parts, no
springs that will jump out, just a few screws.
> don't forget the polaroid backs, the ones that can destroy shutters on
> newer cameras if used with them issues...
True, though somewhat confusingly put.
The one back can damage focal plane shutters, and must not be used with any
focal plane shuttered Hasselblad, from 1948 to present. There is no issue
with "newer cameras" only, and no issue with any of the 500 series cameras,
except that it will not fit the SWC/M.
By the way, as far as i know, film to go in that particular back (Polaroid
80 series) is no longer available.
> and on and on and on ;-) there are lots of potential gotcha's that users
> have to be aware of, esp. if you have multiple bodies and old and new gear
>
> I'd agree that hasselblad has done the best job of any current MF SLR
> mfger in maintaining compatibility, with the possible exception of
> exakta66 and P6 kiev 60 mount SLRs. But every lens is not compatible with
> every body, every back is not compatible with every body, and so on. In
> some cases, the result can destroy the camera, which isn't compatible in
> my book, so worth warning potential buyers/users...
You paint a picture bleaker than it need be. Try finding lenses and film
backs that will not fit post-1957 models. They are collector's items by now.
Not at all easy to come by. :-(
And i know of exactly one (1) combination (Pol 80 on focal plane shutter
cameras) that will cause damage.
David already mentioned the most important compatibility issue: there are
two lines of Hasselblad cameras, the focal plane shutter 2000/200 series,
and the lens shutter 500 series. All 500 series cameras must (!) be used
with lenses containing a central shutter, i.e. C, CF, or CFi/CFE.
Shutterless F/FE lenses can only be used on 2000/200 sreies Hasselblad
bodies with focal plane shutter.
Shuttered lenses can be used on most focal plane shutter Hasselblad bodies
too (the exception being the 202 FA, which will only take shutterless FE
lenses).
From hasselblad mailing list:
From: David S. Odess [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 4/4/2003
To: Q.G. de Bakker; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Jammed camera tool
Q.G.,
I must respectfully disagree with you. I can't begin to tell you how many lenses have come into my shop with a gouge in
the rear element. All those gouges got there the same way: by a screwdriver that slipped out of the slot on the back end
of the front key mechanism shaft.
In many cases, considerable force must be applied with the screw driver to cock the body and the lens by this method.
If the screw driver slips out of the slot, there's only one way for it to go ... into the rear lens element.
You wrote, "The only real function the "special" tool serves is to dispell unjust fears. It's a "security blanket".
And it's a "money maker" for those selling the thing, of course."
This tool is designed with a collar to prevent it from slipping out of the slot, into the rear element. It is much more than a
"security blanket". Sure, it's a money maker for those who sell it. Shouldn't anyone selling any item be entitled to make a
profit?
I have been repairing Hasselblads exclusively for 27 years and have had many, many camera bodies come into my shop
with a jammed lens attached. I have one of these tools, and use it all the time. I wouldn't dare use a screwdriver for this
purpose.
By the way, I have no connection with anyone who manufactures or sells this tool.
Regards,
David S. Odess
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Jim Brick wrote:
> The problem with a regular screw driver is that if you slip off of the
> slotted post (v-e-r-y easy to do) [...]
Not at all. I disagree.
It's not as if you're applying a huge force, making you slip violently, and
far. With due care, nothing much can go wrong, even when the screwdriver
should slip out of the slot.
The only real function the "special" tool serves is to dispell unjust fears.
It's a "security blanket". And it's a "money maker" for those selling the
thing, of course.
But yes, you should be careful. Whatever tool you're using.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad negs
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003
Stacey wrote:
> >> Hassy back on a Hartblei...
> >
> > Why not a Kiev back on a Kiev (let's keep calling them by their proper
> > name)?.
>
> Can't use a blad back on a Kiev but you can on a hartblei 1006.
Now don't tell me you can't use a Kiev back on a Kiev... ;-)
By the way: you can (!) use a Hasselblad back on a Saljut/Kiev. No problem
there.
It is using a Kiev back on a Hasselblad that is problematic (but doable, and
since you got your file out already... ;-)))
The problem is that the square opening in the Hasselblad back is larger than
square formed by the raised ridges (light trap) on the Kiev's rear, so it
will fit without any difficulty, with room to spare.
The square opening on Kiev backs however is smaller than the square formed
by the raised ridges on the Hasselblad's rear, and these ridges will collide
with the back before it is seated properly. Filing away 1 mm all around the
opening on the Kiev back's face plate will solve that.
> > Two notches are easy to add. ;-)
>
> Guess I can add them to my folders too? :-)
Why of course. Many old folders are made out of thin sheet metal, very
easily "notched".
In Hasselblad lore, there is mention (very rare though) of Hasselblad
foldera, Hasselblad "Pocket Camera"s, sold during the first decade of the
last century.
Though at that time another Viktor (with a 'k'. The Viktor Hasselblad who
made photography part of Hasselblad, who struck the very lucrative
"handshake deal" with George Eastman; not to be confused with the later,
"our", Victor with a "c") was at the helm of the Hasselblad company, i'm
sure that this Viktor hadn't thought about putting little versions of his
initial in these camera's frames.
So your folders may be the first (though unofficial) "Hasselblad-V" notched
folders. You can then list them at eB!# , present them in the typical eB$$
fashion (what? Should that be *mis*represent?), and collect huge amounts!
[Ed. note: note use of converted lenses on hassy focal plane body...]
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 7/24/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 135mm Ektar WTB
Ray,
I'm not going to adapt this for the 2000 / 200 series. It HAS BEEN
adapted for the Mamiya 645 already.
I was just asking about this particular lens as I am aware that there
were (2) 135mm for the 1000/1006 series.
I was just surprised to buy it in its condition as Near Mint. Its just
another focal length for me for my Mamiya 645.
My Mamiya 645 is my travel camera when I am packing too much. I use the
50mm, 80mm, and now this lens. The 150mm is too long in focal
length for certain shots, so the 135mm focal length is better.
Regarding lenses for my Hasselblad 2000FCM, I already have a set of
lenses for it.
Here is the lineup:
Hasselblad Zeiss : 50mmF2.8, 80mmF2.8, 150mmF2.8
CZJ: Olympia Sonnar 180mmF2.8 adapted
Ukrainian optics: Hartblei 65mmF3.5 PCS lens
With the exception of the Olympia 180mm, al lenses are MC and perform as
expected. The Hartblei has to have its aperature set manually,
a little troublesome, but worth the effort.
Evan Dong
============
Ray Tai [email protected] writes:
> How would you go about adapting this lens for use with 200 series?
> And
> is it worth the effort? In other words - what is the big deal about
>
> this particular lens?
>
> Thanks,
> Ray
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 7/25/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Betr: [HUG] bodies Name
[email protected] wrote:
> The number originally stood for the [...]
I forgot one letter, "E", used in the 200 series standing for "Electronic",
because of the metering and shutter control electronics in these cameras.
The same letter "E" was used to indicate film backs that had Databus contacts
to transfer ISO data to the camera's electronics.
And i forgot the "TCC", the original letter-name of the first 200-series
camera, standing for "Tone & Contrast Control". The 205 being prepared to
bring Zone System photography into the Hasselblad System, this name was not
bad. It was dropped however when other, non-Zone System, models appeared
using the letter-name "FE". The 205's name was changed to "FE" also.
The film backs too have a letter, "A", standing for "Automatic" to indicate
that they have an automatic stop during winding to the first frame. The backs
before the "A"-generation have the familiar peep hole.
And then there are the "exotic" Hasselblads, like the HEDC, MK70, and others...
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 7/25/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Betr: [HUG] bodies Name
Daniel ROCHA wrote:
>>I would like to ask a question about the names of the
bodies.
I would like to know if the letters after the serie reference
has a particular signification ?
Example 501CM
Is CM a particulaer meaning ?
Same for 503CX, 503CW.<<
The number originally stood for the fastest shutterspeed.
Later, the SWC was called 903, "90", after the (approximate) angle of view,
and the "3" was part of the then upgrade of all Hasselblad cameras to the
"third generation" (main modification was the Palpas internal coating and
the Acute Matter screens in reflex models), the original C and EL being the
first, the C/M and EL/M being the second.
Still later, after the 200-series had appeared, the numbers were used more
like type numbers, i.e. not directly linked to shutterspeeds, but more indicative
of what line of cameras they belong to (for instance, the 501 is a new camera
in the 500 series).
The letter originally for the type of shutter used ("F" for "focal plane",
and "C" for "central shutter".)
Except for the "Biogon"-cameras, originally the "SW" and "SWA", standing
for "Super Wide"and "Super Wide Angle", later the "SWC" standing for "Super
Wide with Central shutter".
The motorized "Electric" model got the letters "EL" (a later motorized SWC
got the "E" appended, becoming "SWCE").
The first additional letter was the "/M" (yes, including "/"). The "M" stood
for "Modified". Main difference was the now "user changeable" (i.e. no tools
needed) focussing screens in the reflex models, and a raised viewfinder,
lowered tripod coupling and modified wind crank assembly on the SWC.
Then followed the "X", replacing the "/M" for cameras that have internal
flash metering. And "Xi" with "i" for "improved", though we didn't know at
the time what the improvement was. It turned out the camera had been prepared
to take a electric motor winder.
Which brings us to "W", with or without "/", standing for "Winder".
And then there is "D", as in "ELD", standing for "Digital".
And the "M" returned, but this time without the "/", but still standing for
"Modified".
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 7/22/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] Re-Mounting of Lenses 2000FC/M
Ulrik,
Which lenses dis you had converted by Jaap de Zee? I would be kind of
interested to hear of the lenses.
I have (2) 180mm SOnnar F2.8 CZJ lenses converted. One os the older Zebra
stripe version and the other is an older Olympia CZJ.
I also have a Hartblei 65mmF3.5 PCS lens.
I am using some of the Hasselblad lenses also for the 2000/200 series. =
50mmF2.8, 80mmF2.8, and 150mmF2.8.
With the exception of the Arsat/Zodiak 30mm, I believe that I have all
the focal lengths covered.
Evan Dong
"Ulrik Neupert" [email protected] writes:
> Tony,
> my lenses have been converted by Jaap de Zee, who works for Roskam Optics
> (http://www.roskamoptics.nl/) in the Netherlands. He needs a Hasselblad rear
> lens mount for the conversion. Another company doing the conversion here in
> Germany is Wiese Fototechnik (http://www.wiese-fototechnik.de/).
>
> Best Regards
>
> Ulrik
> >
> > Does anyone know of a shop (USA preferred) that will remount lenses for use
> > with the 2000 or 200 series cameras?
>
> > Tony Oresteen
From: Frank Filippone [[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 7/22/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re-Mounting of Lenses 2000FC/M
There are several sources of Hassy rear lens mounts....
From the back of a real lens that has been destroyed....
From Hasselblad as a new part...
From an extension tube ( Vivitar and Kenko made them and they are cheaper)
From a Microscope eyepiece adapter.....looks like a bellows connected to a
Hassy rear lens mount
From a Hassy microscope lens adapter... ( Looks like a short cylindrical
block of aluminum connected to a Hassy rear lens mount
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
From: rstein [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 8/3/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] return of the stupid newbie question
Dear Nephew Michael,
As you float around the secondhand book stores of your city keep an eye
out for copies of the FOCAL PRESS book on the Hasselblad - I beleive Freitag
was the author. It is a big thick yellow-bound volume and a lot of the
information pertains to the 500 C's and C/M's. There are useful tables of
depth of field in there that apply to a lot of the older Zeiss lenses. It is
well worth the purchasing.
Uncle Dick
From: Johnny Johnson [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 8/2/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Flexbody basic questions...
Kenneth Ford wrote:
>I've been reading old digests in the archives, but since there's no
>searchable archive, I need to ask this anew.
Hi Ken,
The following is a rather crude way of searching the digests but, I
believe, it's better than nothing -
Go to Google http://www.google.com
In the "search" box enter: (search for)
site:http://www.kelvin.net where "search for" is the word that you want
to find in the digests. Look at "Search Tips" on the main Google page for
variations on entering the search words.
Give it a try - you may kill the rest of the afternoon reading the
digests. ;-)
Later,
Johnny
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 8/1/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503CX
Daniel ROCHA wrote:
>> Is there any mean to recognize an Acute matte screen ?
For me, therefore a guy who is not used to leading with Blad gear ?! :)<<
Best way is to look at the "reference cross" on the screen. In older plain
(i.e. without focussing aids) screens, this is made up of distinct black
inkt lines. In the Acute Matte the lines are much thinner, raised portions
of the plastic underside of the screen. They can virtually disappear from
sight unless there is light falling through the screens, unlike the black
inkt lines on older (plain) screens.
Another way to tell an Acute Matte screen from older screens is by holding
them up to the light (window); the structure of the Acute Matte produces
a cellular or linear pattern with distinct colour fringing. The old screens
don't; the just diffuse the light.
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 8/1/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503CX
Daniel ROCHA wrote:
How can I recognize the 3rd generation model ??
By the "3" in "503". (And in "553", "2003" and "903", though not in "203".)
They were the models replacing the 500 C/M, 500 EL/M, 2000 FC/M and SWC/M
("2nd generation", indicated by "/M"). The main differences are Palpas internal
antireflection coating, and the (first generation of) Minolta Acute Matte
focussing screens in the SLR models.
While the 2000-series cameras had a non-vignetting mirror right from the
start, the "3rd generation" ELX model was the first in the 500-series that
was given a non-vignetting mirror in the 2nd to 3rd generation upgrade. The
ELX also was the first model to include the internal sensor for TTL flash
metering.
>> I have never seen in the used market the 503CXi, I can't wonder why !
:)<<
Less built, less sold?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad negs
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003
William Mutch wrote:
> actually, no. the center points of the two notches are 10.0 mm
> apart, allowing a capable mathamatician to do photogrammetics from a
> print of any magnification provided the notches are included on the edge
> of the print.
Knowing, say, the actual width of the frame would allow you to do the same.
;-)
But wouldn't you get very poor photogrammetry using two notches (or the
width of the frame) as only guide, no matter how capable the mathematician?
Just a sense of scale, i.e. print magnification?
From: William Mutch [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad negs
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003
[email protected] says...
> Peter Lang writes:
> > As a newbie to medium format ( and Hasselblads ), what function
> > do the two notches on the left hand side of Hasselbald 6x6 negs
> > serve. Are they some form of registration markers?
>
> No. They are there exclusively to help identify the negative as having
> been shot with a Hasselblad. Nothing more.
actually, no. the center points of the two notches are 10.0 mm
apart, allowing a capable mathamatician to do photogrammetics from a
print of any magnification provided the notches are included on the edge
of the print.
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 8/9/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 50mm FE filter use
The lens hood consists of two pieces, the part that screws onto the lens
(86mm thread) and a retaining ring that screws into the lens hood. 93mm
drop-in filters go between the retaining ring and the lens hood proper.
However, I simply use 86mm threaded filters. Actually, I have B+W 86EW
filters which are largeer than 86mm filter glass in a mount that screws
into 86mm threads. The EW means Extra Wide and are meant for wide angle
lenses. I do, however, have some ordinary 86mm filters that screw in and
work without vignetting. B+W also makes slim-line filters that have a very
thin mount, which are for wide angle lenses as well. Go to:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/slim-line/
93mm drop-in or 86mm screw-in is what works.
Jim
you wrote:
>I bought a used FE 50mm f/2.8 the current version and believe it takes
>Series 93 filters. I looked at the proper Hasselblad filter at a shop but
>can't figure out how to mount it. The lens came with a short metal hood
>and the lens cap which goes over it. Is there something like a separate
>retaining ring to mount the filter? Thanks, Ray.
From: [email protected] (Pete Schermerhorn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
>how to change a Komura teleconverter into an extension tube.......
>
>It requires a special tool.
>
>I believe it's known as a "hammer". ;-)
That was my first thought, a couple of years ago...but I learned that the
optics package actually acts as a support or such for some of the mechanics
which connect the lens operation to the body. I've been considering a
thin-wall metal tube of suitable diameter...but haven't gotten to it yet.
Pete Schermerhorn
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Let's look at the Hasselblad info:
>
>
> "The Hasselblad Teleconverter 1.4XE provides a convenient way to
> expand your range of telephoto lenses. The Teleconverter 1.4XE
> features the same outstanding optical and mechanical quality as all
> the lenses in the Hasselblad system."
>
> "Mounted between the lens and the camera body, this converter extends
> the focal length of the lens 1.4 times and reduces the aperture by
> only one f-stop. The close-up focusing limit is not affected. The
> Hasselblad Teleconverter 1.4XE can be used with all Hasselblad lens
> types of current and previous series with a focal length of 100 mm or
> longer (except the Makro-Planar CF 5.6/135 mm). The converter is
> equipped with feed-through data bus connections for optimal use of
> 200-series cameras with built-in exposure metering system."
>
> OK, now DON'T tell me I'm wrong again!
Now go read the bit they write about the Hasselblad 2XE converter:
"The Hasselblad Converter 2XE will also be appreciated by photographers who
prefer to carry a minimum of equipment yet maintain lens versatility. The
Hasselblad Converter 2XE can be used with all interchangeable Hasselblad
lens types of current or previous lens series (except the Makro-Planar CF
5.6/135 mm). A general purpose converter, Hasselblad Converter 2XE is
optimized for telephoto lenses, but works well for all focal lengths. It
doubles the focal length, reducing the aperture by 2 f-stops. The converter
is equipped with feed-through data bus connections for optimal use of
200-series cameras with built-in exposure metering system."
"Optimized for telephoto lenses", true. But still "works well for all focal
lengths".
I could also point you towards: "This converter is optimized for the
Tele-Superachromat CFE 5.6/350 mm, but can also be used with the following
Hasselblad telephoto lenses: Sonnar CF/CFi 5.6/250 mm, Tele-Tessar CF
5.6/350 mm, Tele-Apotessar CF 8/500 mm, and Tele-Tessar FE 4/350 mm. The
converter is equipped with feed-through data bus connections for optimal use
of 200-series cameras with built-in exposure metering system.", and then
claim teleconverters don't work on lenses shorter than 250 mm.
You shouldn't base general remarks about teleconverters on particular bits
of info about particular products.
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003
"Michael Scarpitti" [email protected] wrote:
> > > THOSE are not a Hasselblad product and are nowhere near as good.
> > So you've tried these yourself?
>
> No, but what would YOU expect? Equal quality? Safe bet it's not.
You don't need equal quality: what you need from a US$135 2x converter is
better quality than using twice the enlargement ratio from the center 1/4 of
the film. I'd think any 2x extender that wasn't truly horrendous would make
11x14s (7x enlargements) better than 14x enlargements from the center of the
film. If you are making 11x14s, you're comparing an 11x14 crop of a 22x28
print with a straight 11x14.
Forget the lens, most films won't stand up to 22x28 from MF, especially if
viewed at 11x14 viewing distances.
For 8x10s, it would be a bit closer, but you are still comparing an 8x10
crop of a 16x20 with a straight 8x10. With Tri-X or XP-2 you'd be looking at
a grainy mess vs. a grain-free print.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From: [email protected] (Pete Schermerhorn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
>Bob Crownfield wrote:
>> I got a tele extender for the Blad.
>> I found that if I enlarged the negative
>> instead of using the extender,
>> the results were noticably better.
I found exactly the same situation with a Komura converter I purchased. A year
later, I got a good price on the old Zeiss Mutar 2X. It's so much better than
enlarging the negative (even using an Apo-Rodagon), that I use it regularly to
change my C-lenses; 80mm to a 160, 250 to a 500. Now, I'm looking for
information on how to change a Komura teleconverter into an extension
tube.......
Pete Schermerhorn
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> So, you know more than Ernst Wildi? Say so in print!
May i suggest you read up on what Wildi says about teleconverters himself,
in print (Hasselblad Manual, 5th edition)?
Here's a bit where he's talking about using teleconverters with different
lenses: "Being able to use a teleconvertor with various lenses is another
nice advantage. With three lenses and one convertor, you end up with six
different focal lengths."
Or: "[...] in the past, teleconvertors have often been considered a "poor
man's solution to telephotos". Many convertors produced very questionable
image quality."
Sounds like you, doesn't he? But he knows better: "Things have changed" he
continues, "Today, the teleconvertors [...] produce a sharpness that comes
close, or even matches that of an equivalent longer focal-length lens".
Of course teleconverters can't be optimized to produce best quality with a
wide range of focal lengths. But they aren't that bad as you think they are
anymore.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003
Stacey wrote:
> > Go buy a Hasselblad converter 2XE and then tell me
> > again how cheap converters are. I guess Hasselblad
> > are just stupid/absurd to build them. They say it works
> > on everything but the 135mm Makro-Planar and while it
> > fits the 30mm fisheye, it's not recommended. Also works
> > with bellows as long as the bellows are between the
> > converter and the body for close up work.
>
> Actually a teleconverter works GREAT for macro work. [...]
The "recommendation" not to use a teleconverter with the 135 mm Makro-Planar
is entirely inspired by the fact that this lens protrudes quite a long way
back, and cannot physically be mounted on any teleconverter i know. ;-)
The advice with teleconverters and macro-lenses is to use the combination
only for macro work.
Which recommendation is a simple application of the one which says that you
should use teleconverters with lenses for doing photography in the distance
range the lens by itself works best in.
Figures, since the converter magnifies the image produced by the prime lens,
faults and all.
> If all this is true about blads not working with a teleconverter I suppose
> this means my soviet gear is much higher quality! :-)
I think our skeptical friend should have a look at how "bad" Zeiss' Miracle
Lens, the f/2.8 300 mm Tele-Superachromat, performs when the Apo-Mutar
converter is attached. ;-)
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: 12 Aug 2003
As the redoubtable Mr. Bakker has pointed out, teleconverters can yield
perfectly acceptable results - sometimes, in fact, better than prime
lenses (Hasselblad themselves acknowledged that the 180 Sonnar + 2X
Mutar performed better than the old 350/5.6, for example). I've used
a Mutar + 80mm when my 150 C was in the shop getting its flash
sync repaired. Had I been enlarging to 16x20 or 20x24, I might not
have, but for moderate enlargement the results were just fine.
I've personally verified that the results from a 250 Sonnar +
Mutar were indistinguishable from a 500mm C lens (Velvia,
heavy duty tripod, mirror pre-released, transparencies
checked under 15x loupe), although I would expect an
Apo-tessar to be *much* better.
I've never used any of the 3rd-party converters (Komura, Vivitar,
Kenko), so I can't really comment on the results one might expect
with them. I believe they're all identical and were just sold under
different brand names.
However, I'd like to propose an alternate strategy:
Over the past few weeks, Hasselblad C and CT* lenses have
been selling on Ebay for a pittance by Hasselblad standards
(a few hundred dollars). There's a legitimate concern that these
30+ year-old lenses may not be repairable in the near future
due to a scarcity of spare parts, but why not buy one of these
cheap 150s as an "interim" purchase? If it fails, just sell it
for parts (or find some independent repairman with a stockpile
of C-lens spares to fix it for you).
The 150 CT* lens is optically identical to the current 150 - the
only difference is the mechanical components and the baffling.
Steve
From: "WB3FUP (Mike Hall)" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003
Considering the poster immediately below, who according to his own
admission, has extensive experience in 35 mm and nothing else, I reiterate
my original reply to the question, with a couple of modifications that have
been put forth here. Also for future reference once Mr. Scarpitti has
honored us mortals with his pronouncements from Olympus nothing else will
be permitted.
1. There is nothing wrong with using the extender. Quality will suffer,
more at the edges than elsewhere but quality will suffer. The
photographer, and his customer are the only ones that can determine if the
degradation is acceptable or not.
2. If a matched extender is available use it, it was designed with the
lens, or family of lenses in mind. It will work better than any other
extender in that particular application.
3. If a matched extender is not available this is an area where dollars
speak. The more the extender costs, the more likely it will be to yield
acceptable results.
4. Stopping the taking lens down will have the apparent effect of
improving resolution. I use the word apparent because the extender is
still degrading the image, the original lens is just better stopped down as
opposed to wide open.
5. The extender still will require an exposure increase. 1 1/2 to 3 stops
depending on magnification factor. This may, depending on lighting
present, preclude the apparent increase in quality obtained by stopping the
original lens down.
I buy used glass, and my druthers would be to acquire a prime lens in the
format I wanted. If I couldn't afford to purchase the used lens, or find
one when I needed one; or, if I was never, ever, going to need the
particular focal length again, I would go looking for a tele-extender. I
do own a 1 1/2, a 2, and a 3. They are screwed (I use Pentax/Praktika
screw mount) together and in the closet where I can lay my hands on them.
Since most of my shooting these days is with "wides" (17.mm, 21mm, 24mm,
28mm, and 35mm) I can't remember the last time I had the extenders out of
the closet. My typical shooting session has the same film in two bodies,
one with the 24 and another with a 35 to 105.
I am sure Mr. Scarpitti will have several comments to show that I do not
know what I am talking about. That is fine. I have decided Mr.. Scarpitti
is a lid, and 27 years in amateur radio has shown me the best way to deal
with a lid is to completely ignore him. I would not have posted this "on
list" but was amazed that he, with no MF experience, was posting here.
Maybe because many in "darkroom" recognize the true value of his expertise
and he is seeking new forums to amaze. (Sure wish he would go back to
bothering the Tennis players)
...
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003
Stacey wrote:
> Of course a proper gear head would never use a teleconverter, doesn't mean
> they don't work. I'd suspect the blad "mutar" would be the best route
> (funny that zeiss makes one if they are such a joke?)
They even make one for their "hyper" (beyond "superb", etc.) performance
lens, the f/2.8 300 mm Superachromat, and with it this lens still is up
there in the ranks of the very, very best. Whoever thinks teleconverters
can't be good really must think again.
But that being said, it must be mentioned that of course there are good
teleconverters, and there are bad teleconverters. I have tried a Vivitar
many moons ago, and though resolution was still good, i noticed quite a bit
of distortion.
I haven't tried any other converters since, but understand that the Zeiss
Mutar (no longer produced, but available used) is very good. But very
expensive: you may find a good (but old) 150 mm lens used for the same price
a good used Mutar will cost you.
From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003
Corre wrote:
> I use a Hasselblad 501c with a C80mm f/2.8 for Black and white portrait.
> This lens is not designed for portrait close-up, because perspective
> depends only on point of view, so I plan to buy a teleconverter x2 such as
> Kenko teleconcverter or Vivitar teleconverter.
> - Does anybody use this kind of device ? results ?
> - what would be the best aperture f/8 ? f/11? f/16?
I've used the soviet MC 2X converter with an arsat 80mm and it's not a bad
solution for portraits. Beside the perspective improvement, it helps smooth
out the bokeh as well. If the soviet optics work this good, I suspect the
blad optics should work good too?
Some (slight) sharpness is lost but since most people use a soft filter to
kill some of the sharpness it's no big deal. You'll lose 2 stops of light
(makes the f2.8 a 150mm f5.6) and will need to stop down to f5.6 or so on
the lens to get good sharpness. Who knows, wide open might give the results
you're after? Unless you're going to make wall size enlargements (most
portraits are 8X10's) it should work fine.
Of course a proper gear head would never use a teleconverter, doesn't mean
they don't work. I'd suspect the blad "mutar" would be the best route
(funny that zeiss makes one if they are such a joke?) but one of the 3rd
party multi-element MC converters might work just as well for your use?
Later if you do get a 150mm you could use it to get 300mm.
Hope this helps, sorry I can't tell you which specific converter to get.
--
Stacey
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 8/11/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] extender problem
Marvin Born wrote:
>If you look closely there is a small block in the casting to
>prevent the extender from mounting.
>I think the extenders are only designed for 100mm and higher.
>
>At least that is what the manual says for my 1.4 X
>
>Marvin
2X extenders should work with all lenses. Only the 1.4X is limited to 100+
lenses.
Some old model extenders don't work properly with all lenses. I don't know
more than that about the subject, however.
My daughter's 50CFi works perfectly with her old 55mm extender as well as
my new 16 & 32mm extenders.
???
Jim
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 8/11/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] CDS prism metering
Ruben Bl�del wrote:
> > The meter in this prism takes a reading of the entire image, with the
> exception of a few millimeters at the upper edge.<
> Thank you David
And the light from a 26 mm circle, centered in the viewfinder, is
responsible for 50% of the reading. So it's center-weighed.
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 8/10/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 50mm FE filter use
Ed Nguyen wrote:
>Jim,
>
>I have a 60-120mm FE zoom lens which also uses 93mm drop-in filters. Can
>I use an 86mm screw-in linear polarizing filter with it? Thank you in
>advance for your time.
>
>Ed
Yes. You need Hasselblad part number 41648, which is a 93-86mm adapter made
especially for the 60-120 lens, to allow using 86mm filters.
Jim
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 8/10/2003
To: [email protected] Cc:
Subject: Re: [HUG] hasselblad EL
Bill Parrott Photography wrote:
> I am new to this list. I have an EL and an 80/2.8 Planar lens that I
> purchased about a year ago. I am totally new to Hasselblad photography
> so I need lots of help .. :) I have two pressing problems right off ..
> 1) the shutter on my lens is sticking or dragging below 1/15th sec which
> results in overexposure and some light streaks along one side of the
> image .. they are light streaks as opposed to scratches
Bill, you're sure you keep the shutter release depressed until the shutter
has finished its cycle?
If you don't, the EL has this habit of starting film transport while the
rear baffle shutter is being closed at a rather leisurely pace, and while
all along the shutter in the lens is still open. The result... ;-)
> and 2) my images
> are not equally spaced on the roll .. the spacing varies between each
> frame but none of the frames ever overlap. Any advice on how to take
> care of these problems .. recommendations?? I would appreciate any
> other recommendations as well. I have some other issues, but wanted to
> get this out of the way first. Thanks in advance.
Hasselblas standard for "correct" spacing is that 1) you get as many frames
on the roll as you are supposed to, and b) there is enough separation
between two frames to make a cut an leave a thin bit of unexposed film along
both frames' edges.
Spacing is never absolutely even. But extremely bad spacing can be caused by
either a magazine that needs service, or bad loading (keep the film tight
during loading, and make sure you line up the arrow/line mark on the backing
to the marker on the insert exactly, if you're using a "A" type back).
Bad spacing can also be due to frames extending beyond their supposed
bounds, due to the EL starting transport before both shutters have closed.
Kormendi\Gardner Partners
202/822-0900 voice
202/331-1151 fax
From: Cyrus Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UKRAINIAN Prisms
> Where is the best place to buy these prisms? I know that not all mail
> order vendors of these Ukranian cameras are reliable.
>
> Russ Rosener
Kormendi\Gardner Partners
From: Russ & Kathy Thornton [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UKRAINIAN Prisms
PS:
I forgot to give you guys his number. It is:
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UKRAINIAN Prisms
p.s. There are some threads in the archive on this, too.
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Manuals (?) or Books
you wrote:
>Dan-
>how does one 'zero' the meter knob? Mine seems right on, but just so I know....?
>Thanks,
>Bob Keene
>"Everybody's Pal"
If you look carefully at the meter scale, you will notice that there is a
small white line a fraction of a millimeter in length, at the far left.
With the meter cell completely covered up, turn the very fine screw located
on the side of the knob until the needle matches the fine white line.
Dan C.
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998
From: Jeff S [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Manuals (?) or Books
The Wildi book is good, though historical info is weak, so if you're dealing
with, say, pre-'85 gear, it might make sense to look into getting earlier,
as well as the current, edition. The main benefit I derive from the book is
as a general catalog of sorts, as well as a data sheet for reproduction
ratios for various lens/extension tube combos.
I have the 4th Edition, and think the 4th Ed Revised is the latest,
containing a bit of info on the 201 and 203 cameras.
Jeff
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998
From: "Stuart A. Pearl" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Wildi's Hasselblad Manual
"The Hasselblad Manual" by Ernst Wildi (4th edition) is an excellent
book.
Back when I was evaluating my first purchase of a used blad, I really
didn't know much about the camera. I found the book at the library and
liked it so much that I ended up purchasing a copy for $43 at a local
camera store that was closing. It's now my main reference work in additon
to the pamphlet that came with the camera. The book convinced me not to
buy the extremely used 500C/M I initially considered. I did end up buying
a 10 year old 500C/M in like new condition that had been used as a
doctor's hobby camera.
The 4th edition was published in 1992 by Focal Press and discusses
products up through the introduction of the 205TCC in 1991. Aside
from the fact that it's written for the Hasselblad, it does give some very
good general phtography info, discussing the basic principles of light,
exposure, picture taking, etc. If you can
find the book for under $50 it's a bargain for the wealth of
information. It's 370 pages, 20 of which is a highly detailed index, in
addition to the 12 page table of contents. To give you an idea of what
the book contains I've reproduced the TOC below by Chapter number:
1. The Medium Format - discussiong of negative sizes
2. Hasselblad Cameras - complete history, lenses, shutters,models
3. Interchangeability - modularity discussion, functions, magazines,
screens, etc.
4. Camera Operation - how to hold/use the camera, basic stuff
5. Film Magazines - all the different sizes, polaroid, 70mm, etc.
6. Operation the EL Models - motor drives, batteries, etc.
7. Operating the SuperWide Cameras - basic operation.
8. Operating the Focal-Plane Shutter Cameras - you name it, it's here
9. Viewing/focusing - screens, viewfinders, diopters
10. Exposure Metering - incident, reflected, spot, TTL, center weighted,
meter prisms.
11. Exposure Controls - EV scale, aperture, shutter, depth of field.
12. Double/Multiple exposures - superimposed, split screen, ghost.
13. Lenses - design, quality, angle of view, mutars, zoom, adaptors,
etc.
14. Filters - color, engravings, series, diffusion, exposure, combining.
15. Electronic Flash - on camera, dedicated, automatic, macro flash.
16. Instant Film - exposure, polaroid, magazines, care.
17. Close-Ups - Proxars, depth of field, exposure, slide copying
18. Copying - camera alignment, focus, copy stands, exposure, lighting.
19. Unusual Light Sources - UV, Fluorescent, Infrared, exposure.
20. Looking After Your Camera - mtce, batteries, fungus, cleaning.
21. Older Models - 1000F/1600F, Flash photography
22. Projecting Your Hasselblad Slides - slide mounting, glass, sizes.
23. The Hasselblad PCP80 Projector - voltage, setup, mtce, controls.
The chapter headings are as they appear in the book, but I only
scratched the surface with the comments that I made on each line. To be
more thorough would be to reproduce the book 8-). The point is, it is
an excellent reference work. I studied it for several weeks with camera
in hand (local store let me take one home to "drive before I buy") and
made the subsequent decision to purchase. In that regard the book paid
for itself by helping in my choice as a newbie. -
Stu Pearl
[email protected]
From: "Mark Ziemann"
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Samsung/Rollei Business
>I suppose that this is a topic that has been hashed over ad nauseam but
>being new to the Rollei Group I am still unaware of whats going on.
>
>What are Samsungs intentions for the Rollei medium format line?
>
>I have heard that Samsung has plowed a fair amount of money into the medium
>format factory but this info came to me as just a rumor . . . any truth?
>
>Can Rollei subsequently get its dukes up and really compete with the
>Swedish product considering the sizable discrepancy in the prices of the
>lenses?
>
>Has Samsung taken a notable hit in the collapse of the Korean market? If
>so, is it to the extent that it would jeopardize Rollei?
>
>Has anyone got any info on this stuff?
>
>Just worrying.
>
>Tim Ellestad
Tim,
There is a LOT going on in medium format right now. Looks like we may have
one more major camera company coming into medium format after only doing
35 mm for some years. Don't ask me to name names, because I can't yet.
A major Japanese lens company is now working on a line of medium format
lenses. This will be the first independent lens line for MF, sorta like
Tamron and Sigma in 35 mm.
Yes, Samsung has pumped considerable money into Rollei. We will see the
results of this over the next few years in new products, many of them 35 mm
but some MF.
Your timing in asking this question is bad, because there is a lot I know
about but can't talk about. Be patient until late summer/ early fall and
you will learn of lots of new things and lots of changes.
Bob
Date: 17 Mar 98
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Help newbie with purchase? / NEW CB LENSES
CB lenses are easy to recognize. All the f-stop, shutter speed, etc.
markings are in large, white letters only, instead of the
multicolored letters on the CF lenses. Also on the top, front of the
barrel, the lens is designated C instead of CF. If I remember
correctly, all the CB lenses 60, 80 and 160 are T* and marked on the
front. By the way, the CB 60 f3.5 is the same optical formula as the
CF. The CB 80 and, of course, the 160 are not.
--
Patrick Bartek (NoLife Polymath Group)
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
From: "Stuart A. Pearl" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Winding Trick - Make Old 12 Back Act Like 24 Magazine
My apologies if this was discussed before I joined the group. A friend
claims that you can use the old style (non crank) 12 exposure backs with
24 exposure roles if you do a little trick. My concern is potential
damage to the magazine. This is his simple method: Load and shoot the
12 exp roll as usual. After the 12th shot when the body would normally
lock on you, back turn the film advance key on the magazine. This
causes the counter to reset to 1. The body thinks you have 12 more
shots to go, giving you a total of 24.
Are the backs engineered for different capacities of film, or are the
counters and $100 (new) the only two differences? I have a 30 year old
12 magazine that was thrown in with the camera deal and tried this trick
WITHOUT film. It worked fine as I was able to take "24" pictures.
Stu Pearl
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Winding Trick - Make Old 12 Back Act Like 24 Magazine
Keep in mind that, unlike 120, 220 film has paper only at the beginning and
end. Therefore, the "peep hole" must be blocked to keep from fogging the
film.
Gene Pallat
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998
From: "Douglas St.Denny" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: A16S Hasselblad back question
Does anyone have any advice (other than NOT to do it...) about milling a
Super
Slide A16S back into a landscape format 6x4.2 (?) size back. As far as I can
tell, the modification is straight forward. Anyone out there dome it?
regards from foggy and humid Hong Kong
Doug;as St.Denny
http://www.hkabc.net/~zeiss/HotshotsPage.JPG
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A16S Hasselblad back question
It is tricky to do. A number of years ago when I was working for a dealer
here in Salt Lake city, I arranged to have some modifications done by
Hasselblad. My aim was to produce a divided back for Stereo photography.
Although I got a deal, the back still cost me about 200.00 on top of the
cost of a new back. The back was assigned a serial number to indicate the
modifications and a letter was supplied to confirm that what I wanted was
what I recieved.
Good luck, I am sure it can be done. You might talk to a machinist and tell
him what you need.
RM
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: A16S Hasselblad back question
In theory this should be easy, especially if you have access to a good,
creative, inexpensive repairperson. I would think it would behoove you to
do the conversion with Hassy parts. Change out the pressure plate, rollers,
not just "hogging" out the mask. I have heard of dedicated and well heeled
persons that have actually changed this (relatively inexpensive) back to an
A24!
Good Luck, Leo.
Subject: Response to Bright Screen for 500C
Date: 1998-03-16
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998
From: Tom Campbell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens problem?
Derek
I had this problem (or a similar one) once with a 150 Sonnar. The
aperture, once stopped down (whether DOF preview or exposure) would only
return to max aperture by opening all the way to max. Like you, I had
no exposure problem. This was especially a pain with the 'blad, since
th interlocking EV often had to be disengaged and moved to be able to
set max ap.
When I finally sent it in for repair it was the spring controlling the
"aperture reset" that needed replacement. Since it was in for a CLA
anyway, the cost was <$100. Don't worry about it until it bugs you
enough to pay (or get older and need all the help with focusing you can
get!).
Tom Campbell
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998
From: Derek Zeanah [email protected]
Subject: Messing aroung where I shouldn't...
I traded for a late '50's 500C a short while ago, and I got back the first
few rolls of film today (portraits). In _every_ frame (36), focus is crisp
and perfect about 1 foot _behind_ my subject. No big deal as far as the
client was concerned (we were also shooting with Bronica gear), but I was
really upset.
I figured it was probably going to have to go into the shop anyway, so I
might as well fiddle around and see if I could fix it myself. Symptoms
pointed to the focusing screen, so that's what I played with. After a
couple of tries...I think I got everything to work correctly. A checked
focus at infinity and everything looked good, then I measured 3' from the
=v= symbol on the 12 back to the focus target, focused, and came up with
exactly.....3 feet (as indicated on the lens). Perfect as far as I can
tell. The only thing that's different now from an hour ago is that all
four screws are now tighter than they were (they seemed fairly loose when
I started).
Do the screws that hold in the focusing screen generally loosen up over
time, or is this the result of a bad service (1 year ago, very few shots
taken with this body since then, and those were all with flash)?
Is there anything else I should check, or does good close and infinity
focus mean the thing is close to dead-on now? Should I sent it in for
service soon anyway (the screen in it now is a Beattie -- can't justify the
Accumat upgrade as easily)? In the future, would it be wiser to pay
someone else to do it, or try myself?
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998
From: "D. L. Feinberg" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Messing aroung where I shouldn't...
Derek,
On many earlier Hasselblads, if you look under the focusing screen, you
will see that the screen sits on four very small screws. These are for
focus adjustment.
You should turn each of them equally if you choose to adjust them.
Adjustments should be in units of about 1/8 turn at a time - no more!
don feinberg
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Messing aroung where I shouldn't...
The focus is not set with the screen-it is set on the lens. Your best
bet at this time.........put another lens on the camera (if you have
one), and set that lens at infinity. Run the screws either up or down on
each corner of the screen, such that you have a sharp focus on the
screen corners(use a loop to do this). Your body will now be back into
the original condition and you will not need to send it in. Setting the
focus on the lens is a little more involved, but I can walk you through
it if you email me.
Dick
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998
From: Jim Stewart [email protected]
Subject: Re: Messing aroung where I shouldn't...
Same thing happened to me. I suspect the dealer removed an accute matte
screen and replaced it with a standard before he re-sold the camera. If
you have the screen adjusted by a tech, it will usually come back with
black goop on the screws to hold them in place.
Jim
From: Russ Rosener [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: DOF preview stuck
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998
From: "Stuart A. Pearl" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Rep's Comments - Inserts That Don't Match Magazines
From: dannyg1 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rep's Comments - Inserts That Don't Match Magazines
> But what about the original question of the match of insert and case.
> Does it really matter and can anyone offer an example of where it
> effected your camera operation or the prints.
I can. I rented a mismatched back for an important shoot and since I shoot
wide open at least 98% of the time, had no trouble noticing that the
bottom right corner was totally out of plane, and out of focus, with that
back only. Looking at the mechanics ofthe thing, I can see how the
conclusion that it cant matter could be drawn, but real life experience on
my camera has me convinced otherwise.
From: Alfred Breull [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Days / 1st Qs
The answers were given by the Hasselblad technician.
Q : How severe are not matching numbers of mag and insert ?
Answer: 1) Not severe, usually there is no problem.
2) Problems usually occur, if the springe
of the pressure plate is broken or deformed.
3) Most current (used) magazines differ in the numbers
of mag and insert.
4) Most frequently, the studio's assistent loads the
mags and changes mags and inserts by accident.
If this problem would be of any importance, most
studies would produce unsharp pictures.
Q: Online copy of Hasselblad manuals
Answer: 1) Please, ask Hasselblad Sweden.
2) We will take it into account as soon as we create
a German Hasselbald home page.
http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Depth of Field
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: CB lenses quality
Guido Ridoli wrote:
> I would like to know the quality about 60mm CB and 160 CB.
> Are CF lenses quality better than CB ones?
> Thanks in advance
At the Photomarketing Association convention in Las Vegas Nv USA last
month, I visited the Hasselblad booth and asked about the three CB
lenses.
From: Russ Rosener [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CB lenses quality
Guido Ridoli wrote:
>
> I would like to know the quality about 60mm CB and 160 CB.
> Are CF lenses quality better than CB ones?
> Thanks in advance
>
> Guido Ridoli
> guirid+AEA-numerica.it
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Rosener
Washington University, St. Louis
http://home.stlnet.com/~rrosener/Archaic_Cyberspace.html
From: dannyg1 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hasselblad CB lens quality
From: [email protected] (gary gaugler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The Hasselblad Unjam Solution
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The Hasselblad Unjam Solution
Date: 12 Apr 1998
John's Camera Shop
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The Hasselblad Unjam Solution
Date: 14 Apr 1998
From: Cyrus Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: upgrade
From: Roy Harrington [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes
>
>I have the 80mm and are about to get a 50mm and 150mm lens.
>I would like to get some extension tubes I will be travelling soon and
>will be able to pick them up cheaper.
>Haven't done any close up work before, just thought It was about time that I tried it.
>So I am not sure how close I want to go...
>Any suggestions on what tubes I should get to give me a versatile kit?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Forget Extension Tubes and use a Bellows. There are only so many ways you
> can combine tubes in a set; a Bellows is far more versatile.
>
> Robert
>
Roy Harrington
[email protected]
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 120 back and 220 film
[Ed. Note: A 500EL/ELM battery pack]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: FAQ's for New Hasselblad Users
Date: 24 Feb 1998
From: Vince Callaway [email protected]
Subject: Re: Battery for 500ELM
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
Subject: Re: Battery for 500ELM
From: Joseph Codispoti [email protected]
Subject: Re: Battery for 500ELM
16512 Burke Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
From: Joe McCary - Photo Response [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500 EL/M Battery Installation...
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: New battery for 500 EL,EL/M, and ELX
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
Subject: Re: New battery for 500 EL,EL/M, and ELX
>
>metal-hydride battery (PBI 500 series)
>
>
>Memory??
From: Daniel White [email protected]
To: Hasselblad Users Group
Subject: CW Winder
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CW Winder
Transform your manual Hasselbad camera to a motorized camera simply by
removing the crank, and attach the Apcam motor drive. Shutter speed
of 1 frame per second. With electronic "Stop Design", there is no
wear on the camera shutter cocking mechnism.
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] JSK & Hasselblad
BTW, why is it that Hasselblad is so averse to Schneider?
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad light leaks -Reply
From: Gregg Laiben [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad light leaks
NewportM7 wrote:
> I purchased this used and the first roll came back from the deveoper
> with light leaks in the middle of the negatives (all the shots were affected,
> but only in the middle of the negative).
From: dannyg1 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad light leaks -Reply
Poor edge blacking on one or more of your lens elements.
A sticky shutter that doesn't close all the way (until you've had a
chance to flip the camera and inspect it, where it, of course, looks fine).
Poor edge sealing of the viewfinders glass/mirror.
A stressed mirror spring that prevents the mirror from hitting its upper
stop.
Light leak around the lens mount.
Bent back mounting arms (camera bottom)
Bent magazine mounting spring arm (on the body)
Loose back mount plate (on the back)
Worn darkslide felt.
Subject: Lens Repair Experience
Date: 1998-05-13
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998
From: dannyg1 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500C/M vs. 501CM
From: dannyg1 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500 C/Ms
> What is this "light baffle flash sync"?
>
> 2. As I have been looking around for a good second-hand 500 body, I
> have noticed that in most of the 1980s and onwards 500C/Ms bodies,
> the internal walls of the mirror box have developed cracks. The
> cracks occur on the black coatings lining the walls.
Danny Gonzalez
From: stefan poag [email protected]
Subject: Response to to buy or not to buy the hasselblad 500C
Date: 1998-06-02
From: Ken Eng [email protected]
Subject: Response to to buy or not to buy the hasselblad 500C
Date: 1998-06-02
From: (Sir, Crapsalot, Poopy)[email protected]
[1] Re: The little red window
Date: Thu Jun 04 1998
From: "Dwight" [email protected]
[1] Re: Kiev back on hassy?
Date: Fri Jun 05 1998
From: "Stuart A. Pearl" [email protected]
Subject: Murphy and the Lens Jam
From: Benson [email protected]
[1] Re: Where to buy Varta Batteries
Date: Sat Jun 06 1998
From: Alfred Breull [email protected]
Subject: Hasselblad Days / booklet
Subject: Response to Problem with old 12 back for 500C
Date: 1998-06-22
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Hasselblad Lenses: Made in Japan?
>James Chow wrote:
>>Yes, Bob, but as you mentioned before, a lot of the reason for having it
>>made in Germany is the mystique behind it, like CZ wanting to move its
>>hasselblad lens production line to Japan to cut costs that could be passed to
>>the consumer, but not doing so because it wouldn't be "made in Germany."
>
>
>I am relatively well-informed on matters of this ilk and have NEVER heard
>this one! Would you be so kind as to cite a source, preferably a written one?
>
>Zeiss wanted for some years to get out of camera lens production but almost
>certainly never considered moving Hasselblad lens production to the Orient.
> They attempted to convince Viktor Hasselblad at one point to begin using
>JSK lenses, I know. But MIJ CZ Hasselblad lenses!? Wow!
>
>Marc
>[email protected]
From: "Paul C. Brodek" [email protected]
Subject: Re: new hasselblad competitors RE: New Hasselblad/ Rumor (longish)
-Reply
>Please refresh my mind. Does the 80CB make pictures not as good as
>an 80CF?
Kobe, Japan
[email protected]
Subject: Response to Hassy to 35mm body adapter with tilt/shift
Date: 1998-06-20
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] schneider versus Zeiss 6008i lenses
Ed Meyers
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: mount obsolescence economics Re: new hasselblad competitors
-Reply
Peter Klosky wrote:
>
> > VHB and HB/USA get little direct profit from the huge used market
> resale of HB lenses and accessories ...
>
> True, but there are several indirect ways they profit, greatly. HB/USA
> provides service, and they are not cheap. For example, they charged
> me $347 to fix a sluggish 150C, and a friend $200 to fix a loose PC
> socket on an 80CF. The high prices on the used market do benefit the
> new sales, too. People know that new items will "hold their value" on
> resale. This may be by HB design. i.e. Raise new prices, and used
> items become more attractive.
Peter Rosenthal
P.R. Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen, #1
Flagstaff, AZ., 86001
(520)779-5263
-----------
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: HASSY's Insane Pricing Plan -Forwarded
Subject: hasselblad darkslide
Date: 1998-07-02
From: George Huczek [email protected]
Subject: Batteries
Mountain View, Ca 94043 (415) 960 0700 USQ
Order item: V5/V500RH, 6 volt 500 mAH Varta Battery
From: tdyf trg [email protected]
Subject: Re: 9 volt batteries
From: Vince Callaway [email protected]
Subject: Re: 9 volt batteries
From: Bjxrn Rxrslett [email protected]
[1] Hasselblad presents a 35 mm camera
Date: Tue Jul 21 1998
Professional Nature Photographer, Ph.D.
From: [email protected] (Frank Webb)
[1] Re: kiev lenses on hasselblad
Date: Thu Jul 23 1998
>Hi Steve,
>Kiev lenses will not fit or function on Hasselblad 500 series cameras, they
>do not contain shutters because the Kiev bodies have focal place shutters
>instead. I have never tried to see if they will bayonet into place, I
>suspect not...
>Perhaps some of the Hasselblad gurus out there know whether Kiev lenses
>might be used for the ageing 1000 and 1600 series of Hasselblads, but I
>would suspect that it would be cheaper and easier to simply use a Kiev body
>than to try to use up an obsolete collector's item Hasselblad body.
>(I know - I know! There are probably plenty of shooters out there using 1000
>and 1600 sets, but Hasselblad itself considers them obsolete, they even
>laugh when I tell them that I'm still using a 500C body and tell me to get
>with the program and get modern for they consider even the 500C to be
>obsolete!)
>
>--
>Mark Ziemann: voice 250 367 6684 fax 250 367 7099
>Canada: P.O. Box 467, Montrose, B.C. V0G 1P0
>U.S.A.: P.O. Box 707, Northport, WA 99157
>Email: [email protected]
>Steve wrote in message <[email protected]>...
>>Heavysteam wrote:
>>>
>>> <
From: "Lionel F. Stevenson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: off topic - broken shutter release adapter
>Recently, in the course of a lot of traveling, the "L" shaped adapter
that I
>used to attach my shutter release cable, broke off, leaving a piece of
itself
>stuck in the shutter release button. It is nearly flush with the surface.
>The shutter release works, but I'd like to remove the broken piece. Any
>suggestions? Thanks. -Ellen
>
From: Stefan Ohlsson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad XPan
>> Agreed. To me, the most telling thing is no mention of who made the
>> glass. As much as I love the 500c/m design, it's the Carl Zeiss glass
>> that forms the image.
>
> I thought the consensus was that it was a standard Fuji design.
>ie, probalby not much different from the GA645Wi: Super EBC Fujinon 45mm
>f/4, 5-group, 7-element lens...
>
> no?
From: Stefan Ohlsson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad XPan
>I find both of these comments a little strange. It was my understanding
>that Hasselblad NEVER designed any optics in house, they ALWAYS relied on
>the lens making talents of outside firms. Starting with the Kodak Ektars
>and the various Zeiss glass for the 1600/1000F right up to the Schneider
>optics for the PCP-80.
>
>Curious, Leo.
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: New Component Durability/CLA Stats
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Traffic
> In the Hasselblad Forum, Issue 1 1997, volume 33, page 37 this is
> discussed. For the benefit of those who do not subscribe:
>
> Q.: "Never magazines have a friction brake. What is this for? I have been
> told that these magazines can even give sharper pictures?"
>
> A.: "The hub of the film spool in the spool holder was originally designed
> to offer the least possible resistance to the rotation of the spool. And
> we thought that this was the correct way to do it. But as a result of the
> continuous reviews and product improvements we carry out, someone realized
> that the film was not always held tight and flat over the image frame. The
> film was "loose" and this could also affect the spacing between frames. We
> found that by braking the hub on the exit side we could tension the film
> and improve flatness and frame division. The friction brake was developed
> and introduced. It is easy to check whether a magazine has a friction
> brake or not. The braked hub has two wings. A hub without brake is
> entirely concentric. Because a magazine with a friction brake has
> considerably better performance we recommend you to trade it in!"
> -----------
From: Bob Keene/Karen Shehade [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:[Rollei] Softar 1 question
Keene Vision Photography
Boston, MA
From: "Paul C. Brodek" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance of Distagon 60 CF versus CB
>Is there a difference in performance between the Distagon 60 CF and
>the Distagon 60 CB lenses? The specs appear identical, and the MTF
>curves look the same to me. Do they handle differently? I notice the
>60 CF is not included in the 1998 Hasselblad USA Product Catalog, but
>it is in their lens brochure (undated).
>
>Thanks, Bud Schoener
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
From: George Huczek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Magazine storage
From: Les Alvis [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magazine storage
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magazine storage
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magazine storage
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magazine storage
From: Terje [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ELM use with radio slaves?
>I'm purchasing an ELM and would like to use it with remote release using
>either a Quantum Radio Slave II or 4.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ELM use with radio slaves?
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: wide angle lens
> Obviously it depends on what you will do with that lens and if you plan
> later expansion or is the last wide angle lens? Lets assume you do groups
> of people and you will later purchase another lens. I would look first at
> the 60mm. This lens is great for small groups. It have very little angular
> distortion. 2nd look would be the 50mm. I have both of these lenses and
> the SWCM as well. I do use them all BUT I use the 60mm the most.
Patrick Bartek (NoLife Polymath Group)
[email protected]
http://www.skylink.net/~bartek
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: proshade adapters
From: "Roger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji XPAN price in japan
>I'm not sure what Fuji calls their equivalent of the
>Hasselblad XPAN - but does anyone know what the
>Fuji camera sells for in the Japanese market? I assume
>it would be a lot cheaper without the Hasselblad name
>on it!
>
>don
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: HELP: Is it possible to bulk load 120 Film?
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998
> In support to Cameron's reply, buy your film in propacks.
>
> Unless your camera can support a 70mm back (like Hassy's, but is it worth
> the price?), the design if rollfilm will make it virtually impossible.
H�kan Gunnarsson
G�teborg, Sweden
From: Tom Miller [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: touching up an NC-2 prism
Tom Miller
Tom Miller Photography
From: Tom Miller [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: touching up an NC-2 prism
From: Joseph Codispoti [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 120 roll in a 24 back ?
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #284
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magazine storage
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Magazine storage
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Unjamming tool
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998
> Does anyone know where one can purchase a tool for unjamming a Hasselblad?
>
H�kan Gunnarsson
G�teborg, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Unjamming tool
Date: 26 Sep 1998
e-mail [email protected]
phone (614) 261-1264
fax (614) 261-1637
mel
From: Al Thompson Al [email protected]
Subject: Response to Russian prism/hasselblad
Date: 1998-09-24
From: tgarten [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fits with 70mm backs
> The unit came along with the ELM and 70mm backs (which are still
> giving me fits - does anyone know what to do to make both of the
> windows turn white instead of red? The manual just says they both
> need to be the same color when you put it on the camera, but does
> not say how to change the window closest to the camera. I do have
> 70mm film in the magazine, having wasted about 20 frames trying to
> figure it all out.
Thomas
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fire 500CM from 6-8' distance...
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] Ansel Adams & Rollei
>>Bob Shell,
>>
>>Did NASA have a similar arrangement with Hasselblad?
>
>I don't think so. I think all of the Hasselblad space cameras were paid
>for by the American taxpayers.
>
>Bob
>
[1] Re: What model Hasselblad used in space?
Date: Wed Dec 09 1998
)[email protected]
}(JNHORTON) wrote:
}
}> The hassy model used in space was a special edition 500 ELM and the film back
}> that was used was the 70 mm film back. You can actually see one of the 500
}> ELMs that was used if you visit the the Smithsonian Institution's Air,Space,
}> and Science Museum in Washington, DC. (the 500 ELM models used for the space
}> program do not have the black leatherette material on the outside of the body
}> or film back).
}
}But the first camera brought by a human into space was a Minolta by John Glen,
}so it just shows that you don't need rocket science to shoot in space. The
}cameras used outdoors on the moon were custom-made one-offs with no resemblence
}to a MF camera (they look like phasors on the original Star Trek :-) ). Nowdays
}on the shuttle, they use the Hasselblad, Rollei 6008i, and now, a high-vision
}tv camera (Fuji?).
}
}--Jim
Ron Hopkins-Lutz
From: Gary Todoroff [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fits with 70mm backs
> From: tgarten [email protected]
>
>
> After having put the film-cassette into the magazine 70, the window
> closest to the film counter shows white, thus indicating that the
> magazine is loaded...
> Please let me know if this will work for you, because only after
> numerous trials and errors I FINALLY figured this out. .:-((
Gary Todoroff
From: Alfred Breull [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Hasselblad Days / booklet
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Response to Kiev prism
Date: 1998-11-17
From: [email protected] (JNHORTON)
[2] Re: What model Hasselblad used in space?
Date: Sun Dec 06 1998
From: Bill Barton [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: Who knows name of Xpan equivalent from Fuji?????
From: "Stuart A. Pearl" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Warranty Info Surprise
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Hasselblad, Koda, the Novar, and All That
>At the time I was writing my Hasselblad book about eight years ago Kodak
>still had substantial financial interest in Hasselblad. My guess is that
>they probably still do.
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Ken Eng [email protected]
Subject: Response to 3rd Party Shoulder - Strap for Hasselblad
Date: 1998-12-14
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998
From: Terje Tveraas [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks for HB history update!
>Thanks Leo, for the update - the message I saw indicated that "hasselblad
>was recently sold to an anonymous group of investors" (Dec 1 98) but I
>guess our definitions of "recently" must differ a lot ;-)
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: 90 Degree Finders
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: 90 Degree Finders
From: Dave Jenkins [email protected]
Subject: Response to How do you adjust a Hassy mirror?
Date: 1999-01-08
From: Guy [email protected]
Subject: Response to How do you adjust a Hassy mirror?
Date: 1999-01-11
From: [email protected] (Mr500CM)
[1] The truth about CB lenses (thanks Bob Shell!)
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999
To reply, remove (NO SPAM) in address.
From: [email protected] (EugeneC173)
[1] Re: The truth about CB lenses (thanks Bob Shell!)
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999
Eugene
From: [email protected] (EugeneC173)
[1] Re: The truth about CB lenses (thanks Bob Shell!)
Date: Tue Feb 09 1999
>If you've used the new lenses you'll see the diffrence. I've used them and
>there not
>Zeiss quality,
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: spare parts availability
From: Bill Franson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Recommendations for repair ?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999
From: Houlihan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Telescope attachment Any Hasselblad body and back is too large for this
telescope model's mount to carry at the prime focus. You could get
an old
lens with damaged optics, remove the optics / shutter / etc. and cobble
together
an attachment to your "T" adapter. However---- (1) The
usable image field that you will get out of the ETX is small (about 35mm
camera size) so most of the negative will be wasted. (2) The
weight of the
Hasselblad will require a large counter weight on the other side of the
declination axis. (3) The ETX has a fairly long focal length
so you
will require an off axis guider between the Telescope and the Camera and this
will exacerbate your balance problem (small finder scopes attached to the
telescope do not have enough magnification for reliable guiding).
(4) You
have a much more useful array of films suitable for astrophotography in
35mm vs
medium format. In summary this approach is just making things more
difficult for you.
WHAT YOU CAN DO - - If you can remove the telescope from the mount
you could attach your Hasselblad in its place and use the mount to track the
stars. Your 80mm f2.8 would give you some excellent starfield
photos. High magnification astrophotography is a real "bring
money" exercise with most of the money going for the telescope mount not
the optics. In any case good luck.
Ed Kirkpatrick
wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I have a new Meade ETX telescope
and
I wanted to photograph the night sky with
> my Hassy, not that I didn't
have enough to do already.
> I have the "T" adapter that
screws
into the scope, but it must attach to some
> piece on the camera in
place
of the lense. Does this piece have to be custom
> made or is
it a
standard part for these cameras?
>
> Thanks in advance to
all.
>
> Ed
>
> Ed Kirkpatrick
Photography
From: Harry Haige [email protected]
Subject: Wanted to Buy: Lens Mount Adapter 40037
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: 80mm lens flare
>This is my
>favorite lens on my Hasselblad and is also the lens on my TLR Rolleiflex
>(from the early seventies).
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Third party lenses for Hasselblad 2000FC
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999
> Hi All
> Question:
> Is anyone other than Zeiss currently making shutterless lenses for the
> Hasselblad 2000FC. I'm aware of the Ukranian and Russian Lenses
> For the Kievs and Zenits but these seem to exist only in 1000F or
> Pentacon mount. I've also heard about several shops that will modify
> those lenses but you loose the auto diaphragm and by the time you
> add the cost of the mod you're back in the used Zeiss territory. It
> seems like a no brainer for a manufacturer but I can't find any!
> Any Ideas
> Best Regards
> Javier
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ? using 220 with old 12 back
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (NYCFoto
[1] Re: Opinions wanted on 250mm Hasselblad lens.
Date: Tue Mar 30 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 500 C vs. 2000 FC
Date: 14 Apr 1999
>I need to build a complete set, i.e. one normal lens, one telephoto and one
>wide-angle, but I need to have one system; either 500 C with 3 CF lenses
>(with leaf shutter) or 2000 FC with 3 F lenses (without a leaf shutter) The
>question is: Should I sell the 500 C + 250/5.6 and build a system based on
>2000 FC? or sell the 2000 FC + 80/2.8 and build a system based on 500 C?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 202FA ????
Date: 14 Apr 1999
>This new autoexposure model is almost half the price of a 203, any
>experiences, comments, impressions to relate?
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev TTL Prism Viewfinder
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999
From: Bruce Wilson [email protected]
Subject: RE: Advantages of the Buying the 203fe vs the 553elx
From: Al [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Advantages of the Buying the 203fe vs the 553elx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Repair cost on slow SWC/M shutter?
Date: 29 Apr 1999
Brad Sherman-factory trained Hasselblad technician
Precision Camera Service
798 Woodlane Rd., Suite 10-128
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Tel 609-702-8100
800-263-6599
Fax 609-702-9410
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999
From: Leonard Eselson [email protected]
To: Hasselblad Post [email protected]R
Subject: Kiev Lenses for Hassy
30mm/3.5... $1075.00
45mm/3.5... $925.00
120mm/2.8... $850.00
150mm/2.8... $925.00
250mm/3.5... $975.00
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: query about hassy 2000 lenses
>are these Kiev lenses for Hassy 2000 auto-diaphragm action or just
>stop down metering on the focal plane hasselblad 2000?
Thank you for your interest in KievUSA!
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Viewfinder vignetting
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev TTL Prism Viewfinder
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev TTL Prism Viewfinder
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 200 series bodies and FE lenses ??
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 200 series bodies and FE lenses ??
From: Michael Gardner [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 200 series bodies and FE lenses ??
> I am considering either a 203 or 202 body for use with 50, 110, and 150
> FE lenses for mostly hand held available light shooting. Autoexposure
> is desirable, flash sync. speed is not a consideration. Any comments,
> suggestions, criticisms or advice from experienced users?
From: Gregg Laiben [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to replace A12 memo holder?
>Anyone know how to replace the memo holder on an A12 film back? I got one in
>SNIP...
>And if that's not a part that can be cheaply replaced, has anyone tried
>simply affixing the darkslide/memo holder that's applied to the current
>A12s?
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1000F/1600F Lens to Kiev 88?
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1000F/1600F Lince to Kiev 88?
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #649
>Hello to all
>
>I have been using the Hassy for while, shooting slides and prints. It seems
>to me that the viewfinder only displays 90% to 95% of the actual slide.
>Could somebody confirm with me on this?
From: Mattei [email protected]
Subject: Re: HELP!!! - Polaroid mag for hasselblad, worth how much?
From: Jeffcoat Photography [email protected]
Subject: Re: HELP!!! - Polaroid mag for hasselblad, worth how much?
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Meter Prisms explained
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999
From: Stephen O Gombosi [email protected]
Subject: Meter Prisms explained
>Will someone on the list who knows these things, please explain the
>differences between a PmE5 PME3, PM51 metered prism.
PME - Center weighted meter 45 degree prism, calibrated for the old
ground glass screen. These require compensation when used with
the Accumatte.
Hasselblad USA used to offer a recalibration service that
calibrated old PMEs for the new screen (for about $85), but
they stopped doing that a number of years ago. I suppose it
cut into the sales of the PME3.
PME3 - Like the PME, but calibrated for the Accumatte screen.
PME5 - A PME3 with cutouts for the displays in the 202/203/205
cameras. Handy if you plan to get one of these bodies in
the future (or one of the often-rumored 5xx bodies with a
built-in meter for the CFE lenses).
PME51 - PME5 with "improved" meter.
>I'm looking for a prism finder with a 45 degree angle eyepiece I can
>used on my 500C equipped with an Accumatte screen.
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999
From: nordin [email protected]
Subject: 45 degree meter prisms
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "final warning" change to: 6006 Prism finders?
From: [email protected] (Curt Miller)
[1] Re: Hasselbad issue
Date: Mon Oct 25 1999
>Hi,
> I've recently gotten to use some very old Hasselblad equipment and have
>been getting light leaks with two of the three backs provided. I shoot
>outdoors and the problem has only showed up when I'm perpendicular to a
>low sun (that is, the sun is shining directly on the meeting point for
>the body and back).
> Should I have the backs looked at, or the body, or both?
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000
From: Jim Stewart [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CDS Meter Prism Finder
> Last year I sold my Kiev metered prism. In the meantime I bought a 500mm
> lens so a (metered) prism might be useful again.
> Somebody has now offered me the old style Hasselblad CDS meter prism
> finder in good condition for a good price (cheaper than a used Kiev
> TTL-prism).
> Please comment when you have experience with this device. I would
> especially like to learn about its metering characteristics (center or
> somerwhere else weighted?). I know that it will not work with polaroid
> backs, but that's no problem for me.
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Finders
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which body to buy
500C, 500CM, 501CM or 503 CXi / 503 CW.
DT
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1980
From: Mattei [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm?
From: [email protected] (BobR38)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Obsolete polaroid back for hassy?
Photo of 35mm Panoramic Back Adapter setup - courtesy of Ulf Sjogren
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000
From: ULF SJOGREN [email protected]
Subject: SV: Hasselblad and 35 mm - how it is done
Ulf Sj�gren
Sweden
From: ULF S J0GREN [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: SV: Hasselblad and 35 mm - one more thing!
Sweden
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: New Hasselblad backs/meters... Compatible Kiev priced accessories
hasselblad compatible 6x6 back $130
6x4.5 $150
polaroid $160
TTL metering prism viewfinder 45 deg $110 ($150 flash shoe..)
plain prism $100
magnifying hood hassy mount $ 60
ground glass back hassy style $ 60
pistol grip $ 30
side grip with flash shoe $140
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999
From: "Stuart A. Pearl" [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Pull That Dark Slide STRAIGHT OUT
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999
From: "Weiner, Jeff" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Pull That Dark Slide STRAIGHT OUT
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: most popular hasselblad body
> can anyone tell me what is the most popular body?
> is 500cm a good buy?
>
> thanks
> zainul
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 63mm Filters
From: "Ernie G." [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: My Hasselblad Is Shedding???
From: Marthe & Rene [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:Shedding Hasselblad
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
> From: "Derek Rader" [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: My Hasselblad Is Shedding???
>
> Yesterday while using my 500 CM I noticed that the leather was peeling
> off part of the body near the winding crank where I typically rest my thumb
> while holding the body. What kind of glue should I use (assuming glue is
> what I should use) or is there another adhesive recommended?
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adapting a Kiev 30mm to a 2K Blad?
> The conversion I have seen involves machining the mount and replacing
> it
> with a Hasselblad mount, and doesn't affect the optics in any way.
> The rear
> filters must be removed and not used, to clear the longer mirror on
> Blad.
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] 645 flash
From: William Whitaker [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Cocking Tool
> being new to Hasselblad I didn�t know there is a special tool to cock
> the body. Doesn�t a screwdriver suffice ? If not, where do I get this tool ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Hassie vs. Rollei
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Hassie vs. Rollei
>Date: Wed, May 3, 2000, 10:43 PM
>
> If you want total reliability, with relative simplicity, go Hasselblad.
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Hassie vs. Rollei
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000
From: "Kwan, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: 'jam' (no, not Strawberry...)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
[1] Re: Considering a used Hasselblad
Date: Sat May 27 2000
> I was, and am still somewhat, confused. I bought The Hasselblad Manual [4th
> Edition] 1995 by Ernst Wildi from B&H Camera for $59.95 which straightened
> some things out.
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Re: Hasselblad CB vs CF lenses - any comments out there?
Date: Sun May 28 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad SWC v. 40mm lens
Date: 14 May 2000
> I have some wide angle photography to do. I looked in the rental
> catalog and see that I can either rent a 40mm lens and use that on the
> body I have, or rent a SWC with a 38mm lens. In practical terms, which
> would folks recommend? I am aware that the 38 is a well-regarded lens
> and that the camera will have a rangefinder. Anything else?
> ---
> David Meiland
> Oakland, CA
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000
From: Radu Grozescu [email protected]
Subject: Re: 150 or 180 (please give me some advices)
> This yields a field of 15.9" at five feet -- closer to my measured
> value of 13.5", but still off.
> I found another formula for angle of coverage, which is: angle=2
> atn{x/[2*f*(M+1)]} where M is the magnification. This is the same as your
> formula if "M" is very small (which it is at large distances).
Best Image Advertising
Corporate & Editorial Photography
tel: 092.345.743 fax: 092.112.123
http://image.radiotel.ro
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad backs
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000
> If the magazines have a flap they weren't designed for 220. While
> Hasselblad used to make a plug for the view port for use with 220 film,
> they also had a set of instructions for resetting the frame counter for
> the additional exposures provided by 220 film. Unfortunately, while
> that got you back to "1" after the 12th exposure, you really could
> forget whether you were on the first or second set of twelve exposures.
>
> Of course, if you are using the older, non "A" magazines the window is
> necessary to set the first frame to the number "1" on the paper
> backing. Since 220 has no paper backing and hence no number "1" to
> view, frankly I don't know how you set it for number 1. I think
> Hasselblad had some suggestions about that but one thing for sure is
> that you can't use the window to do it.
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Considering a used Hasselblad
>I've enjoyed a terrifically inexpensive new Seagull TLR, but I'd like to
>get something a little more solid. I've looked into some Hasselblads
>from KEH and I'm confused by the huge array of body / lens / back
>versions. Is there a book available that provides a good summary of the
>system?
>
>In particular, I'm considering a 500CM with the A12 back and a basic
>80mm lens. Is the difference between the C and CF lenses significant (I
>know... I'm merely asking for opinions). The price is about $400 higher
>for the CF lens, but I'll gladly spend the extra money if it's
>recommended. On the A12, KEH has one listed in excellent condition that
>notes the "ins# doesn't match". Why is this important - does it imply
>heavy use and repairs? That back is only $50 cheaper than a similar A12
>back without the note.
>
>Finally I'm specifically thinking about the 500CM with the late rapid
>wind crank. Is there any disadvantage to this setup relative to other
>500CMs or, perhaps more significantly, the 501CM?
>
>Thanks in advance for any pointers, particularly for the book reference.
>
>Mike
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Comments on the Hass SWC vs. 40mm
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
From: Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
>I am curious as to whom might be using the Hasselblad's auxiliary (rear)
>shutter, and for what. And what is its speed? (Speaking of the 500c, 500c/M,
>1000, etc.) I will find a relative speed via experimenting, but I wonder if
>Hasselblad Inc publishes a speed for it.
From: Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Difference between Hassy 500 C and newer models
> [...] However, the 501 winding knob is not removable, although, I'm not
>sure why that would be important. The removable winding know of the 503
>cw can be replaced with a motor drive. The 503cx knob comes off but it
>is not built to take a motor.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HASSY ELM replacement battery
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000
John
> With the short supply and increasing cost of the "original" 6V battery,
> has anyone had any experience with the module (or better still, made
> their own version) advertised in Shutterbug that accepts AA's ?
> At $80 each for batteries,the venerable ELX is getting expensive to run!
> Thoughts welcomed.
> Warren.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad or Contax?
> 3. Zeiss needs to broaden its MF market. The Hasselblad-Zeiss
> relationship may also have been affected by the Hasselblad decision
> not to use Zeiss glass on the XPan.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad or Contax?
> A more interesting question is suppose zeiss decides to make its own
> third party lenses for hassy, rollei, and other mounts (using the contax
> lens designs for other 645 etc?)? Now _that_ could be interesting,
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Upgrade to 501 or refurbish 500C
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sigma makes hassy zoom etc. Re: Hasselblad or Contax?
> Where on
> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mfg.html#sigma2hassy ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sigma makes hassy zoom etc. Re: Hasselblad or Contax?
> Well, some would say that "Hasselblad" isn't an unproven name, and
> whatever has this label on it qualifies as a high quality piece of
> equipment.
> Why would they choose Zeiss if Sigma does a better job in
> making zooms?
> One really does not have to rely on Fuji or Sigma: in the
> end it's Hasselblad that sets the standards that are to be met. Do you
> trust them? The decision is yours.
> : And this alliance with Fuji will not affect the rest
> : of the product range, or will it?
>
> That depends on how prejudiced the customers are.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sigma makes hassy zoom etc. Re: Hasselblad or Contax?
> > Hasselblad has never shown itself to be a great manufacturer of optics. In
> > fact they have never shown to be a manufacturer of optics at all, so they
> > are a unproven name in this field.
> [...]
> We rely/relied on them in their decision to choose Zeiss in the first place.
> So they aren't really unproven when it comes to choosing the best
> supplier(s) of optics.
>[...]
> It's a _very_ common phenomenon to "re-label" it.
> > > One really does not have to rely on Fuji or Sigma: in the
> > > end it's Hasselblad that sets the standards that are to be met. Do you
> > > trust them? The decision is yours.
> >
> > But what standards are they setting: commercial gain or photographic
> > quality?
>
> And this worry of yours (and many other, perhaps mine too) would not have
> occurred if they chose Zeiss instead of SIGMA? The silent presumption is
> that Zeiss/Germany per se is superior to e.g. SIGMA. Would this
> presumption/prejudice survive until 2020?
> > And the prejudice of the customers is linked to the policies of Victor
> > Hasselblad AB. If Hasselblad show themselves to be, again, a photographers
> > company, as opposed to an investment opportunity, we can all live happily
> > ever after. If they show themselves to be more sensitive to maximizing
> > profits, at cost of photographic quality and integrity, i believe they
> will
> > find that their reputation will erode very quickly.
>
> Being a very small company it's not so much about profits as survival. But
> largely I agree with your point.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: HUG: Advice please regarding 2000FC series
> DId you ever get further confirmation on problems with parts and repairs
> on the hassy 2000 series? I've heard they are hard to work on, esp.
> shutter repairs, and that a lot of techs won't work on them, but I'd also
> be surprised if hasselblad was supplying parts for 500c and not 2000 series?
>
> thanks for update! ;-) bobm
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000
From: "Dr. Joseph Yao" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 40 CFE
(Hong Kong)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: 903swc vs 40mm.
> I just wish we could could see better thought the viewfinder the whole bottom
> third of the image is blocked by the lens. That's not fun!
> I'm still not sure which i'd get, the 40 or the 38. In a better world, both, someday.
> but which first?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A B57 B50?
> This may be the sort of commonsensical item I have just missed in my
> stupor, but I recently picked up a 2m Proxar, properly marked both "Carl
> Zeiss" and with Victor's own monogram. It is also marked "B57" but is
> actually B50. At least, it fits my C lenses without a problem.
>
> Why isn't it, therefore, marked "B50"?
> Marc
>
> [email protected] FAX: +540/343-7315
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zeiss 24mm???
> The 24mm f3.5 Distagon is
> > considerably RARER than the 105 UV Sonnar, ...
>
> What lens is this??? An extreme fish eye??
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: Lense production numbers...
24mm f3.5 F Distagon - about 50
30mm f3.5 F Distagon C - <1000
40mm f4 Distagon C - ~9,000
50mm f4 Distagon C - ~75,000
80mm f2.8 C Planar - ~210,000
120mm f5.6 S-Planar - ~14,000
150mm f4 Sonnar C - ~70,000
250mm f5.6 Sonnar C - ~30,000
350mm f5.6 Tele-Tessar C - ~3,000
500mm f8 Tele-Tessar C - ~4,000
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: Lense production numbers...
> I would like to see the SWC numbers.
Supreme Wide Angle - 903
Super Wide - 1,039
Super Wide C - 13,971
SWC/M - 2,450
SWC/M CF - 3,550
> The 105 UV ones, too;
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500 ELM/ELX
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Serial numbers
> You could call Hasselblad service and ask them... The Hasselblad
> Compendium doesn't have dates for the post mid or so 80's serial numbers.
> That lense was first introduced in 1990 though, so it isn't THAT old...
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: Serial numbers
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Serial numbers
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000
From: H. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad CB lenses
: Hello:
:
: I am considering buying Hasselblad 501C/M kit that includes the 501
: C/M body, 80mm f2,8 CB lens and an A120 back. My interest in buying
: this in kit is that Hasselblad has a promotion going on where if I
: buy this kit I can get a 45 degree prism viewfinder absolutely free.
:
: My question: What are these CB lenses? What is the difference between
: CB lenses and CF lenses as far as sharpness of the image etc. is
: concerned. Somebody told me that the difference was in the type of
: shutters they used. Is that true? Is it worth spending almost $1500
: more to buy the CF lens?
:
: I am new to medium format and this will be my first experience in the
: medium format. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
H�kan
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad CB lenses
> I am considering buying Hasselblad 501C/M kit that includes the 501
> C/M body, 80mm f2,8 CB lens and an A120 back. My interest in buying
> this in kit is that Hasselblad has a promotion going on where if I
> buy this kit I can get a 45 degree prism viewfinder absolutely free.
>
> My question: What are these CB lenses? What is the difference between
> CB lenses and CF lenses as far as sharpness of the image etc. is
> concerned. Somebody told me that the difference was in the type of
> shutters they used. Is that true? Is it worth spending almost $1500
> more to buy the CF lens?
>
> I am new to medium format and this will be my first experience in the
> medium format. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Serial numbers
> The codes on the CF lenses are a great help to the data obsessed among us!
> I had been trying to compile a table for CF lenses similar to the one for
> the C and older lenses that are in the Hasselblad Compendium - for the
> second edition. I spent a lot of time compiling CF serial numbers and only
> recently realized the significance of the ink stamp on the light baffle on
> the back. Unfortunately, I never routinely recorded those numbers as I
> didn't know what they represented. There are 4 digit codes on the later C
> lenses (at least mid seventies and later) that I've not deciphered. The
> last two digits seem to be a month code - never seem to be higher than 12,
> but I have no idea how to interpret the first two digits. Any
> suggestions??? Anyone want to contribute serial numbers and baffle numbers
> and we can do a group code breaking exercise?
>
> I don't know what the significance of the last letter of the code is on the
> CF lenses. I think that Ernie G's explanation is probably a plausible as
> anything else I've heard. If anyone else has information, I'm sure everyone
> (who are interested in this sort of thing!) would like to hear more. As
> Ernie says, and Marc Small has reiterated, it is very difficult to get
> answers to these kind of questions from Zeiss or Hasselblad. They are
> hesitant to reveal too much about production and manufacturing matters
> (understandable).
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Chris LI [email protected]
Re: Serial numbers
Chris LI
>I remember there is a way to tell the age of a CF lens from the code
>stenciled onto the light baffle by the rear element or rear lens mount.
>Perhaps somebody remembers how to decipher them.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Spirit of the Company
>And owning a 25 year old camera in a vertical or niche market is yet another
>reason that I suspect Hasselblad will fail or disappear in its current
>format. No repeat customers in a world that thrives on repeat business
>But I also agree that they need to come up with a top-quality, high-speed
>digital back soon...
> I'm not screaming for an affordable, fast, digital back with
>film-quality resolution but it would be comforting for me to know that my
>Hasselblad bodies, and especially lenses, would still be usable down the road
>ten or fifteen years at least.
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: Gregg Laiben [email protected]
Subject: Re: 500 ELM/ELX
>Ernst Wildi and Hasselblad , thinks Dick Werner 9V battery is a bomb waiting
>to go off.
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Subject: CB vs. CFx and others
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Leica Camera Shops in San Francisco and San
Mateo
From: "Yamil R. Sued" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Choosing Hasselblads...
> Hi, I am puzzled in choosing which Hasselblad body to start with.
> I now have 501c/m and 503cw in my mind.
> How should I choose? and should i consider a second handed one? what are the
> factors to note and consider?
> Thanks a million.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad formula please?
> What about a body with 3 letters??? One of my bodies has a prefix of UUE!!
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy body focus problem etc.
> I'm trying to figure out how this could be useful... if the sync on
> your lens is burned out? For lenscap/pinhole exposures? I must be
> lacking in imagination.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HASSELBLAD QUESTION
> >I recently purchased a used 150mm f4 Zeis lens. It is a chrome so it's
> >one of the older lenses. The lens takes good pictures, but I have
> >noticed that what I see in the viewfinder isn't what I get back. ie
> >items I shoot as "close-ups" in the viewfinder don't appear as such on
> >the film. I don't have this problem with the 80mm T*. Any suggestions?
>
> Are you talking about distortion of the image? Focus problems? Items
> included in the composition that are not on the film, or the reverse?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HASSELBLAD QUESTION
> >David, as owner of the only non-vignetting 500 C/M in the world, you should
> >know what he's talking about... ;-)
>
> Well, I did allude to that in the last part of my response--items
> included in the composition that are not on the film. But since I have
> never had to deal with vignetting, I wouldn't know what it looks
> like!!
> Seriously, from the original post I assumed he was having a
> much more dramatic problem, possibly caused by the screen he mentioned
> not being correctly installed.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: HASSELBLAD QUESTION
Doug from Tumwater
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax 645 with Hassy lens
> From: [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [CONTAX] Contax 645 with Hassy lens
>
> It's said to be sensational quality, and while I'm sure that the Contax
> lens is very good too, the Hassy 350mm lens reputation and far lesser weight
> have me thinking of getting it plus the Hassy to Contax adapter.
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
From: "M P Brennan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Anyone tried Hartblei Backs on Hassy?
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alternative 'Blad lenses
> I want a [low cost] portrait lens- possibly 150mm or 180mm [for a 500C]
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio [email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad - differences in 500mm tele-tessar?
> Now, after cruising all the pictures I can find of this lens, it appears
> that there are at least three versions - an older chrome and a newer black
> model both of which focus via a ring, and the latest version with internal
> focusing via a rearset knob. I have to believe that the latest version uses
> an internal lens to do the focusing, so something has changed. Is it a
> significant optical change?
> ...and do these monsters have a tripod socket? The pictures I've seen all
> show the shutter speed side, so I cannot tell.
Date: 03 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: gotcha's for XPAN?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which best Hassi lens... 100 - 120MP - 150 Sonnar CF?
>From books I have the following:
Email: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Sonnar 250
> Want to buy a 20 year old Sonnar 250. Any recommendation?
From: [email protected] (Pete Schermerhorn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stupid Hasselblad question (telextender)
>john wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in subjective (or objective if possible) evaluations of
>> telextenders for Hasselblad lenses (later versions with built-in
shutter,
>if
>> that's important)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Mirror Lock-Up?
> It's beyond me why it wasn't designed so that the mirror stayed up while
> shooting multiple exposures in a row; is it the mechanical design that
> prevents it, or what?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dating Serial Numbers
V H P I C T U R E S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dating Serial Numbers
> [...]
> Lenses are a different story. The best resource that I know of is Richard
> Nordin's "Hasselblad System Compendium" (Hove Books).
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: Simon Lamb [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leaving leaf shutters cocked
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax SLR lenses: does the sharpness compare to
Yashica's T-4?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
[1] Re: Which Hassy lens to buy 150 vs 180?
Date: Sun Mar 04 2001
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Date: Sun Mar 04 2001
[1] Re: Which Hassy lens to buy 150 vs 180?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Date: Mon Mar 05 2001
[1] Re: Which Hassy lens to buy 150 vs 180?
> Well the gentleman from Zeiss (his name escapes me, Dr. Kornelius Flescher?)
> who posts on this group from time to time said nice things about the 160 CB
> last year. He mentioned that the 160 CB had higher contrast and better stray
> light characteristics than older versions of the 150 lens.
> I think that the 160
> CB is a fine lens to consider for portrait work and I have been very happy with
> mine. Isaac's point, which I agree with, is that the 160 CB would be a very
> good second hand value for the original poster of this thread. I think those
> Hasselblad users who will value a good price, respectable MTF chart
> performance, and reduced weight will give this lens a try and be happy with
> their choice, I know I was.
> After all the 160 CB is very much in the same MTF performance zone as the 120
> CFi (in non closeup mode) and the 250 CFi.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Here's what Hasselblad has to say about the CB 120
From: "M P Brennan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alternative 'Blad lenses
: Hi,
:
: I am very much a newcomer to MF and I bought an old Blad 500C with the 80mm
: lens. I am delighted with it.
:
: I want a portrait lens- possibly 150mm or 180mm.
:
: They are seriously expensive and I wonder if anybody can advise me of a
: cheaper lens that is compatible.
:
: I live in UK but travel to US quite often.
:
: I am just an amateur and the portrait work is just for my own interest.
From hasselblad Mailing list:
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000
From: Chris LI [email protected]
Subject: Re: CB 120 mm lens?
>I was just told that there is a fourth CB lens, the 120 mm Makro-Planar, but
>available only in the Far East market.
>
>I never heard of this lens from neither Hasselblad nor Zeiss, and there is
>no reference to this lens on their sites.
>Can anyone on this list confirm this info?
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000
From: Chris LI [email protected]
Subject: Re: CB 120 mm lens?
>Hi Chris,
>
>Hey, i'm asking for independent confirmation and you pop-up again! ;-)
>(But don't think i doubt your word!)
>
>Can you tell us whether or not there is a difference in optical design
>between the CB and CF/CFi versions of this lens? Why would it be only half
>the price the CFi version would cost?
>
>Since when does it feature in the catalogue?
>
>Are there perhaps more items in the Hong Kong Hasselblad catalogue that are
>unknown to us in other parts of the world, that you know of?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: I Can't Believe They Designed It This Way.
> Two questions:
> 1) What is the Hasselblad model number for the 'peep-hole' back? I see used
> backs listed sometimes just by their model number.
> 2) What is the difference between an A-12 and a 12 back?
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: belows on 500 series
> Which bellows are you using? The manual or automatic?
>
> I'm considering buying a used bellows. There is a huge price difference
> between the two. Can you get good results with the manual one?
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which bellows are you using?
>From Lynda B. :
> Which bellows are you using?
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which bellows are you using?
> Another useful item is the open-L shaped connector. I think it is
> still on catalog as new. Even if it is mandatory only for a 500
> EL/ELM/ELX camera, I find it very useful with a 500 series camera.
> For this bellows there was a dedicated compendium. It was still
> mentioned on the Hasselblad price list of the French distributor until
> 1998-1999, old stock. If the second hand bellows comes with the
> compendium and if you intend to do 1:1 copying work, take the
> compendium also since beyond its regular sun-shade use this device is
> very useful for 1:1 repro work and very difficult to find alone.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
From: Peter Walker [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sweden
Grand Tour at Hasselblad
By Peter Walker
Peter
URL: http://www.peterwalker.com
From: Franka T LIEU [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Kiev to P6 to Hassleblad adaptors
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
From: Phil Lindsay [email protected]
Subject: 250 mm SA is a very sharp lens!!!
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001
From: Ragnar Hansen [email protected]
Subject: Re: 250/350Superacromat
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: jjs [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Another tip - Hasselblad lens shade substitutes
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Non-Zeiss lenses for Hassy?
From: "Yamil R. Sued" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy prism
> I just bought an NC-2 prism for my hassy. I know the "Compendium" says a
> Polaroid back doesn't fit with the NC-2 unless it's the "100". Mine isn't. Do
> any of the aftermarket brand Polaroid backs work with this particular prism?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: surprising photostats on hassy owners etc. Re: FS: hassy equip
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: surprising photostats on hassy owners etc. Re: FS: hassy equip
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy NC-2
>I just bought an NC-2 very cheaply ($130). It ain't pretty, but the glass is
>perfect. The problem is - the eyecup is missing. I have the option of sending
>it back, but I don't want to. Anyone know if I can get a new replacement eyecup
>from Hassleblad? Or a source for aftermarket stuff like that? (I'll be calling
>all the used equipment places tomorrow)
David Meiland
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: Tsun Tam [email protected]
Subject: Re: E versus A Backs...202-FA versus 500 series Bodies
> Does anyone have much experience with the 202FA and does it compare well
> against the 503cw?
>
> Also does any one know the key differ between the E and the A back...I know
> the E is devel specifically for the 200 series but what are the advantages
> of it versus just using an A back for a 202?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bellow
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lense model selection
>I'm getting a 503cw brand new...what model lense should I
>get? CFi? CF? CFE?
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Friday Sale
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Good news?!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Good news?!
> Where did you get this info?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001
From: Jim Stewart [email protected]
Subject: Re: "fake" hasselblad lens?
> "fake" Hasselblad lens : I cannot speak for new lenses but I have in
> mind at least one example of fraud for old lenses. I have read that
> some indelicate vendors sometimes make a fake "T*" front ring to get
> additional money when selling an old, non-T* C lens. It might be more
> difficult now to abuse a potential buyer equipped with Rick Nordin's
> book, althought engraving a fake serial number on the front ring might
> always be possible.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy backs?
> Is it possible to change it your self?
> In my Hassy back I can see light through the "tunnel" where the plate go in.
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy backs?
>Max Perl wrote:
>
>> I am new to Hasselblad and I have a question for the Hassy backs.
>> To me it seems possible that light can come into the small passage where
>the
>> thin metal plate is inserted. What protects the film from the light
>comming
>> in that way?
>
>A seal. Felt, velvet, foamrubber, etc.
>These things do wear out, so they may need to be replaced someday. There is
>no telling how long it takes before this moment arrives, as wear on this
>seal seems to be very erratic.
>
>Hasselblad advises to store backs with the slide removed, to minimize wear.
>But i never have, i always keep them in the back. Up to now, i only needed
>replacement in one back. Other backs, older, same age and newer, all kept
>with their slides inserted, are fine.
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy backs?
> No. The light trap is (or was, i haven't looked in any of the latest style
> backs) a foam (part no. 13067) in a plastic foil backing/envelope (part no.
> 13508). It is placed in a shallow recess underneath the outer plate. No
> glue.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 80mm CFE versus FE
> Is there any advantage for a 200 series hassey owner to own a 80mm F2.8
> CFE versus 80 mm F2.8 FE lense?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 80mm CFE versus FE
> So they have the same monetary value? See I have a choice for a 202FA -
> either get it with the 80mm F2.8 FE or the 80 mm F2.8 CFE...what's the
> better choice?
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: news from Hasselblad
> According to Hasselblad USA, they will (beginning sometime this Spring)
> ship all 500 & 200 series cameras with the Acute-Matte D Split Image #42215
> screen. The Hasselblad product code for their cameras will not change, but
> cameras with the new screen will be identified by notices in the product
> instruction book and on the box.
> According to Hasselblad USA, they will (beginning sometime this Spring)
> begin shipping the new German-made Zeiss Distagon CFi 60/3.5.
> According to Hasselblad USA, there will be price increases, effective March
> 1, 2001, on around 40 different products.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001
From: Andrew Moore [email protected]
Subject: Re: news from Hasselblad
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 80mm CFE versus FE
> So they have the same monetary value? See I have a choice for a 202FA -
> either get it with the 80mm F2.8 FE or the 80 mm F2.8 CFE...what's the
> better choice?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Screwmount converter for Hasselblad
> Does anybody know if a filter screwmount converter exist for
> Hasselblad e.g. [...]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy NC-2
>I just bought an NC-2 very cheaply ($130). It ain't pretty, but the glass is
>perfect. The problem is - the eyecup is missing. I have the option of sending
>it back, but I don't want to. Anyone know if I can get a new replaceme nt eyecup
>from Hassleblad? Or a source for aftermarket stuff like that? (I'll be calling
>all the used equipment places tomorrow)
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Hasselblad chrome lenses coated?
>Someone told me that none of the Hasselblad chrome lenses
>are coated. Is this true?
>
>Thanks
>Keith
>
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Portraits with a 250 mm lens
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Portraits with a 250 mm lens
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Portraits with a 250 mm lens
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: RICH [email protected]
Subject: Darkslide workaround...
San Diego
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy backs?
> I was under the impression that the flaps are magnetic and seal
> together when the slide is removed. Is this not so?
> As far as replacing them yourself, I believe you can. You may be able
> to get the seals from Hasselblad in New Jersey, and change them with a
> very small screwdriver. Caveat emptor, etc. I just had mine done by
> [email protected]. Overhaul is $65 plus parts, I think...
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
c
Subject: Re: SW lens hood
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: No more two-tier Hasselblad?
> fourth, I think hasselblad is moving away from Zeiss,
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: blad c lens for portrait : 150 or 250 ?
> i have a 500c with a 80 mm and i would like to buy another lens for
> portrait.
> i was thinking to get a 4/150mm chrome but it seems it is not possible
> to do
> real close-ups of a face because of the minimum focus distance.
> so i would like to know :
>
> 1. can i buy a 5.6/250mm C instead and get closer than with a 150mm ?
> 2. how do the 250mm behave at full aperture ?
>is there more vignetting
> on the 150mm ?
> 3. is there any problem tu use both lens with extension tubes ? which
> tubes is preferred ?
> thanks in advance for your answers and advices.
> i apologize if my questions are redundant.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: New, and Some Questions
> I'm looking for a basic 'blad, and would like to know what the
> differences are between the 500 series and the 501 series. If
> someone could help me out on that, or provide me with a pointer
> to a FAQ or additional information, I'd appreciate very much.
> The other thing I need help with right now is information about
> the lenses. I think I've seen C, CF, CFE, and other
> designations. Which would be appropriate to the 500/501 series
> bodies? Are there non T* coated Planar lenses?
> This will get me started in the right direction. Thanks for any
> and all help.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: New, and Some Questions
From: [email protected] (Mr500CM)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001
[1] Re: blad c lens for portrait : 150 or 250 ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: blad c lens for portrait : 150 or 250 ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Which Hassy lens to buy 150 vs 180?
>The 120, 150 and 180 are all considered to be suitable for portraiture.
>
>Personally, I find the 180 to be a little long for portrait work. It will
>extend your working distance, which could be inconvenient if you're trying
>to take pictures of children (and need to interact with them) or if you're
>trying to give instructions to adults.
>
>I think the 150mm is the most popular of the three, followed by the 120mm
>and then the 180mm (not basing this on hard numbers, just my general
>observations).
>
>If you buy a 180, you'll probably find yourself wanting to buy the 120 some
>day. If you buy the 150, you'll probably be satisfied enough with the focal
>length to be thinking more about a 250mm or a wide angle down the road.
>
>Just one man's opinion.
>
>-Mike
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Date: Sun Mar 04 2001
[1] Re: Which Hassy lens to buy 150 vs 180?
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001
From: Steve Nicholls [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Lens shades
>I just bought a 50 C lens, what size screw in filter does it take, is it 63
>or 67 mm
>thanks
>
>Ben
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Modifying SWC for Polaroid back
SHILL wrote:
> I'd like to be able to use a Polaroid back with my
> early SWC. Can anyone recommend a tech who can make
> the appropriate modifications? Or can I do it myself
> merely by raising the finder on a small block and
> modifying the film advance to be something like the
> stubby advance knob on a 500* body.
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Re: HB 40mm T* - focus locking button...
From: [email protected] (Rei Shinozuka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy lens
>following question. Which of the Hassy 80mm lenses have a self-timer built
>into them? I know that the T lenses have the superior antireflection
>coating. But, I recall that some lenses have the time. Can anyone educate
>me on this?
>
>Thanks.
>
>PSsquare
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: how old is my planar 100 ?
> > According to Richard Nordin's table in his excellent book (it really is!),
> > your 100 mm is from 1970.
>
> How can that be? I didn't think the black lenses came out until about
> 72 or so, and the black, "marked" T*s came along about the mid-70s.
> In a 1977 catalogue I have, all lenses by that time are black and T*.
> FWIW: I have a friend who has the chrome C lenses and they are all T*
> and marked as such.
> He purchased them used from Dick Werner, so he
> doesn't know the year of manufacture. Also, according to Hasselblad --
> I asked at a trade show -- some chrome C wide angle lenses were
> multicoated, but not marked as early as the early '70s.
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: how old is my planar 100 ?
80 mm Planar - T* coating in 1971/1972 - black finish in 1975
A few early 30 mm F-Distagons
38 mm Biogon - black finish in 1969 - T* coating in 1973
40 mm Distagon - black finish in 1967 - T* coating in 1973
100 mm Planar - black finish in 1968 - T* coating in 1975
120 mm S-Planar - black finish in 1973 - T* coating in 1975
135 mm S-Planar - black finish in 1967 - T* coating in 1975
150 mm Sonnar - black finish in 1973 - T* coating in 1975
250 mm Sonnar - black finish in 1976 - T* coating in 1975/1976
A few early (1973) 350 mm Tele-Tessars
500 mm Tele-Tessar - (all) black finish in 1966 - T* coating in 1976
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: Waldo Berry [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lense Question
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: Simon Lamb [email protected]
Subject: Re: LenseQuestion
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: carl zeiss lens age
> can anyone tell me how can i know the production year of a carl zeiss lens?
> any homepage i can refer to?
> i've a Planar 80mm/f2.8 T* lens, serial no. Nr57178xx. when was it made?
> i guess this lens is the older version. how is its quality compared with the
> most up to date 80/2.8 lens? what should be the price difference if buying
> second handed?
> i am new to hassel, what are the difference between Distagon/Planar etc,
> and CFi, CFE, and FE lens?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001
Subject: Hasselblad Repair Manuals
Hasselblad Magazine Repair and Parts Manual
Hasselblad Accessories Repair and Parts Manual
Hasselblad CF Len Repair and Parts Manual
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 80/2.8 lens ???
>I am want to buy 80/2.8 Hassy lens, the only problem I have that is to many
>of them and I don't know which one to choose.
>
>If somebody have experience with those lenses please give me some advice.
>
>I can choose from 80/2.8 C (60mm filter) --this one is the cheapeast,
>80/2.8 CF I think $150 more and the most expensive 80/2.8 CFE
>Is there any optical difference between those lenses????
>I forgot about 80/2.8 CB which is in the same price what 80/2.8 C.
>
>My e-mail is [email protected]
>Thanks
>Artur
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 80/2.8 lens ???
> "Artur Mrugala" [email protected] wrote:
> >I can choose from 80/2.8 C (60mm filter) --this one is the cheapeast,
> My only suggestion is to get the CF lens because the
> shutter is MUCH easier to use. The C series have a rigid interlock
> between shutter speed and aperture which is a complete hassle to use,
> especially if you bracket exposures.
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: hassy.html update
Date: 8 Apr 2001
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: extension tubes
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
Subject: 55 Schneider Super Angulon PC in Hassy Mount
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: 150 vs. 250
> I've wondered about this too. The 250 C non-T* is one of the cheapest
> used Hassy lenses. In the CF version the 250 is still fairly pricy,
> equal to or moreso than the 150. The 350 and 500 C are also quite
> cheap relative to the CF versions. Are there major optical
> differences?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: 150 vs. 250
> I have been looking for a new lens for my 500 c/m and i have been noticing
> that 250mm lenses are less then half of the 150's. Why is this? I am new to
> the Hasselblad experience and I am curious.
From: [email protected] (Rei Shinozuka)
Date: Sun May 06 2001
[1] Re: Hasselblad 12 back advice needed
>Just bought two Hassy 12 backs off ebay(enough said?). Supposed exc cond but
>counters are inop and they do not stop on first frame but just run film non
>stop to other spool. Advice please-- ripped off I guess. I have only used the
>A12 backs and not familiar with thr 12 back. Repair advice
>[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: Comparative - 203 vs 205?
>What are the differences between the 205 and the 203?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
Subject: RE: 55 Schneider Super Angulon PC in Hassy Mount
>I find my 40CFE lens to be exemplary. I don't know how it got such a bad
>reputation??? I've used it for many jobs as well as fine art photographs
>and I have no complaints. Works automatically with my FE camera and has a
>leaf shutter for those max DOF fine art slow shutter speed photos. And I
>can use my prism finder and see everything properly. I shot a CD cover for
>a small Jazz Band, of the band itself, in a cramped space using two
>Dynalite strobes and umbrellas. The 40mm was perfect and it would have been
>agony with a Superwide. 203FE, 40mm, prism, motor, click, click, click...
>etc... Two rolls of 220 film in a short time.
Date: 11 Apr 2001
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Total System - If you could have just TWO ...
> > Date: 9 Apr 2001
> > From: "Patrick Bartek" [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Total System - If you could have just TWO ...
> >
> >snipped content
> >
> > I chose the SWC over the 40, because the SWC is not just a lens, but
> > a body, too; and it has virtually no distortion, very rectilinear --
> > perfect for architectural, and shooting large, mostly flat things,
> > when there's not enough room to back up anymore and you don't want
> > the verticals curved.
>
> Patrick, by implication, are you saying the 40mm has distortion, is not
> rectilinear and is imperfect for architecture?
The 40 C (the black monster) /is/ inferior to the 38 Biogon, but not
so much as that one would notice or care under normal circumstances.
However, I chose the SWC more for its size, weight, portability and
the fact that I could use the Pro Shade with it as lens shade and gel
filter holder. The fact that the SWC is a body makes for more a
versatile system, too. At the time I got it, I had only the one 500C
body.
> I know the differences between the SWC and 40mm approach have been
> discussed on this list ad nauseum, but want to go on record as being
> very pleased with the quality of the images my 40mm C (even though it's
> black . . .) produces. When used carefully, I see very little
> distortion and find if very useful for architecture.
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: Total System - If you could have just TWO ...
10 elements, 19 inches close focus, 1375 grams
8 elements, 12 inches close focus, (?) grams
11 elements, 12 inches close focus, 915 grams (lens only)
email: [email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list;
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A16S to A16 conversion
> Is anyone familiar with what has to be done to convert an A16s back to an
> A16? I have seen backs advertised which the seller claims they are conversions.
Dick Werner
112 South Brighton St.
Burbank, Ca., 91506
(818) 845-4667
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: each 50 mm lens to purchase
> Hi to all, I would like to seek advice on which 50mm lens to
> purchase as I'm using the 503CX body. It's a choice between 50C
> (with T*), 50 CT* or the 50 CFi.
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy CB 160 sharp?
> The lens will not work on the focal plane shutter Blads, such as the 2000
> series, 201, 203, 205TCC models.
> Other than that it's a typical Hassy optic.
Date: 14 Apr 2001
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wide angle lenses
> Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>
> > There never was a F series Distagon that didn't have FLE.
>
> Apart from the f/5.6 60 mm Distagon built for the 1000 F.
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy CB 160 sharp?
>I disagree. My 160 CB is a very solid and well constructed lens. The CB lenses
>were built to the same mechanical standards as the CFi and CFE lenses. Do you
>approve of these lens lines?
>Doug from Tumwater
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: olenberger [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes (need your advice and help)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: olenberger [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes (need your advice and help)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: extension tubes
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: 2X extenders
>I wouldn't even consider a brand-x or even the current Hasselblad 2x. Find a
>Zeiss 2x.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "M P Brennan" [email protected]
[1] Make Your Own Hassy 220 Plugs for Manual Backs
Date: Mon May 14 2001
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001
From: "Cousineau , Bernard" [email protected]
Subject: RE: 2X extenders
> From: Jim Stewart
> I'd have to agree with Gregg. I bought a 2x Komura on ebay
> for less than $200. There's a reason it was so cheap. I'll
> probably end up taking the glass out of it and using it for
> an extension tube (:
From: [email protected] (Mr500CM)
Date: Mon May 14 2001
[1] Re: Make Your Own Hassy 220 Plugs for Manual Backs
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Bellows and 501CM
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Flash Sync on CF and CFI lenses
> My Hass Lens Zeiss Distagon CF 50mm f/4 does not sync. I am from
>Edmonton Canada and Iam looking for trasted repair shop with hasselblad
>specialist. Can you recomend one.
--
Dick Werner
112 South Brighton St.
Burbank, Ca., 91506
(818) 845-4667
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes (need your advice and help)
> [...] This is the reason
> why the tubes start with 8 mm : once you reach 8 mm with the lens itself,
> you can add the 8 mm tube, return the lens to the infinity setting, and have
> exactly the same magnification as before. Now you start to turn the focus
> mount again until you added 8mm to your tube: then you have 16 mm extension!
> To go on from there, remove the 8, add the 16 mm tube, set the lens at
> infinity, and voila! you are still at 16 mm extension, and can go on with
> the focussing mount up to 16 + 8 = 24 mm. Now you add the 8 mm tube to your
> 16 setup, and return the lens to infinity, and you are still at 24 mm, with
> another 8 mm to go (and after that, you need the 32 mm tube...). This is
> the reason for the "factor 2" series of tubes: 8, 16, 32, (should have been
> 64, but for reasons known only to Hasselblad, they "cheat", and supply the
> 56 instead. Well, they probably want to sell a few bellows as well).
no tube: 0 - 8 mm extension.
8 mm tube : 8 - 16 mm
16 mm tube: 16 - 24 mm
8 mm + 14 mm tubes: 24 - 32 mm
32 mm tube: 32 - 40 mm
32 mm + 8 mm tubes: 40 - 48 mm
32 mm + 16 mm tubes: 48 - 56 (!!!) mm
56 mm tube: 56 - 64 mm
And the bellows will take over from here.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: Per Bverbeck [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes (need your advice and help)
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001
From: Sepp Meier [email protected]
Subject: re:sand
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: large fromat lenses on 501cm
> The next question is how much coverage do the HAssy lenses have?
>What is the maximum swing you can achieve without vignetting?
>
>Have you done any measurements for lens' angle of view?
>
>Frank Filippone
>[email protected]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: large format lenses on 501cm
>From Andrew:
> ...a way of attaching / machining / hacking a bellows with
> front and rear movements to the Hassy body, is there any reason why a
> large format lens/shutter couldn't be used?
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polaroid 100 back
>I need some advice regarding a Hasselblad Polaroid 100 back that I
>bought on eBay. The rollers are nice and clean, but one rolls freely
>while the other seems tight. I can rotate the tight roller with my
>fingers. I suspect the second roller will be a bit tight because of
>the two heavy spring clips holding it. I don't have any Polaroid film
>at the moment, so I can't test it.
>
>Are the rollers working as they should? Is there a technique for
>removing the spring clips and both rollers?
>
>Thanks, Bud Schoener
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001
From: Mehrdad Sadat [email protected]
Subject: my dealer contacts
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewListedItems&userid=etefore&include=0&since=-1&sort=2&rows=25
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=meleica&include=0&since=-1&sort=2&rows=25
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001
From: Mehrdad Sadat [email protected]
Subject: RE: Any happy Cayman Camera customers in the San Francisco Bay area?
From: Barry S [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
>Does anyone know of a site that lists the center/edge resolution for various
>Hasselblad lenses?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Thom Tapp
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: end of spare parts was Re: Lifespan of Hassleblad 500C?
> Hasselblad 2001 catalog is available in Europe. I have one. Nothing new,
> except cover page although.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: lens too big?
> Hi i am looking at doing some portrait work and was wondering if a Hassy 250
> was too big to use and what others experience with it are.
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: thin film base 60 shots in 12 back?
> Thanks for the update, Frank - the older backs really were #12 backs, viz:
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dark Slide Holder
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: price drop on 203FE body
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: price drop on 203FE body
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: David Weininger [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 501CM Jammed
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Camera Jam
Date: 20 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Hassy 40mm
From: Harald Finster [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Hassy 40mm
> There're always new things to learn each day!
> I've just bought a Hassy 40mm and now found out that finding filters for the
> lens is a huge problem, primarily because of its 93mm size. Right now I just
> need something to protect the lens, eventually a polarizer.
Harald Finster
From: Harald Finster [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focusing screen for Hassey & Long lenses
> I live in the boonies and can't try out various focusing screens for the
> Hasselblad 500cm, so a recommendation would be appreciated. I'd be using
it
> for rather dark subjects, and telephoto work (specifically 500mm). Help?
Harald Finster
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
From: ULF SJOGREN [email protected]
Subject: SV: Close up with little money
Ulf Sj�gren
Sweden
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Close up with little money
> Does anybody know the cheapest means to get a 1:1 magnification with a
> simple proxars and/or extension tubes? I would like to do some macro photos
> but dont want to buy a 135mm with bellows. I have a 501c with 50/80/150
> lenses. Would all 3 hassy proxars be able to get the magnification that I
> want with any of these lenses? And if so, at what cost to image quality? I
> do not have The Hasselblad Manual yet but looking for it as I write this.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Close up with little money
> Patrick San Agustin wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody know the cheapest means to get a 1:1 magnification with a
> > simple proxars and/or extension tubes? I would like to do some macro photos
> > but dont want to buy a 135mm with bellows. I have a 501c with 50/80/150
> > lenses. Would all 3 hassy proxars be able to get the magnification that I
> > want with any of these lenses? And if so, at what cost to image quality? I
> > do not have The Hasselblad Manual yet but looking for it as I write this.
> >
> On my Hasselblad close-up Calculator it says a 56 tube on an 80 CF will get you
> almost 1:1. A .8 magnification. You can get 1:1 on an 80F lens though with a 56
> and a 16 because it racs out further.
> Put a Proxar on that perhaps?
> To get it with a 150 it implies you need a varible extention tube which is not
> made anymore.
> Seems you can do anything with a bellows.
> Nothing wider than a 80mm lens is on the slider.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More on the 500mm lens question
> Thanks for the responses. It seems everyone thinks I am talking about
> vignetting in the viewfinder, which I am well aware of, but I'm
> not--it's on the film. I just looked through some recent shots and I
> see a couple of examples of this, slightly darkened corners on
> transparencies shot with the 500/8 'C' TeleTessar lens. It is not
> pronounced, but it's there, on a couple of shots where the blue sky is
> included. It seems to not happen on other colors/subjects. I assume
> it's some kind of optical phenomenon, not to do with lens coverage of
> the film. Any more thoughts?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Jul 2001
Subject: Re: Hassey 50C non T* or 50CF ??
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A couple of 500mm lens questions
> http://www.surplusshed.com/list.cfm?Category=Filters
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Darkslide and light seal?
> My darkslide has some small dents in it. Might this cause some light
> leakage? I have no idea of the history of the back and body because I
> bought it used, but I always get light streaked photos, or the film is
> clear when developed. In fact I stopped using the hassie because of
> this. Maybe replace the light seal and darkslide?
> It's an EL/M.
Date: 04 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: end of spare parts was Re: Lifespan of Hassleblad 500C?
From: Zeljko Kardum [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: end of spare parts was Re: Lifespan of Hassleblad 500C?
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
Subject: RE: 35mm back??
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: light leak on hassy back
From: Mehrdad Sadat [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: my dealer contacts
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewListedItems&userid=etefore&include=0&since=-1&sort=2&rows=25
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=meleica&include=0&since=-1&sort=2&rows=25
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A12 back trouble?
> ???? Hasselblad backs have felt light traps? ???? I think not.
>
> Yes, John, Hassy backs DO have a felt light trap. Congratulations, you have
> learned something new today!
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
Subject: support for C lenses discontinuing
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: 160 versus 180
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 160 versus 180
> My 120 CF lens has taken excellent photographs at infinity. Are you just
> going by MTF graphs, or real world experience?
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: digital back on Hassy 20x bodies
>I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss or obtain information
>about digital back for the Hassy 20X series. I have a 205 body
>and so I am interest in this setup.
>
>So far, I see only Leaf and Phase1.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens choice
> The guy I shoot weddings for has a huge barn size studio and recently began
> doing head shots with a 250 on his RB67. Monster long lens and he's half a
> mile from the subject, but he (and I) really LIKE what the tele effect does
> to the face.
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: Ragnar Hansen Ing A/S [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 203FE price reductions
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: macro lens options
> I seem to recall that the 135 is being discontinued. Can someone verify that?
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Alec Jones" [email protected]
[1] Re: Anti-twist for Hasselblad 500CM?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: huh?, ND filters
>{Snip}
>
> Hasselblads are nice too. I do have a bunch of those, but they work so well
> right now, that I really don't have much to say about them. Ok, well, one
> thing bothers me. My 205 strap lugs. The one on the left is really in an
> inopportune place. I guess I'll have to find a cover for the strap clips...
> Anyone find an appropriate solution for that?
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens choice and Dentists...
> Q.G. deBakker wrote regarding the 160 CB lens:
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001
From: Joe Codispoti [email protected]
Subject: Re: Howto load the polariod back...
Joe Codispoti
From: Fred [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cleaning Hassy Polaroid back
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003
On the glass I just use lens cleaning fluid, for the rollers, I use
the same or Windex. I usually check/clean the rollers between loading
each pack, you don't want to gunk to build up and dry hard on the
rollers and axles otherwise it won't work as smoothly and you will get
uneven development. If the gunk is already dried hard you kind of have
to soak it off.
unos [email protected] wrote:
>Hi,
>I would appreciate to get some advice about how to clean a Hasselblad
>Polaroid Back 100,
>a. the glass
>b. the roller mechanism.
>Thanks
>Uno
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Filter Threads, B&H, B&W...
> I'm switching to B&W filters. They are very good. So...
>
> First question - what B&W brand filter THREAD SIZE do I order for the
> the more common (early, chrome) Hasselblad 67mm filter-size lenses?
> Are they all thread-size "ES"? I learned yesterday that the SWC
> (early) does not use the B&W 67"E" thread.
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Filter Threads, B&H, B&W...
> My SWC uses the same 67mm thread size as the old Bronica S2A. Every
> filter I purched has the same pitch, if that's any help.
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Filter Threads, B&H, B&W...
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: help.
> thanks-
> I couldn't even get the film insert out--the film wouldn't rewind, the
> shutter got jammed--it turned into a complete nightmare. I did however get a
> tip from someone on a previous request who recommended pro-cam in ohio/ ray
> to look at my hassel. The two shops in mass. who were registered techs.
> were backed up for weeks, were total alarmists and jerks on top of it.
> ray told me that it probably wasn't serious, and that if I sent it out, he
> would look at it the day it came in.
> sometimes living on the east coast sucks.
Dick Werner
112 South Brighton St.
Burbank, Ca., 91506
(818) 845-4667
[email protected]
http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/manual.txt
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on 500 c/m and lens capability
> The previous Hasselblads were designated 1600F (actually after the fact) and
> then 1000F. The 1600/1000 designated the top shutter speed, and the "F"
> designated a "focal plane" shutter.
>
> The next camera was the 500C, again, the 500 designating the top shutter
> speed, and the "C" designating a "central" shutter in the lense. The lenses
> were so designated "C" to work with the 500C cameras.
>
> If you have any documents that state otherwise, I (and some others I've
> contacted about this question) would greatly appreciate it if you would scan
> that pertinent page(s) and forward it/them to me at [email protected].
>
> What is the document you claim says the "C" designation on the lense stands
> for Compur? I've asked a number of people, two well known Hasselblad
> experts, as well as my contacts at the factory, and I can't get any
> confirmation on your statement at all. They all believe as I stated above.
From: "nathantw" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad 203FE price cut 45%
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: I Shutter At The Thought
>I don't know if the present lenses use Compur or Japanese shutters. The
>backs also (A-12) would jam.
[email protected]
From: Charles Barcellona [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Question
> I just purchased a Hasselblad 500CM as my first med format camera. The
> first roll I shot did not come out at all. I read that the back (A12) must
> be "cocked" in order for it to work. How does one Cock the back?
>
> Thanks
From: Sharookh Mehta <[email protected]>
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad websites?
board :-). Good pics on that one too.
Sharookh
From: Andre Oldani <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: AW: Tele Question
It is definitively not made by CZ but by Kyocera. Therefore it does not show
the Carl Zeiss T* logo. What I heard it is exceptional but I was told by a
Leica/Hasselblad consultant that it might be better to buy the 50 and the
110 plus 1.4x and or 2x TC. The zoom is a little bit large and f4.8 is not
that overwhelming compared with the f2.8 and f2.0 respectively. For my way
of photography (80% off tripod and 20% on, not the other way round) the
advice for the primes was absolutely right.
Andre
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: neck strap clips for hasselblad
The Kiev's use the same type straps..... I just double checked
by putting my hasselblad strap on my kiev and my kiev strap on my
Hasselblad.
Little different style, but both still worked....... You might not be
able to buy just the clips, but I would imagine the straps wouldn't be
anywhere near as expensive as a Hasselblad strap.
Randy
http://home.twcny.rr.com/baddog/holga
From: David Mackie <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 250 Sonnar vs. 250 apo
lens. My decision was based on cost and the reality of how infrequently I
actually put a long lens on the camera.
The 250 C has quite a bit of flare if direct sunlight falls on the front
element. This lens is multi-coated but not T* coated. Regardless, this is
a very nice lens.
The 250 SA is also not a T* coated lens where as the modern 250 is. It may
not even be multi-coated, perhaps just a single anti-reflection
coating. For general use I would consider that to be a drawback.
From my reading of the literature I consider the 250 SA to be suitable for
applications involving Infra-Red photography, no refocus is necessary, and
for very sharp B&W photography (i.e. Tech Pan) where the print
magnification exceeds 15x. If your needs do not include the applications
for which the 250 SA was intended, as well as a massive tripod and a
willingness to pre-release for each exposure, then there is not much to be
gained.
When looking at the MTF curves for the 250 SA and the 250, there is a
difference in favour of the 250 SA. The sagittal and tangential lines are
not only very high but are closer together for the 250 SA which should
indicate more sharpness. For both the 250 SA and the 250 the MTF curves
are very good.
Given your film preferences and limited enlargement, I would not consider
there to be a significant advantage conveyed by the 250 SA. Get the
conventional 250 and have some money left over for a few extra film backs.
Best. David Mackie.
>Just wondering if, through use, any have made a switch from the 250 Sonnar
>to the apo version?
>
>My largest prints are an occasional 16X16 or 20X20. Most are 8X8 and
>12X12. About 95% of what I do is on Cibachrome using 100asa Kodak and
>Fuji films. The few I make with print film is 160 asa.
>
>I have a 180 Sonnar and I am greatly satisfied with it, but I am thinking
>about something with just at bit more reach.
>For my needs and style, the 350 and 500 are a tad too long.
>
>Is the price difference that justifiable limiting print sizes to the ones
>I have mentioned?
>
>Any comments or observations will be greatly appreciated.
>
>Brad Vance
From: Andre Oldani <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 250 Sonnar vs. 250 apo
<[email protected]>:
>> >The 250 SA is also not a T* coated lens where as the modern 250 is. It may
>> not >even be multi-coated, perhaps just a single anti-reflection coating.
>> For general use I >would consider that to be a drawback.
>
> David,
>
Carl Zeiss explains why the 250 SA is not T*. Here what I understood: The
coating would influence the optical performance of the lens! The hood is a
must for this type of lenses, as it should be for every other lens :-)
Best,
Andr�
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of F-Hasselblads
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001
wrote:
>Hi there,
>there was so much talked about the reliability of the "classic"
>Hasselblads-but what about the focal types, for example the 203FE ?
>
>Peter
If 1966 is a classic area than I'm not impressed the the Blads. My
photo outfit in Nam had Hassies, Bronica SLR and Mamiya C's. The
Hassies were constantly in the shop, they couldn't take the humidity
and dust and were jamming. The Bronica made to more reasonable
tolerances never failed us nor did the Mamiya C's.
THOM
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001
From: Daniel Taylor [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] ground-glass adapters and unlevel bubble levels
To: [email protected]
I should follow up my comment about my new Hasselblad
Flexbody having an unlevel bubble level. what I was
trying to say, is that we think of Hasselblads as
being almost perfect, and so expensive that we would
never expect a flaw. certainly one that is so easily
detectable in QA. it is somewhat comical, because if I
level the Flexbody by using the bubble level, the
camera is canted by a highly visible ten degrees. it
is very obvious. also, my first 503CW that I bought
new, I unpacked it, and so proudly held it up to the
light and gazed through the viewfinder. I was shocked
to find that my viewfinder screen had delaminated and
there were huge visible bubbles in my image where the
layers had separated. back it went to Cameraworld.
the only other problem I have had is excessive
backlash in my CFi 100mm f3.5 lens and my well
documented CW winder debacle. always, a call to
Hasselblad USA finds a receptive ear on the other end
of the line, and an honest gesture to do whatever it
takes to get my equipment repaired. I appreciate this
fact, and it lends great comfort. I recently purchased
a 70mm film back, in perfect condition though built in
1976. it was missing a small leather plug in the
center of the winding crank. my phone call was
directed to the 70mm back repair technician directly,
who told me that part was availble still, and that he
had a special cutting tool to fabricate it if it was
out of stock and I didn't want any delays. also, he
had the service history of my magazine availble
online, and would rebuild it to new specifications for
$125. I have 150' of Kodak Aerographic 2424 IR film
just waiting for its return. very cool.
From: "sfida" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Diff between 503CX, CXi, & CW
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001
503CX same as old version 500C/M but with TTL for flash.
503CXi same as 503CX but it can use the CW winder. Old model before CW, the
reflactive glass is not so long, so you cannot see whole view from the
finder if you use the len longer than 150mm. There will have a dark bar on
the top on the view finder.
503CW is solve tis problem. The reflactive glass in 503CW is longer than
before models. You can see whole view even you use the len focus longer than
150mm
--
M.Y.Cheuk
"meme" [email protected]> wrote...
> Sorry but I went to many sites but still can't figure the difference
between
> these models
>
> Can anyone enlighten me with the diffferences between these models (apart
> from the age difference)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 903 vs 40mmcfe
Rolf Katzenstein wrote:
> I have a 903 which I enjoy and have the opportunity to trade for a
> 503cw/40mmcfe. This trade would get me into a more versatile body which
> I'd enjoy, but am I making a mistake giving up the 38?. Thanks.
No. The super wide is strictly a *one purpose* camera. It's extremely valuable as an addition to a regular body (500C, CM, etc.) I believe the combination which you are condidering will be far more valuable in the long run, since
you have a wide array of lenses from which to choose. The 40mm is almost as wide as the 38mm and has the advantage of reflex viewing. A friend who shoots professionally uses the 40mm instead of the super wide for that very reason.
When I use my SWC/M for *critical* applications, I use the ground glass back with either the PME51 or the magnifying hood for composition - a very *slow* method for taking pictures.
I bought a SWC *after* I had the rest of the equipement as a supplement for special use and had it modified to a SWC/M.
I bought a 500C, a 500C/M and a 500EL/M with 50, 80, 120 Makro, and 150 lenses first.
Yes, In my not *quite* humble opinion, you're making the right decision.
Gene Pallat
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] 903 swc vs. 40mm
From: Syed Noor Hossain [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
It is a difficult choice really but if you are mostly doing landscape with
903 SWC, I found it more convenient to handle and it is quite fast. If the
weather is good, you don't really have to focus even with slow film like
Fujichrome Velvia. With speed at 1/60 you can set the aperture up to f/16
and adjust the distance scale accordingly. When I was in Iceland, I found it
pretty good for hand-held photography in windy condition when I couldn't use
my medium size tripod which became shaky. The problem arises with close-up
photography. For panoramic photos I also used my Fuji 6x17. Now I have
disposed of them both to trim my equipment and bring economy to my amateur
life. I bought a used C40/4 T* which serves me well but it is bulky! But
then I have my 201F and 110/2F and Nikon D1 and F4 which I use for close-up
photography.
BTW, can some one tell me what I should do with the the thousands of
beautiful slides(mostly in Fujichrome Velvia) in medium format and 35mm on
nature (wildlife, landscape, etc.)? I ventured to beautiful spots in
Scandinavia, Krugger National Park in South Africa, Amazon, Pantanal and Foz
du Iguacu (beautiful water in 6x17)in Brazil, Patagonia in Argentina - just
to name a few. I have also beautiful slides on carnivals in Brazil. The only
way I used some of my slides is publishing a photography book on Sweden.
(Well it was break-even, I didn't become rich!). As you will appreciate, it
is difficult to convince my wife that spending money without return makes
sense!
Syed
> I had that choice. I got the swc. I bought into the slogan" buy your last
> camera first" I could do the money at the time & figured
> I never could again. (kids , house etc. ) the camera makes me slow down &
> think, I guess the distance to focus & tape measure the 3
> foot & under.
> I would not make the change. But then again, mine is just for personal use.
> Never made any money on photo work.
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: [HUG] 12 back with 220 film? well, kind of....
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Yo Bob-
You can get yourself a larger diameter take-up spool by putting a much
longer leader on it. Blow the first frame when it stops winding at one
start to wind with the body winder (to get it off of 1) and then wind it up
to about 5 or 6 or even 10 for that matter with the back winder. Shoot as
normal. The problem with putting a longer leader on it before you insert
the magazine, of course, is it'll fog your film.
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
> From: Bob Keene/Karen Shehade [email protected]>
> Subject: [HUG] 12 back with 220 film? well, kind of....
>
> Hi List-
>
> I've been using Hasselblad for about 6 years, shooting wedding and
> portraiture for a living. I have 2 24A backs and recently acquired an older
> 12 back because I heard one can shoot 220 or 120 film.. "Great", I thought,
> "I can use this as a backup 220 back!"
> Well..... yes, one can shoot 220 film, but I've discovered the problem:
>
> your last 4-6 frames will overlap. The overlap becomes increasingly more
> pronounced as the roll progresses. No doubt caused by the different diameter
> of the take-up wind on (220 vs. 120).
> The images will be printable, but with some cropping.....
>
> Or, am I doing something wrong?
>
> BTW: a big shout out to Peter Rosenthal who overhauled my SWC shutter and
> one of my 12A backs and had them back to me in time for last Saturdays
> wedding! Peter, you're the best!
>
>
>
> Bob Keene
> Keene Vision Photography
> "Creating Visions That Last A Lifetime"
> 781/449-2536
> www.keenevision.com
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] Un-pre-releasing a 500C
From: Per [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Well, first of all: pre-releasing does open the rear "curtains" as well as
closing the lens shutter and the aperture, and of course raising the mirror.
Second, there is no interlock preventing you to remove or replace the back
after pre-release. Doing so will not close the curtains or change anything.
Third, after pre-releasing, your only option is to go on and release the
shutter, whether the back is on or off. On a 500, it is not possible either
to turn the crank or to remove the lens after a pre-release.
So, in theory, you SHOULD be able to release the shutter where you are now
(I just tried it on my camera to make doubly sure...). Since you cannot,
something must have jammed. To cure that, first remove the back and try to
release the shutter again (the back just conceivably might have locked after
the 12th frame). If that doesn=B4t help, then go to this web page:
http://photoweb.net/pw_tech/hassy_unjam.html
and, if necessary, follow the instructions there. In the unlikely event
that this won't help either, you will have to contact a service technician,
I'm afraid...
Good luck,
Per
> Fr=E5n: "Murray E. Milligan" [email protected]>
> Svara till: [email protected]
> Datum: Sat, 06 Oct 2001
> Till: Hasselblad [email protected]>
> =C4mne: [HUG] Un-pre-releasing a 500C
>
> Y'day, I thought I was being a clever Billy by removing the winding crank
> and replacing it with my meter knob. As I was placing the knob on, I hit the
> pre-release button on my 500C.
>
> The rear curtains raised up. I thought I could just put my A-12 back on and
> it would release the curtains.
>
> I fear, I've screwed something up. I hope not. Any instructions on how to un
> release the camera. With the back on, and I remove the slide, the shutter
> button will not fire. The two white circles showing the shutter is ready are
> visible.
>
> So....what did I do that I shouldn't have? Please HELP!
>
> Murray Milligan
> Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] Quality of 110 f/2 Lens
I personally own a 203FE and a 110FE lens. I use this lens a lot wide open.
It is not for the faint of heart wide open. There is basically no DOF when
used wide open in the close focus range, eg; head/head and shoulder shots.
Your focus has to be dead-on. Soft focus is only a heartbeat away when hand
holding this gem. But when you hit it dead-on, it produces 6x6 images
unobtainable any other way. Its signature is indeed unique and it just
sucks you right in.
MTF curves and optical bench data is useless as far as I am concerned. This
lens, like the Leica Noctilux, the Leica 50mm Summilux-M, etc, produces
images that transcend computer ones and zeros. The Leica 50mm Summilux-M is
famous for having crappy MTF data. But the images are simply magic.
Fortunately, with all of these lenses, it is humans that use them, not
computers. And in this category of lens, used wide open, sharpness or lp/mm
are relatively useless parameters. It's what you have on the film that matters.
And I certainly like what I see on the film.
Jim
From: Erik [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad Lunar Surface Super Wide Camera
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001
Attention collectors and hi all!
I hope this kind of information is suitable in this forum. We have a dealer
here in Sweden that aprox. two times per year sets up photo auctions.
Usually some of the Leicas are wanted and pricy, but this time they also
have a nice Hblad rarity, a genuine NASA-blad! Maybe interesting for some
collector out there I thought.
It the Zeiss Biogon 4,5/38 mm No 4241571, Compur N 258, 1-1/500 sec with
70-mm magasin 200 Nr. TR 400210 magazine also engraved P/N SEB 33100082- S/N
383 (NASA code). LP-Foto writes:
"A great rarity/museum piece! A special space prepared Super Wide, only 25
cameras made to NASA for use in space and on the moon! Provenance: These
camera has been at NASA as a test camera and later returned to the
Hasselblad factory. (214/2)"
Starting price is 50.000 SEK, its about $ 4750. The swedish krona is at the
moment not the strongest currency and therefore it could be quite
interesting for you with �, DM or $. For further information go to
www.lpfoto.se, they should come upp with the illustrated catalogue i
pdf-format soon.
Too much money for me, I'll have to focus my attention at some cheaper
extension tubes or similar :)
Best regards
Erik Sundstr�m
Karlstad / Sweden
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001
From: Daniel Taylor [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503 vs 203???
To: [email protected]
David presented an excellent comparison of the two
cameras. I can tell you my rationale for purchasing
the 203FE. I needed a handheld camera that I could use
as a Leica with a Noctilux. I had tired of the tripod
and setup times I usually encountered with the 503 and
wanted to shoot fast film, handheld, wide-open, and
add a spontaneous and more freestyle dimension. the
203FE and 110FE are a perfect duo for this, where you
want to capture the essence of the light before you,
at a possible sacrifice in quality. other features I
enjoy are exposure-indexed magazine backs as I am
always bouncing film types including IR, internal
metering (though a bit broad), long exposure
durations, convenient mirror-lockup and timed shutter
release, delayed shutter, access to fast lenses, and
multiple-exposure.
I originally purchased the 203FE for an engineering
project my consulting company was involved in. I was
using the 503CW for multiple exposures, and you will
quickly find that the registration is terrible in
critical applications whenever the magazine is
repositioned. the 203FE was offered at 45% price
reductions which made it palatable. I would not have
paid the $5500 normal price for it. this camera is
almost perfect, though I have a few additional
requirements. smaller spot-metering option added to
integral mode, a better autowinder, electrical release
of the shutter and MLU, and few minor nits.
all in all, I absolutely adore the 203FE and my 503CW
sits unused. I am off next week for Mexico and the
'Day of the Dead' festivals and a workshop with Keith
Carter. the 203FE isn't quite a Leica obviously, but
it will be a perfect companion with my Flexbody. I do
miss that gorgeous 'plop' of the rear shutter on the
500 series though.
Daniel Taylor
Lightsmythe Studios
Oregon, USA
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Contax 645 defections
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001
Daniel Taylor wrote:
> I am curious (it's my nature) as to why the Contax 645
> was sold? on paper, it seems like a wonderfully
> designed camera with features the 203FE can only dream
> of. I understand the negative size difference, but it
> seems to me that something must be fundamentally wrong
> to trade or sell it. I have not used one, but I would
> think if the AF is deficient, that it still would make
> a nice metered, manual-focus camera. as I recall,
> those Zeiss lenses were very smooth focusing. it seems
> if Contax came out with a 6x6, it would be a killer
> system.
>
> just curious ...
I have a feeling (let's call it that) that it is a result of a little
discord between Hasselblad and Zeiss.
While Zeiss was anouncing their intention to put some new life into their
camera lens division, designing new and better lenses, Hasselblad opted to
no longer sell the Zeiss Mutar but sell an East-Asia converter instead,
turned to Fuji to cooperate on the XPan, and at the same time that Zeiss
announced to the press they were (finally) going to design some new and
exciting zoom lenses, Hasselblad turned to Sigma to make the "Hasselblad"
zoom.
So Zeiss decided to design the Tele Photo Powerpack on their own initiative,
and proceeded to sell it as a Zeiss only lens (albeit with Hasselblad mount)
themselves (until Hasselblad decided to buy the entire stock, including
spares), and started selling a MF Contax sporting all new and improved Zeiss
lenses.
All conjecture, of course, but lo and behold, Zeiss and Hasselblad then
decided to renew the 1950 hand shake agreement between the two companies.
Kiss and make up? I like to think so.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: RE: [HUG] [HUG]How to hold the camera...etc
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001
Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > It amazes me how many people I see trying to get to the shutter trigger with
> > > the right hand...
> >
> > I very often do that. Whenever it is the best/easiest/most comfortable way
> > of holding the camera.
>
> If you use your right hand to hold the camera and trigger the shutter, how
> do you wind? I assume you have to swap hands?
No. I often release the shutter and wind with the right hand. Without
swapping hands.
I often hold the camera, resting its left front corner on the part of my
left handpalm closest to my arm (i'm sure there is a name for this, but i
don't know it), hold the lens with the fingers of the same, my left hand.
This way my left hand fingers and thumb can focus and set anything that has
to be set on the lens. I then put my right hand thumb on top of the wind
crank, the right hand index finger on the release button, and the rest of
them underneath the body. My right hand thus helps steadying the camera, but
its fingers can be brought to the crank quickly and without any need to
alter the left hand's grip.
> > There is no single "correct way" of holding a Hasselblad. It's a matter of
> > whatever grip you find most comfortable.
>
> Typically, items are designed intentionally with a method of holding them in
> mind. It only makes sense, items like this aren't just designed to be held
> "any old way". For most anyone using that item, the intended holding method
> will work best. If someone believes another method works fine for them, of
> course that's fine.
Items like cameras are used in very different circumstamces. It, for
instance, does matter quite a bit what lens you have on it, what attitude
the camera needs to be in, etc. I often use my Hasselblad with a longish
lens not using the "Hasselblad" grip, but supporting the camera with my
right hand fingers (as described above), pressing the left hand side (and
not the rear) of the camera in my chest. This way the lens is pointing
parallel to my chest. My left hand is then free to focus and support the
lens. Far more steady (steadier?) than having the thing point away from you.
When shooting down, my left hand often is gripping the lens from above, not
underneath.
> Even the Hasselblad camera manuals say to hold it the way I described. And
> I quote: "The accompanying picture shows the best way to hold the camera
> whilst shooting. The camera is cradled in the left hand with the left index
> finger on the release button. This leaves the right hand free for
> rewinding, focusing, exposure settings and change of lens or magazine. Make
> a habit of the left hand grip!". Yes, it does say the say the last
> sentence.
>
> So, given what Hasselblad says, they certainly prescribe a "best" way to
> hold the camera.
Horses for courses...
It's fine for a camera and a 80 mm lens. But have you ever tried the
"Hasselblad grip" with a Schneider Zoom? It definitely is not the best way
for that.
> In the 20 years I've been using Hasselblads, and shown probably on the order
> of over 100 people how to hold them (and some professionals with years of
> experience with a Hasselblad), not a single person has ever said it was
> uncomfortable, most everyone went out of their way to say it was far more
> comfortable and easier to use (the "prescribed" way).
Might well be. And in my Hasselblad life i found some grips to be even more
comfortable.
> For telephoto lenses
> (I'd say more than 150) it's a new ball game, and some people do prefer the
> right hand holding, and of course, any way that's comfortable works.
How's that? The right way isn't the best way anymore? ;-)
> I think this horse is dead.
It is starting to swell, yes.
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: How to hold the camera...etc
you wrote:
> > I have a hard time with the concept that there's a "correct" way
> > to hold any
> > camera...
>
>For a 35mm, I would agree, but for a Hasselblad, I believe there really is
>only one way to "correctly" hold it...
Funny. 35mm SLR bodies, and most rangefinders are designed specifically to
be held in the left hand, palm up. The left hand has the center of balance
and controls the aperture & focus. The right hand has the shutter speed
dial, film advance and trigger. When you switch to vertical, rotate counter
clockwise. The left hand doesn't move and the right hand is now on top.
Both hands continue to access the same functions.
It's called ergonomics.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 110 FE Question
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001
Mayo wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me why a new 110 FE lens would come in a box marked 110
TCC? And why the lens itself is marked F and not FE?
First, if it has the double blue lines and databus contacts it is a FE, not
F, no matter what it says on the lens.
The first Hasselblad camera that needed lenses with databus contacts was the
205 TCC. The lenses were indeed named TCC. Later the 205 TCC camera saw some
slight modifications and was renamed 205 FCC, and the 203 FE too had seen
the light of day, so the lenses were renamed FE.
Your "new" 110 mm thus is from before this change.
More important perhaps is that the 110 mm lens has been subject to some
slight changes itself in 1999. The two rear elements are cemented together
to increase performance when the lens is used wide open, and improved stray
light reducing measures are implemented, increasing contrast, again, when
used wide open.
I don't know how much of this improvement really will be visible in
comparison, but i just thought you might want to know.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Lens question
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002
shutter wrote:
> This may be a stupid question but what do the 'names' given to lenses
mean.
> For example: Distagon, angulon etc etc.....
>
> If anyone has a list of translations I would be most greatful.
Zeiss lenses:
Biogon - A lens with an angle of view so wide that it can capture very
much of the life around us in a single frame - this is what the name
originally means.
Distagon - When wide angle views go to extremes and beg the control
via an SLR viewfinder, the back focal distance has to be much larger than
the focal length, a retrofous design called Distagon is the right choice.
Planar - flat image plane.
Sonnar - A lens design with relatively few glass-to-air surfaces,
invented by Dr. Ludwig Bertele at Carl Zeiss in 1930 to provide the fastest
lenses of that day for 35 mm photography offering speeds up to f/1.5 and
well controlled veiling glare. This is where the name comes from, containig
the German word for sun, 'Sonne', the symbol of utmost brightness.
Superachromat - The name 'Superachromat' was created by Max Herzberger
in the early 1960s, christening his dream of a lens with perfect color
correction even beyond the level of apochromats.
Tessar - The original Tessar lens is a 4-element design - this is
expressed by that name, referring to the Greek word 'tessares', which means
'four'.
More info on http://www.zeiss.de
You will have to dig a bit into this site to reach the info about
photographic lenses. But well worth the trouble.
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] re: avoiding possible SWC/M 38mm biogon damage from filters...
To: "Mose, J P" [email protected]>
see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/hassysw.html esp. discussion at bottom
basically, Wildi books etc. are wrong in claiming you can use any series
VIII filter with the hassy SWC/SWCM. Not true. See reports of damaged SWC
coatings from doing so. Having an SWC/M, I can verify that the hassy UV
filter for it is offset so the filter glass doesn't touch the lens
coatings. My older Kodak series VIII filters are NOT offset, solid glass
blanks, so they DO touch the coatings when installed. This contact is
presumably the source of damage on some older lenses. (can't be repaired,
I'm told, as older front elements no longer available from Zeiss, though
some parties may be able to redo the coatings if the glass isn't pitted
or scratched? see rmonagha/bronrecoatings.html for details). You can
probably put in a ring to use the older filters (see postings) by keeping
them from touching the lens surface if you have bunches of them (cheaper..).
so check on this before tightening down the filter ring! HTH bobm
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Mose, J P wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> A couple of months ago I purchased a Super Wide and I am now interested in
> purchasing 63mm drop in filters. I have been told that the filter glass can
> come in contact with the lens if the filter is dropped in backwards. In
> other words, the filter glass has to be offset in its retaining ring in
> order not to make contact with the lens. Do all 63mm filters meet this
> requirement or will I have to buy Hasselblad filters?
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which Hassleblad?
Date: 9 Jan 2002
James Cooke [email protected]> wrote:
>Hello!
>I am considering changing over to medium format, and like the Hassleblad. I
>can't afford a new one, so will be buying a used on on Ebay. Howerver, there
>are many different models, and C500, C501, C503 etc. I am looking for a
>startup camera with the basic lens, and a motordrive. Ebay seems to have a
>few c500's that are motorized - but I see a lot of people saying they are
>for collecters. Does this mean that this camera is not for serious
>photography?
The only motorized cameras in the "500" line are the various "EL" cameras as
well as the 503CXi and 503CW cameras with the CW accessory winder. Be aware
that the CW accessory winder, while *very* nice, costs about $1000 new and is
recent enough that used ones are scarce (and will still set you back $800
or so). You can almost buy *two* used EL/M bodies for this!
Both APCAM and NPC made accessory winders for some of the other
500-series cameras (500C, 500C/M, 503CX, etc). I have never used the
APCAM, but the NPC motor was a very kludgy piece of junk.
The 2003FC/W as well as the more recent 200-series cameras can also be used
with an accessory winder (which is, paradoxically, not the same winder as
the one for the 503CXi and 503CW).
Remember that the winding speed on these motors is quite slow compared
to 35mm (typically ~1 fps), the number of exposures on a roll is
comparitively small (12, 16, or 24 shots, depending on which film
magazine you're using), and that motors and batteries can make a
medium format camera quite heavy (particularly if the camera is
also fitted with an eye-level prism finder - medium-format pentaprisms
are a lot bigger and heavier than their 35mm counterparts).
Is there some particular reason why you require a motordrive?
If the answer is "no", then I'd recommend a basic 500C/M outfit with
an Acumatte screen retrofitted (preferably with a split image rangefinder).
This would basically be:
1 500 C/M, body
1 A12 (120 film) or A24(220 film) magazine. Make sure the
serial numbers on the magazine and the insert match.
If you prefer the "645" rectangular format to the
aesthetically superior ;-) square, substitute an A16.
Lens(es) of your choice.
The 501C or 501C/M bodies may be substituted at will. The 501CM has a
longer mirror which will not vignette with longer telephotos (or extreme
macro magnification). This is nice.
If you need TTL flash automation, substitute a 503CX or 503CXi body
>My objective is to do amateur photography of landscape,
>portrait, just general purpose use. Also, can anyne please reccommend which
>accessories I should get for starting up? I can go and as the chap at the
Get the "contour" neckstrap. The standard strap sucks dead bunnies through
a straw, but the countour strap is wonderful.
>shop, but feel it will be a bit mean to bleed him dry of all his info then
>buy the camera elsewhere!
He might well have reasonably-priced used equipment.
Steve
From: Stephe [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which Hassleblad?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
James Cooke wrote:
> Hello!
> I am considering changing over to medium format, and like the Hassleblad.
> I can't afford a new one, so will be buying a used on on Ebay.
> My objective is to do amateur photography of
> landscape, portrait, just general purpose use. Also, can anyne please
> reccommend which accessories I should get for starting up?
My advice is to sit down and think what you are really wanting to do with
this camera system and what you'll need to do this. To do
landscape/portrait/general shooting you'll need something like a 50, an 80
and something in the 150-180 range, hopefully something fairly fast. Since
you mentioned you don't have the money to buy even a new "kit", look at
what all of this is going to cost and compare it to other systems. I've
shot with a blad and enjoyed using it but had to be honest with myself,
what I 'needed' and how realistic it was to expect to get what I wanted in
a system.
There are many other systems that have more reasonably priced lenses and
can produce fine results as good as a blad can produce (if not better).
Many of the jap camera's, especially the 6X4.5 ones are reliable, high
quality and much cheaper overall. There are other 6X6 camera's as well and
if not used at the "pro" level of hundreds of rolls a week, work fine. Each
sustem has it's plus and minuses and while a blad is a good camera, it does
have some limitations, especially if you don't have an unlimited budget!
I just hate seeing people buy into the rollei/blad system and then end up
being stuck using the normal 80mm lens because they can't afford anything
else. Several of my friends have done this and while a lot can be done with
a normal lens, it is limiting and they end up going back to 35mm for a lot
of their work because of this. If you are going to end up there, you might
as well get a much cheaper rolleiflex or get a fuji non zoom rangefinder
which is better optically than the slr's anyway.
--
Stephe
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 500 ELM with Black Body
Date: 9 Jan 2002
Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]> wrote:
>Steve Gombosi wrote:
>
>> >Optical designs have remained largely unchanged,
>> >(only the 40 mm and 500 mm lenses were redesigned) so there is no
>difference
>>
>> Isn't the 350mm CF different from the 350C?
>
>No. The original 350 mm lens was unchanged when the transition from C to CF
>was made.
But doesn't the 350CF focus closer than the 350C? Was this just a change
in the helicoid?
>there was a C and CF UV-Sonnar 105 mm lens that has gone
>(propably still available on request);
Since those things used to list for about $15,000 US I suspect demand was
a bit low. ;-)
>upgrade from C to CF; the 135 mm bellows lens was dropped; there has been a
>160 mm CB lens; and the 500 mm lens has been taken out of production
>recently and will no longer be available when stocks run out.
OH NO!
When was this announced????
I've been saving for one of those puppies!
Steve
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad 50mm CF FLE
Frank Filippone wrote:
>
> a $20 repair for anything at Hasselblad is incredible! Must be a very easy
> repair!
>
> Frank Filippone
> [email protected]
Yes, it takes just 2 minutes to do the focus on a CF, CFI lens. Remove
the rubber band on the focus ring or pull it back to see 6 or 8 phillps
head screws. With the lens at infinity, loosen the screws then turn the
focus ring to the infinity mark. Tighten screws, and you are done. 2
minutes at most.
--
_______________________________
Dick Werner
112 South Brighton St.
Burbank, Ca., 91506
(818) 845-4667
[email protected]
http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/manual.html
http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/hassequip.html
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] New CFE lenses (only three...)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001
See:
http://www.hasselblad.se/press/detail.cgi?new/998991600.txt
The Macro-Planar T* 4/120 mm, Sonnar T* 4/180 mm and Sonnar Superachromat
5.6/250 mm, will shortly be available as CFE lenses, having databus
contacts.
Deliveries of the new CFE lenses are expected to start at the end of 2001.
But not just good news:
"Following the introduction of the new CFE lenses, the FE lenses Sonnar T*
2.8/150 mm and Tele-Tessar T* 4/250 mm will be discontinued."
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad 50mm CF FLE
Frank Filippone wrote:
>
> Dick... is the infinity stop ( or whatever you call the thing that stops the
> lens at the Infinity point) also as easy to reset?
>
> Frank Filippone
> [email protected]
No, there is a pin inside the lens that the focus ring will hit at
infinity. That pin is not adjustable to my knowledge.
--
_______________________________
Dick Werner
112 South Brighton St.
Burbank, Ca., 91506
(818) 845-4667
[email protected]
http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/manual.html
http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/hassequip.html
From: "M P Brennan" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Convert your old Hassy 12 back to a 24 exp. for 55 cents
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
It's been awhile since I posted this, so I thought I'd put it out there
again. If you've got an old manual 12 exposure back and want to put 220
film into it, here is a great way to do it for 55 cents:
I was looking for an attractive solution to plugging the peep hole in my
manual 12 exposure Hassy backs (so I can use 220 film in them instead of
120) and didn't care to spend $15 on eBay for a simple rubber plug.
I found the perfect solution for 55 cents.
Go to your local Ace Hardware store and purchase their Item # 40206. It's
in the plumbing department and is called a "Ballcock Coupling Nut Washer".
They'll probably be in a pull-out drawer (they come in bulk, so they're
loose in a drawer), but the Ace employee can help you find them.
It is a fiber washer that is a **perfect** fit in the peephole.
I then cut two squares of black electrical tape and placed one on each side
of the fiber washer and trimmed off the corners.
You'll be amazed at how good it looks (really).
Remove the insert from the magazine and pop it in from behind. It fits as
good as the factory plug (it will actually "pop" into place).
That's it.
If you have any questions about this highly technical project, feel free to
ask.
-Mike
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens cap covers
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
marvin miller wrote:
> ...the new internal style covers ... Maybe they'll loosen up with use?
> Thanks for any experienced info,
> Marv
>
>
My experience with the CF covers (I presume this is what you're speaking
of) is that they WILL loosen up all right... and then they'll just fall
off the front of the lens as you're walking along. I have the problem
most often with my 150CF(now on my 3rd lens cap). On the 80, I don't
bother with a lens cover; just use a lens shade and leave that on
permanently.
-David Gerhardt
([email protected])
From: [email protected] (Bob Gurfinkel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: Hasselblad light leaks
> The most common leak problem is the light trap in the film back where
>> the dark slide goes in. If you are handy, this is easy to fix
>> by replacing a piece of foam.
I cut a piece of black tape to fit right over the dark slide slot, whether my
magazine is older or brand new
This prevents any light leaks due to a defective light trap or any other cause
It's especially effective when the sun shines on the left side of the camera
I'm a slow shooter and not bothered by the need to remove the tape every time I
load a roll. It takes 5 seconds to remove it and re-attach it once the new roll
is loaded.
If you shoot fast and wild, this simple preventive remedy is not for you
Bob G.
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001
Subject: [HUG] News about new digital back for Hasselblads
From: "Murray E. Milligan" [email protected]>
To: Hasselblad [email protected]>
Those of you interersted in a digital Hasselblad might find this article
interesting.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0111/01110801jenoptik11mp.asp
FYI.
Murray E. Milligan,
Winnipeg, Canada
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 500 ELM with Black Body
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Steve Gombosi wrote:
> >No. The original 350 mm lens was unchanged when the transition from C to
CF
> >was made.
>
> But doesn't the 350CF focus closer than the 350C? Was this just a change
> in the helicoid?
Not to my knowledge.
True, the shortest focussing distance on the C lens is 5 m, on the CF it's
4.5 m. But consider this: the shortest focussing distance mentioned for both
C and CF 50 mm lenses is 0.5 m, but my CF goes beyond that. Sometimes
specifications are given without proper regard for what is really true ;-)
Anyway, as far as i know both C and CF 350 mm lenses are optically the same.
> >there was a C and CF UV-Sonnar 105 mm lens that has gone
> >(propably still available on request);
>
> Since those things used to list for about $15,000 US I suspect demand was
> a bit low. ;-)
Indeed.
And considering the fluorite elements used in this lens are prone to
deterioration due to humidity in the air, requiring repolishing at some
interval, not a lens to have unless you really need one. But if you do, you
can't get a better lens.
> >upgrade from C to CF; the 135 mm bellows lens was dropped; there has been
a
> >160 mm CB lens; and the 500 mm lens has been taken out of production
> >recently and will no longer be available when stocks run out.
>
> OH NO!
>
> When was this announced????
It hasn't been officially anounced yet.
The lens suddenly vanished from the Zeiss website, and when i asked Zeiss'
Dr. Fleischer about it he confirmed that it was no longer part of the
Hasselblad range, and production had stopped. Considering that it was
excluded from the CF to CFi upgrade, production appears to have been already
stopped at that time.
> I've been saving for one of those puppies!
Better save some more! ;-)
Zeiss/Hasselblad consider either 350 mm or 300 mm Superachromat plus
teleconverter to be the better alternative. They in fact are, though they
cost a good deal more.
The Tele-Apotessar did not sell in large numbers, so, though no more were
produced since 1998, there may still be some sitting on dealers', or
Hasselblad's, shelves. So not all hope need be abandoned.
But i expect they will be very hard to find used. (On the other hand, the
old Tele-Tessars are not that hard to find. But they, of course, aren't in
the same league, so not quite an alternative worth considering?)
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Digital options?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Lars Haven wrote:
> > But what are the digital options with a Hasselblad. Are there any at
all?
> > And has anyone seen the new Canon EOS 1D? It looks pretty amazing.
Trying
> > to figure out....digital or Hassy...either way it's serious $$$
> >
> I have been lurking on this fine list for a while now. Time to de-lurk.
>
> I have seen at leat one digital option. See www.imacon.dk in the products
> section. I do not have any idea on prices or availability, but I expect
> the things will be expensive.
If you want to go digital without using film there are plenty options too.
In fact, i don't know any manufacturer of digital backs that doesn't offer
Hasselblad as camera platform, even Rollei!
CreoScitex's Leaf C-Most (6.6 MegaPixel, approx. Euro 10,250);
Heidelberg's Colorcam (6.3 MP, Euro 22,000);
Imacon's two types of Flexframe (6 and 16 MP, Euro 23,000 and 27,500);
Jenoptik's Eyelike (6.3 MP, Euro 19,000);
Kodak's Pro Back Plus (16 MP, Euro 28,000);
Megavision's S3 and S4 (6 and 16 MP, Euro 18,000 and 21,500);
Mosaic Imaging's Luma (6 MP, Euro 20,800);
PhaseOne's Lightphase and H20 (6 and 16 MP, Euro 22,000 and 26,500);
Rollei's Gamma C6 (6 MP, Euro 22,500);
and Sinar's Back 23 and Back 44 (6 and 16 MP, Euro 28,500 and
20,900/27,500).
Imacon produces very high quality scanners to scan your negatives and slides
as wel. Nikon and Polaroid too make good scanners (not quite as good as the
Imacon, but plenty good enough). Minolta is joining them, but i don't know
enough about their latest product to comment.
All scanners produce considerably (!) more MegaPixels than any of the
current available backs.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Corrected: PM45 Viewfinder vs NC-2
[email protected] wrote:
>
> you wrote:
> >I use the folding for weddings and other things.
>
> I'm 5'7" and if I used the waist level finder for weddings, I'd be shooting
> right up the noses of most of my grooms, and about 1/3 of my brides.
>
> MY OPINION, not my employer's>>
>
> hp
>
They'll love you for it! They will have that classic "Rolleiflex" look!
The average ht of the American women is 5'-4"! (really!)
Short guys love a low camera especially if they're balding.
A low camera is less in peoples faces. You are more low key!!:)
A Hasselblad with a flash on a grip is quite a sight, best kept low
and served chilled.
Nose hairs can be quite attractive when groomed properly. I wear mine in a flip!
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] 30mm Kiev lens (Arsat) conversion to Hassy
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]>
Bob,
I myself, had not done this conversion yet. However I do plan to convert
the 30mm Zodiak / Arsat and a late CZJ 180mm MC Sonnar.
The various converted lenses that I had seen and handled for the 2000 /
200 series, were all professionally converted using either a salvaged
rear Hasselblad bayonet mount OR a brand new bayonet ring purchased from
Hasselblad. You can also use the lens mount adapter part # 40037.
All the lens will be able to focus from the minimum meter / feet range to
the maximum infinity range. Full use of the aperture range is possible,
but will have to be performed manually.
In the case of the 30mm , you will not have any ability to use the
supplied rear filters. You should ask Stan or whomever you use for this
conversion if he will be able to leave enough room in the rear to allow
you use gelatin filters without it scratching your mirror.
In regards to all the conversion done, ask to see any of his previous
work. The reason I tell you this, is based on what I actually handled and
seen on these converted lenses. At the rear where the lens mount will go,
just make sure that the converted area is not an open hole with the mount
as a dust and dirt cover. If possible, this is where the lens mount
adapter # 40037 comes into play. This part has a aluminium plate in
front of the bayonet ring. Some machinist will machined this plate to fit
as a dust cover as part of the rear mount. In certain incident, you will
not have any choice. If your technician / machinist can fabricate a rear
dust cover/cap from sheet metal , then you will not have any future
problems with dirt or dust getting into the interior of your lens.
The various lenses that I had seen converted are as following:
1. CZJ lenses for the Pentacon Six System : 50mm, 65mm, 120mm, 180mm,
300mm
2. Meyer Optics : 300mm, 500mm
3. Kiev 60 and Kiev 88 lenses : 30mm, 45mm, 45mm & 55m shift, 150mm,
250mm
There are probably other adapted lens that I haven't seen yet, but these
are the majority that I had seen and handled. Let me know how this
conversion turns out for you. Try to get the latest Arsat lens that is
labeled MC. That way you will have no problems with flare.
Evan
Bob Keene/Karen Shehade
[email protected]> writes:
> Hi List of Huggies,
>
> Just got a 2000FCW (thanks Austin!) and am moving to expand my
> creative
> possibilities-
>
> I know that the Kiev 88 lenses can be converted for use on
> Hasselblad 200x
> bodies, and I have a name and # (Stan Nycz, Int'l Camera Repair
> Toronto,
> 800/340-5937) but I have some questions from others who may be
> already using
> these...
>
> I've acquired an Arsat 30mm lens. I have a extension tube I never
> use, which
> I gather I can send to Stan to use as the lens mount. When the
> conversion is
> done, what are you missing? I mean I assume the lens will focus and
> the
> aperture ring will work like a normal F lens... yes?
>
> I am awaiting delivery of the 30, so I don't have it in front of me
> yet.
>
> Love to hear from anyone using this kind of converted (perverted?)
> lens. :)
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Bob Keene
> Keene Vision Photography
> "Creating Visions That Last A Lifetime"
> 781/449-2536
> www.keenevision.com
>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Planar comparisons
Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>Earlier yet, the H'blads had a 5
>element Ektar, though=20
>Nordin erroneously claims it was 4 elements.
Jerry
What is the source for your contention? Rick received his initial
information from Hasselblad and then confirmed this with Kodak and the
George Eastman House. I have some difficulty believing that all three
would be wrong.
Marc
[email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1410
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001
From: Cesare [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Hi Bob,
What you ask is possible and can be cheep to do as well. Two years ago I
too was looking into ways of doing this and a Hasselblad user in America
replied to my question of how to go about making a Kiev 88 (NOT the 30mm
lens for the Pentgon 66
Arsat C 74 (This would indicate the register for the Pentagon)
Atsat B 84.1 (The lens I have is Arsat B with register at 84.1)
As Hasselblad lenses have a register of 74.9 you must use the 30mm lens
made for the Kiev 88 (or whatever they call it now). The Kiev lens will
give you a gap of 9.2mm in which to fit the collar and hassy mount, I
found that a collar of 7.8mm and the Hassy mount gave me the registration
of 84.1mm thereby able to focus to infinity. I have a PDF file (made on a
Apple mac) showing photos of my conversion. My friend Tsun, from America
gave me his plans for me to copy so I DO NOT TAKE ANY CREDIT for the
conversion as all I had to do was follow his plans and its he who
deserves all credit in not only doing it but most of all sharing his
work. His email address was
[email protected]> I don't know if he still has the info on his
computer but if he has I'm sure he'll be only to pleased to be of help.
When he sent me the plans I got an engineer her in the United kingdom
make me the collar for 45 pounds (that's around $60) an all in one mount
he drilled the holes for the three screws that hold the Kiev mount to the
lens and also the eight holes that hold the hassy mount to the Kiev mount
all I had to do was to take out the Auto aperture pins and change the
direction of the spring to convert the auto aperture to manual aperture.
The lens in the United Kingdom cost New 168 UK pounds (around $250.00) so
all in all around 3 to 4 hundred $ for a 30mm lens for a hasselblad oh
and by the way I=B9ve also have had a Arsat 500mm f5.6 lens converted to a
Hassy mount. When I asked the UK importers about this lens they had not
heard of one and would let me know if one existed, a few weeks later they
came back to me saying their Russian contacts in Moscow knew of plans
for this lens but didn=B9t know if one was going to be made, a few months
later they said if I wanted one they would get me one to order and after
only six weeks after that the contacted me to tell me the lens was ready
to pick up (the UK importers are around 90 miles away from me, and here
in the UK we tend to think 50 miles is a long way to go) looking at the
lens serial number its 00047.
If you would like me to send you **my** PDF file send me your email
address and I'll send you it. As for the one from Tsun with all the info
I think it only fair for you to ask him for it, as its his hard work
that=B9s gone into it not mine.
Hope this is of help
cesare
>Hi List of Huggies,
>
>Just got a 2000FCW (thanks Austin!) and am moving to expand my creative
>possibilities-
>
>I know that the Kiev 88 lenses can be converted for use on Hasselblad 200x
>bodies, and I have a name and # (Stan Nycz, Int'l Camera Repair Toronto,
>800/340-5937) but I have some questions from others who may be already usi=
ng
>these...
>
>I've acquired an Arsat 30mm lens. I have a extension tube I never use, whi=
ch
>I gather I can send to Stan to use as the lens mount. When the conversion =
is
>done, what are you missing? I mean I assume the lens will focus and the
>aperture ring will work like a normal F lens... yes?
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 500C/M body vs 500C or 501CM
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001
Dr. Rob wrote:
> Dear Patrick,
>
> Thanks for response. How do you feel about the different lenses;
> C, CF and CFE?
>
> I like the silver C lenses, because the 80mm is more compact than
> the CF or CFE, and doesn't scratch as easily as the blacks. I also
> like the moveable field of focus indicators.
I prefer the Compur shuttered lenses -- chrome or black, T* or not --
for their compactness and all metal construction. I like the moving
DOF scale, too. Easier to read.
The one thing I do like about the Prontor lenses, though, is the
ability to disengage the shutter and aperture rings, so that you can
smoothly and easily change one without changing the other. But that
one feature alone is an insufficient reason to switch to them.
As far as the quality of manufacture, I believe the Compur lenses to be
superior overall. They come from a time when individual pride was high
and taxes were low; so quickness of assembly and number of units
produced were less of a factor in the liquidity of a company. Not so,
today.
As to the optical quality, resolution, contrast, etc., I think, there
is little difference bewteen the old and the new lenses. When a lens
design is theoretically as good as it gets, any improvements to it will
be minor. Those differences may show up on MTFs and the optical bench,
but in practical, everyday picture taking terms, they are not apparent
in the photographs. The one exception to that is multicoating. That
can be seen in the prints with the naked eye. It's not a major
difference, but it is apparent.
> Patrick wrote:
> > My 30 year old 500Cs are still working just fine, thank you very
> > much.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [HUG] 500C/M body vs 500C or 501CM - Lens
[email protected] wrote:
>On the subject of C lenses, I had an interesting conversation with
someone a couple days ago regarding the non coated C lenses. Turns out
that the very early 150C is sought after by some wedding photographers in
Australia for darker skin tones in black and white work.
>
>The logic ran along these lines - Non coated lenses have a lower contrast
giving them a "softer" look without loosing sharpness.
All lenses for the Hasselblad are coated, whether they come from Kodak,
Zeiss, or Schneider. I have difficulty believing that this information has
not yet percolated to the Antipodes -- some of the more astute scholars of
Zeiss history reside down under. Beginning around 1973, Zeiss lenses began
to be multi-coated (the "T*" lenses), and JSK introduced this shortly
afterwards. So, from 1947 to 1973, the lenses were single-coated and, from
1973 or so to the present, they have been multi-coated.
Marc
[email protected]
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 500C/M body vs 500C or 501CM
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
Dr. Rob wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me of another reason why I like the C lenses. I
> like the way the aperture and speed are locked. I like using the EV
> numbers on my light meter and simply adjusting the lens accordingly.
You know, you CAN lock the rings together on the CF lenses.
> I wasn't aware of a difference in shutter manufacturers though.
At one time, Compur and Prontor were separate companies. At that time,
Prontor shutters had a bad reputation -- breaking, inaccurate, etc. --
and, therefore, were less desirable than Compurs, which were everything
the Prontors weren't. That is not the case today.
> Getting back to the 500C body vs 500C/M, as I understand it, the
> major difference is that the 500C/M allows you to easily change
> screens.
That is the major difference. Or minor, really. How often you change
focusing screens?
> Other than a longer mirror on the 501CM, is there any other reason to
> to get a 501CM over 500C/M?
You can get 501s new. 500C/Ms can only be had used. Some people are
wary of used anything. Their loss; my gain.
If you plan to use very long lenses (350, 500) a lot, the cut-off with
the older bodies is apparent. If your longest lens will be a 150 or
250, the cut-off is hardly noticeable.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 500C/M body vs 500C or 501CM
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> If you plan to use very long lenses (350, 500) a lot, the cut-off with
> the older bodies is apparent. If your longest lens will be a 150 or
> 250, the cut-off is hardly noticeable.
I disagree.
In my experience, when using a 250 mm lens the mirror vignetting has reached
its maximum.
Using even longer lenses does not increase the amount of vignetting any
more.
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 500C/M body vs 500C or 501CM
Patrick Bartek wrote:
>At one time, Compur and Prontor were separate companies. At that time,
>Prontor shutters had a bad reputation -- breaking, inaccurate, etc. --=
>and, therefore, were less desirable than Compurs, which were everything
>the Prontors weren't. That is not the case today.
Well, the Prontor shutters were historically seen as less reliable than the
Compurs but I don't believe they had a reputation so much for breaking as
for needing maintenance regularly. Albert Gauthier was in Calmbach and its
workforce were out-of-season farmhands, while Deckel, in Munich, had a much
more sophisticated proletariat from which to draw.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 500C/M body vs 500C or 501CM
Patrick Bartek wrote:
>The camera techs, who worked on my equipment (There were several, I
>used, whose opinions I trusted.), didn't much care for the old Prontors
>used in view camera lenses. They said that Compurs were more durable
>and accurate. When Hasselblad switched to Prontors, they were wary,
>but after looking at them, said they were "fine." But they still liked
>Compurs, because of the efficiency of the design.
Patrick
Relying on war stories from repair dudes is akin to relying on the "latest
word" from the clerk at your village camera store.
The "Prontor" shutters used by Hasselblad are not "Prontor" shutters --
these are Deckel designs acquired by Gauthier when they bought out Deckel's
assets. These "Prontor" shutters are "Compurs" in all but the name-plate.
Marc
[email protected]
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] Is it reallt worth the $$
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001
> Rollei, for instance, is a great system. I would agree -- given
> that I own
> Rollei and Hassy systems -- that Rollei gives you more bang for the buck.
> Or at least it seems to.
I own both, and I'd say Hasselblad ultimately, depending on what lenses and
accessories you want, gives you more bang for the buck...at least in the
used market. There is a veritable plethora of "as new" used Hasselblad
equipment out there for around 1/2 of what it would cost new...where Rollei
used is really hard to come by, so the competition for used gear is stiffer
than with Hasselblad from my experience... It's not that Hasselblad doesn't
hold it's value, in fact, it does quite well...but it's been around for so
much longer (in the current system that is, as in 6008 vs 20x) that there's
bound to be more and less expensive items out there.
Just something to consider IMO. Yes, Hasselblads are well worth the money
if you want exceptional photographic images (and you know or learn how to
use it).
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001
From: Mike Vanecek [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Is it really worth the $$
All of my MF and LF equipment is used. They tend to be used by
individuals who know the value of the equipment and make an effort to
take care of it. All my 35mm tends to be new - for some reason 35mm
equipment seems to take more of a beating than the other stuff,
excepting perhaps Leica or Contax...
Buying used can have some other benefits - manufacturer's defects that
got by Q&A no doubt show up quickly and within the warranty period - a
20 year old item that's been put through a good workout would tend to be
free from manufacturer's defects - and with Hassy, a good CLA will
pretty much make it as good as new...I'm using a 30+ year old 500C body,
back and lens combo that's all pretty much tight as a watch. Gotta get a
CLA on the lens and perhaps a recoat of the front element, but when
done, it'll be as good as new. It's not bad now, just some irritating
surface abberations due to age and improper cleaning (no fungus thank
God). That's better shape than I am at the same age. :) Okay - when I
bought this system 7 years ago, I was a Chief Autoparts employee and
newly married - living pretty much hand to mouth. So I got everything in
components as money was available - body here, back there, lens and so
forth. 7 years, 2 kids, 3 mortgages and 2 school loans later I'm still
living hand to mouth, but all the equipment has since paid for itself
over and over, and I'm still getting a component here and there - like
recently a showroom demo autobellows for $900 - it's a solid investment
and the stuff I got 7 years ago is still as good now as it was then
-actually better with maintanance. I'm not a well of patience - I had
hair 7 years ago. :) My Omega45D needs a new bellows - little pinpricks
in the corners of the old one, but everything else is in great condition
- and the lens is cherry. I saved up while in art school doing computer
networking jobs between school, work and homework and bought it off my
instructor along with a Bogen tripod, backs, spot meter, etc... For a
period of time I got little sleep, but now I've got a LF system that has
already paid for itself.
So, I guess it all depends on how you calculate cost vs value. The cost
of anything good is going to be high - any good MF system you get is
going to add up - heck, even 35mm equipment that's worth its salt will
take a chunk out of your wallet in the long run. If you're doing it for
business, then make it pay for itself. Once you recoup your investment,
you'll have a solid and resaleable collection of equipment. I was doing
it for the pleasure of using such a quality system and the images I
could produce and I still made it pay for itself in odd freelance jobs.
I doubt I'll ever sell it - we got hungry for a few of those 7 years and
I still held on to it, so I expect my kids'll end up using the system
later on...
For me, it's been worth the $$, sleepless nights, hard work, pushing a
really patient wife to her limits and more. Your situation or criteria
may be different, so use your own judgement...
Cheers,
Mike
Jim Brick wrote:
RMG wrote:
>
>> I am having trouble justifying the cost of a hassy system. I can deal
>> with the original price of the say a 501 kit, but adding lenses and
>> accessories is frightning.
>
>
> After buying a promotional kit like the 501, you can find many many
> used, and in new condition, lenses and accessories available. Many are
> listed right here on the HUG every Friday. A large portion of my
> camera systems (LF, MF, and 35mm) is made up of used, but not abused,
> equipment. It works the same, and costs a lot less.
>
> Jim
From: "LEO WOLK" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>,
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Lane Prism for Hasselblad
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
The Lane Prism was an 'aftermarket' finder designed for the Hasselblad
1600/1000F cameras before Hasselblad introduced the NC prism. It's only
'real' interest these days is to a collector. As I remember, they are a
'porro prism' design and quite dim.
Good Luck, Leo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Hahn [email protected]>
To: [email protected] [email protected]>
Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: [HUG] Lane Prism for Hasselblad
>A Camera store has a LANE-PRISM SWEDEN for sale, the likes I have never
seen
>before. It seems a rare and probably utterly awkward item when compared to
>the NC-2 (both are 45 degree viewers), but I was wondering what the
>collective wisdom on this viewer is (if any).
>
>Thanks and greetings from sunny Ithaca
>
>Thomas
From: Martin Jangowski [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex Planar Lens vs. Modern Hassy Planar Lens >?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
Lassi Hippel�inen [email protected]> wrote:
> Roland wrote:
>>
>> "Xochitl" [email protected]> wrote
>> > Hey everybody -
>> > just wondering if anyone knew the particulars of the planar lens
>> > design throught the years between my old rolleiflex 3.5 Type 4 75mm
>> > Zeiss Planar, and the modern day Hassy 501c/m 80mm Zeiss
>> > Planar...other than probably an advance in lens coating technology.
>> > Do they have the same sharpness/resolution? Do 16x20 enlargments look
>> > as nice? Any differences in quality/workmanship? Any light shed would
>> > be much appreciated.
>> >
>> > XO
>>
>> See if you can find mention of the number of elements in each lens. If you
>> find the more modern lens has extra elements then the more modern lens
>> should be a better lens since more has been corrected for.
> IIRC, the 3.5 Planar had 5 lenses. First 2.8 Planars had 6. Current 2.8
> Planars have 7.
There is a difference between the TLR Planars and the SLR Planars. The TLR
2.8/80 had always five lenses, the 3.5/75 had in the beginning five lenses
and then six lenses. The TLR lenses don't have to clear the swinging mirror
of a SLR, so the shorter SLR lenses have to be retrofocus lenses, which
is considerably more difficult than a normal lens. I don't know if the
80mm Hasselblad- (or Rollei SLR-) Planar is a retrofocus lens, it may be
borderline.
However, my own cameras show that the Rollei TLR lenses (Planar or Xenotar)
with the 2.8/80 or the 3.5/75 are second to none.
Martin
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex Planar Lens vs. Modern Hassy Planar Lens >?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
Martin Jangowski wrote:
> There is a difference between the TLR Planars and the SLR Planars. The TLR
> 2.8/80 had always five lenses, the 3.5/75 had in the beginning five lenses
> and then six lenses. The TLR lenses don't have to clear the swinging
mirror
> of a SLR, so the shorter SLR lenses have to be retrofocus lenses, which
> is considerably more difficult than a normal lens. I don't know if the
> 80mm Hasselblad- (or Rollei SLR-) Planar is a retrofocus lens, it may be
> borderline.
No. No Planar is a retrofocus design. All double Gauss derivatives.
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
Subject: [HUG] Re: What to sell?
To: [email protected]
Martin wrote:
"Having both an old, but beautiful C 150mm/F4 T* and an almost new CB
160mm/F4.8 I wonder which one to keep? "I am very fond of my old, non-T* C
100mm / 3.5, but now I posses an almost new CB 80/2.8 I wonder which one to
keep?"
Go with modernity, keep the CBs Martin! I own the 80 CB and a 160 CB lenses
and I have been really pleased with them mechanically and optically. Yes,
their (theoretical) MTF performance is a bit less than the 100mm and 150mm
but in the real world will you ever see that that? I say very rarely if ever.
Martin will you do any studio shots with bright backgrounds? If so, the CB
lenses will perform noticeably better in color saturation and shadow detail
than the C lenses, which will be plagued with veiling glare. This is because
the CBs have the superior flare reduction techniques used in the current CFi
and CFE lens line. Unfortunately this problem with the C lenses cannot be
dealt with, ever. Mounting a lens hood on a 100 or 150 C, CT* or CF lens to
attempt compensation for their lower stray light resistance, in this kind of
studio environment, will do nothing because the point light source is not in
the picture or shining directly towards or near the front of the lens. The CB
lenses will remain superior to your C lenses in bright background studio
environments, being noticeably sharper with superior contrast and more color
saturation.
Martin, consider this; your CB lenses were introduced in 1997 and are at
least (depending on your serial #s) 15 to 22 years newer in manufacture than
your 150 CT* and 22 to 29 years newer than your admittedly redoubtable 100 C.
Hasselblad no longer supports repair and spare parts for C lenses, this may
be a concern for you as the years go by. You have already mentioned the
superior ergonomics that CB lenses offer compared to the C lenses. From an
aesthetic point of view the CB lenses are a perfect match for your 501 CM
body. See how the wind knob on the 501 CM and the focus / aperture rings on
the CB lenses match in design. This will give your outfit a cohesive and
modern look that you (and others) will appreciate. From a mechanical design
point of view the CBs have the improved shutter design of the CF line, they
also trail blazed the one piece bayonet mount, superior flare reduction
techniques, more secure PC cord connection and the wear resistant carbon
fiber front filter bayonet of the CFi / CFE lenses.
Keep the CBs Martin but because of your understandable fondness for the 100 C
I think you should keep that lens also or you will regret it later. Sell the
150 you will never miss it after using the 160 CB for a while.
Regards
Doug from Tumwater
From: "Peter Klosky" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Bay 57 - 62mm Step-Up Adapter Q.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
Mike,
This is an easy one. To summarize, the adapter you have was labeled by an outside firm that called what we know as B50 as "Bay 57."
You are correct that the correct Hasselblad label would be "B50." I think what happened is that engineering mindset that went into
copying the Hasselblad B50 ended up measuring 57mm at some point, so they thought it would be better to label it more "clearly" as
Bay 57. At any rate, you are correct that it fits, and that the labels are confusing. When I used B50 Hasselblad C lenses, I found
a lot of utility in the "Bay 57 to 52mm" adapter I had bought, in that it let me use my ring flash, my Cokin filters, etc.
Peter
> I was rooting around in my junk box and found a rubber lens shade that
> was mounted on a Bay 57 - 62mm step-up adapter. On a lark, I tried it on
> my _old_ Hassy chrome C 80mm lens - and it fit! What gives - I thought
> the lens was a Bay 50? It mounts on the inside ring. At least now I can
> use that 62mm polarizer of mine, but I'm a little perplexed...
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
Subject: [HUG] re: flare reduction CB >> CT* >C ??
To: [email protected]
Mr. Monaghan wrote:
"My impression from the press releases was that the newer lenses were mainly
using superior baffling (and lens mount flare spot reductions?) to reduce or
minimize off-axis hot spot (sun..) flare. I don't recall if the coatings were
improved significantly over T* or not?"
Yes, I understand the same as you. I have pasted in two URLs which (I believe
you refer to) that talks more about the subject of the CB/CFi/CFE lenses
performing better than the C, CT*, and CF lenses in high stray light
environments.
http://www.hasselblad.com/press/detail.cgi?old/920654927.txt
http://www.hasselblad.com/articles/flare.html
Doug from Tumwater
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503CW or 203FE
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]>
From: "Charlie Goodwin" [email protected]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002
Hi JM,
The admonition to ease in slowly to a Hassy system is very good advise. The Hasselblad has a much longer learning curve than many of the systems most people start taking pictures with. There are more details to absorb just to start shooting with a Hassy, and just to escape from a whole series of errors that will stop you cold at the start. Just loading film properly, not getting the lens jammed to the body...etc.
Getting the simplest possible Hassy will pay off for you down the road many
times over. You'll be learning to use the Hasselblad, rather than fighting the Hasselblad. No matter if cost is not an objection, as you may be saying, I would stick to the essential system first.
I'm making the assumption as I write, that you are somewhat new to photography in general, and that assumption underlies what I have to say below. If I am off the mark, please accept my apologies, take whatever feels relevant, and ignore the rest.
Like some of the others say, the 500C/500CM cameras, used, etc, with a good used old lens will get you up and running. You will need a light meter.
Get that either in a prism or as a separate hand held meter. I believe you will learn more about shooting with a hand held meter in many cases, but I don't know your previous experience with photography. Maybe you are already comfortable with calculating exposure etc. Could you post what you have done with photography till now? I suspect we can offer more specific information if we know where you have been and what you would like to do in the future with cameras.
Whatever you do, once you have A camera, and ONE lens, and A device to measure light and set exposure..... acquire any further items piece by piece.
Learn each piece before you get the next. The camera habit is addictive. It's so easy to be seduced by the fabulous toys Mr V. Hasselblad produces. So easy that you may be bitten by the urge to have one of everything. Don't give in to that urge quite yet.
Somewhere down the road, you will know the system, and more importantly, you will know what you do, want , and need, and further acquisitions won't sit in a case unused or be shunted off to EBay for me to snap up at half what you paid. I'll be happy, but you will be out money and time better spent elsewhere.
More than anything, get a bare bones system, and shoot as much film through it as you can. Here's the paradox....To photograph as well as you can with MF or any F if the future, make as many mistakes as soon as you can...i.e. shoot a lot. You'll learn faster than any other way. Analyse the stuff that didn't come out the way you planned. Hopefully that will be tons of stuff. Ask the HUG group, or any available "expert" how to get closer to your planned outcome. Be prepared to reshoot over and over to get what you want. Burn film. Ask questions. Wait on getting a big system.
Good luck
Charlie
> Dear List:
>
> I just joined. Since I have no MF knowledge and planning an Hassy system, I
> think here is the place to beg good tips in the system choosing.
>
> First, if you were me and price aside, would you buy mechanical or
> electronic? why?
>
> Many more questions follow upon the body is set.
>
> Thanx,
> JM Shen
Subject: Re: 'blad lens on a view camera lensboard?
From: Bob [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
David Meiland at [email protected] wrote:
Ask Jim Morton at Hasselblad. I have seen something 20 or 30 years ago and
have no idea if it exists still or if someone mounted part of a bellows to a
lensboard.
Also Hervic Zoerkendorfer may have a mount.
Novoflex makes mounts to put a Hasselblad lens on a 35 so the mount is easy
to come by. It comes down to cocking it and tripping it.
> Bob [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Anyone aware of an adapter or other device that would make this
>>> possible?
>
>> How would you fire it and cock it?
>
> Well, ya' see, Bob, that's the point of the post. Are YOU aware of an
> adapter or other device that would make this possible? Presumably such
> a setup would allow winding and firing the lens.
> ---
> David Meiland
> Oakland, California
> http://davidmeiland.com/
>
> **Check the reply address before sending mail
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 'blad lens on a view camera lensboard?
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002
David Meiland wrote:
> Anyone aware of an adapter or other device that would make this
> possible?
No adapter i know of. You know, the Hasselblad lenses don't have enough
coverage to be any good at anthing bigger than 6x6. And when used with 6x6
format, these lenses do not have enough coverage to allow movements. So, as
far as i know, noone has considered such a thing a commercially viable thing
to produce.
You can find an old, non-automatic Hasselblad bellows, take of the front
mount, and put it on a lens board. This will give you the release and
cocking controls needed.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 'blad lens on a view camera lensboard?
From: [email protected] (S. Gordon)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]> wrote:
> Hasselblad lenses don't have enough
> coverage to be any good at anthing bigger than 6x6.
But they would be fine for circular images a la Aaron Rose's 8x8" star
photographs, which were shot with a 35mm lens (!) on a 5x4 view camera.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/news/stone/Images/stone11-12-11.jpg
http://lookinside-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35leqLkvO5NzgSyV79nqJu7OQEhpav
OXiFJAawPJoY4d83lUaJ8INcInRX2Ey1UUPn3NTPSz+fn01JTmYsB7sscrXh/ig7sSDtjuqN
e1pLChHH4n888woP4cRko+WN8we8Q2GL6HIlSCqcmw==
--
[email protected] -- Remove NONOSPAM to reply.
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001
Subject: [HUG] lenses and manufacturing dates
From: Rick Nordin [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
> From: "Frank Filippone" [email protected]>
> To: [email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [HUG] Lenses and numbers
>
> This IS interesting.. Hasselblad traditionally denied being capable of doing
> this.... I wonder if the HUG email is somehow getting over there and being
> regurgitated to us? Or if they have found new information that could assist
> us? Rick Nordin.. do you have any idea?
My experience has been that the factory never kept records of such data for
any length of time nor was much interest ever expressed in this by
outsiders. My inquires were never very fruitful and this was why I went to
the effort of trying to answer the question of "when was this lens made?"
and compiling the (imperfect) table that is in the Hasselblad Compendium.
After the book came out, Torbjorn told me that they used the book as a
reference for many of the questions that they received from Hasselblad users
where historical questions were involved (which I was quite astonished by).
However the dates that Tjorbjorn quoted for two of the three lenses of Pete
Schermerhorn in his response are not the same as are listed in the book, so
perhaps Torbjorn made a special effort (as he often did) to obtain the dates
he provided from another source. I wish he were still with us to ask - he
had a wealth of knowledge and was a very pleasant man.
Rick
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] lenses and manufacturing dates
It is important to remember that the lenses in question are not Hasselblad
products, but Zeiss lenses mounted to fit Hasselblad cameras. Thus, Zeiss
records still exist for these lenses though Zeiss is certainly not very
forthcoming with their material.
Marc
[email protected]
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: AW: [HUG] lenses and manufacturing dates
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001
Marc,
I would not be very optimistic about material for old Zeiss lenses from
Zeiss. When I asked them a few years ago when I had trouble with my old 250
Sonnar they told me that their lens documentarion starts with Ser.-No. 4000
000.
Ulrik
>
> It is important to remember that the lenses in question are not Hasselblad
> products, but Zeiss lenses mounted to fit Hasselblad cameras. Thus, Zeiss
> records still exist for these lenses though Zeiss is certainly not very
> forthcoming with their material.
>
> Marc
>
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film spacing problems... sometimes
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001
David Meiland wrote:
> One of my A12 backs has an occasional film spacing problem. This back was
> bought about 6 months ago serviced immediately by Brad Sherman. I first
> used it quite a few times with Portra 160 and got 12 negs every time. I
> very recently used it with Delta 100 and got 11 (actually 11.5). A previous
> owner of this back filed a couple of tiny notches into the window, so i can
> tell which one is having the problem. I am quite sure I load the film and
> advance it correctly. All my gear is carefully handled and stored. I should
> probably just send the back in for re-servicing, but it bugs me. Is film
> spacing that difficult to adjust, or that easy to knock out of adjustment?
> Do film backing papers and base thicknesses vary enough to make a big
> difference? Anyone else battled this problem?
Apparently Ilford films do this. Nothing wrong with the back.
A quote from a recent discussion on Photo.net:
"I pulled out my 501CM manual. Page 10 under magazine tips -
"Align the arrow on the paper backing of all Illford black & white films
against the oblong index (and no further) on the spool clamp bar and not the
triangular index as normal."
I pulled out my new style A12 back a found the red oblong index. It is
located on the upper left edge of the spool clamp. If it were a clock and
the triangular index is 12 o'clock, the oblong index is at 10 o'clock.
Therefore, if you have an older style back line the paper arrows at 10
o'clock. "
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>,
[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] Film spacing problems... sometimes
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001
> Apparently Ilford films do this. Nothing wrong with the back.
>
> A quote from a recent discussion on Photo.net:
>
> "I pulled out my 501CM manual. Page 10 under magazine tips -
> "Align the arrow on the paper backing of all Illford black & white films
> against the oblong index (and no further) on the spool clamp bar
> and not the
> triangular index as normal."
>
> I pulled out my new style A12 back a found the red oblong index. It is
> located on the upper left edge of the spool clamp. If it were a clock and
> the triangular index is 12 o'clock, the oblong index is at 10 o'clock.
>
> Therefore, if you have an older style back line the paper arrows at 10
> o'clock. "
Hi Q.G.,
Yes, but that's BAD information. It's the TAKE-UP SPOOL that matters, not
the film. If you have an Ilford take-up spool, the information is correct,
if you have Ilford film, and a Kodak take-up spool, the information is
incorrect/misleading.
Austin
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001
Subject: [HUG] Re: Response to Medium format life expectancy, Does = "Cameracide?"
To: [email protected]
[email protected] wrote, in part:
The eventual switch to digital in the larger sizes is still only "a better
and more flexible way to record images." We're not talking about a cure for
cancer or a faster way to get to the moon. Recording images is a very small
part of activity by a very small number of people, worldwide and relatively
speaking.
No one in this thread has really addressed the economic "impact" (granted,
trivial after 9/11 and in the overall scheme of life) on those few of us
fortunate enough to own, use, buy, sell, trade, etc., our beloved Hasselblad
systems. I have heard much talk, particularly at local camera shows, of the
dropping prices (e.g., in the real world, eBay, etc.) caused by the digital
"revolution." For example, a 40 CF FLE, mint in box seen recently at a local
camera show, reduced to an asking price of $2200 from $2700. The rationale
from the known high priced reseller? "No one is buying medium format
anymore" said the disgruntled dealer with an air of dismissing
authoritativeness. We all know that people are buying medium format but I
wonder if this is an unjustified panic response? Will we end users benefit?
Certainly we have all enjoyed the resale value of our Swedish black boxes and
their attendant components when upgrading and/or adding on. Certainly, this
is not a heavy point in light of the overall scheme of things in the world
today and is relevant, as [email protected] said, to only a very small part of
activity by a very small number of people, worldwide and relatively speaking.
Nonetheless, it seems to affect those of us in that apparently dwindling
minority and as such, I wonder how others feel about digital's potential
economic impact on the value of our equipment now and in the years to come.
Happy holidays and peace to all of you. Thanks for the great threads
throughout the year!
RL Demsey
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
From: Mike Kirwan [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] New User Question
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Spiky:
Started out with a similar system and I believe your lens has a B50 fitting
I found Hasselblad and 3rd party B50 filters quite pricey. So I bought a B50
to 52mm adaptor for $18.00 and used my existing B&W and Hoya filters, worked
just fine and still use it today.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Spike [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] New User Question
I have an old 500C with a silver Carl Zeiss 80mm lense. Can anyone tell me
more about this lense? I've heard of the term Bay 50, 60..that supposedly
describes the connection. Which of these is mine? I 'd like to get some
filter for B/W work, but have no idea how to get one.
Thanks ahead for replying.
Spiky
To: [email protected]>
From: "Kelvin Lee" [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Subject: [camera-fix] Fw: [russiancamera] Modify a Kiev 88 back for Hasselblad
For info, and do at your own risk!
----- Original Message -----
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002
Subject: [russiancamera] Modify a Kiev 88 back for Hasselblad
>
> Hi, group,
>
> A Chinese Kiev 88 and Hasselblad 503cxi owner Yu said he has modified
> the Kiev 88 back for use on his 503cxi and has been very pleased to
> find a low cost replacement for the very expensive Hass A12 backs
> (RMB6,000.-). It is a easy job. Just take off the film gate from the
> back and file off about 1mm metal from each side of the gate and put
> it back and it is done. The film plane remain unchanged and gears are
> engaged to the Hasselblad body.
>
> He also took off the engaging gear from the Kiev 88 back to avoid
> putting too much stress on the Hass body.
>
> This is not a recommendation but just FYI.
>
>
> Zhang
From: -= H.=- [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping hassy prices was Re: To go digital or not to go digital?
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
[email protected] says...
> comments? ;-) bobm
1992 - 1 USD = 6 SKR (Swedish Krona)
2001 - 1 USD = 11 SKR
--
/H�kan
N.B.: Invalid e-mailaddress
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]>
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Non Contax Advice From Hasselblad Users
you wrote:
>It's not because they cannot sell them, they have a very large display
>directly next to the Hasselblad display.
Hasselblad is by far a better known brand for those customers contemplating
an initial move to med format. Contax's advertising & marketing budget is a
pittance compared to Hasselblad's Hasselblad has the benefit of being
known as Nasa's camera system as well as the system for many
fashion/advertising photographers. Heck, it was featured on the cover of an
Elvis Costello album. Hasselblad offers half a dozen bodies, dozens of
lenses, and every imaginable sort of accessory. Contax offers one body and
7 lenses.
None of this relates to either system's ability to product quality images
nor to the remarkable degree of automation with Contax offers. It's marketing.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: [email protected] (RITTER2001)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Newbie question on storing Hasselblad lenses
The fact is, the lenses don't care if you store them cocked or uncocked. If
there is a preference, it is to store them cocked so they are always ready to
be mounted. This information comes directly from Hasselblad's Senior Service
Manager.
From: [email protected] (TW406)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Finding a bad lens for a good camera
Mark Tucker, a professional photographer in Nashville I believe has done some
fabulous shots with his homemade "plungercam" (he calls it) where he adapted a
loupe as a lens to his Hasselblad. Also a section describing his modifications.
Website is www.marktucker.com I think
Love his work, very natural and alive.
I just got an old Polaroid cheapy with a plastic lens I'm going to try and
adapt to my Speed Graphic with a 120 back.
[Ed. note - the idea of a rubber plunger on a hassy lens mount plus junk lens is unusual, but very fun and interesting application! ;-) ]
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon
Mark,
the 38mm Biogon is as popular some 46 years down the pike because the optics
are superb. Sharpness across the frame is unequalled.
Here's a shot with it:
http://members.aol.com/Edgy01/HassySWC.JPG
While this particular shot was a "snapshot" (handheld, spur of the moment), I
generally treat it as a viewcamera and use the groundglass screen, tripod and
all that. Little distortion for those used to working with wide angle lenses.
(This image was CONSIDERABLY reduced from the 75MB file I scanned awhile back
this year).
This is what Zeiss optics are all about!
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: 500cm
From: Per [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
The 501C has no gliding mirror; the current 501CM has. So a 501C is even
more like a 500C/M in use. You can swap screens, finders, lenses, and backs
between them; the winding crank is non-removable on the 501, however. The
shutter release button and the quick-coupling plate are different (both can
use the old quick-coupling, but the 500C/M cannot use the new one). Apart
from this, you will be hard put to see or feel any difference.
Per
> Fr=E5n: "Peter Klosky" [email protected]>
> Svara till: [email protected]
> Datum: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
> Till: "hasselblad" [email protected]>
> =C4mne: Re: 500cm
>=20
> Yes, the 500cm is very similar to the 501c. The 500cm is like the origin=
al
> 500c, except that it has user changeable screens. The 501c adds the
> "gliding mirror" which improves telephoto viewing, if memory serves. I have
> a pair of 500cm bodies and use them often with both C lenses and CF lenses.
> Backs and prisms also fit this body easily, unlike the motor driven bodies,
> which are a little harder to fit.
>
>> What's a 500cm? can I use it as a back-up for a 501C?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 500cm
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
Peter Klosky wrote:
> Yes, the 500cm is very similar to the 501c. The 500cm is like the
original
> 500c, except that it has user changeable screens. The 501c adds the
> "gliding mirror" which improves telephoto viewing, if memory serves.
Alas, not so. It was the 501 CM that got the GMS. The 501 C had the old
style mirror, exactly the same as the 500 C and C/M.
> I have
> a pair of 500cm bodies and use them often with both C lenses and CF
lenses.
> Backs and prisms also fit this body easily, unlike the motor driven
bodies,
> which are a little harder to fit.
Harder to fit? How do you mean? All Hasselblads, motordriven or not, are the
same in this respect, are they not?
From: Barry S. [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
After examining the new MTF curves vs. the old ones, it does appear
that the CFi performance is slightly lower. Unfortunately, I don't
have the old curves for light falloff and distortion; have those
changed as well? Of course the acid test will be actual comparisons
between the old and new versions. If there is no difference under
real shooting conditions, the MTF curves are only of academic
interest.
Barry S.
>
>According to Zeiss' very own MTF curves: no, it doesn't. The old C and CF
>Biogon is better!
>
>The change in glass apparently was done because of environmental reasons
>(not so much concerning ecology as worker safety and health). The change in
>glass properties (however small) made a recalculation of the optical formula
>a necessity. Though still very good, according to the (measured!) MTF-curves
>the recalculated Biogon is not quite as good as the old one.
>
From: "Ken Hurst" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: view finder problems
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
Hi Shooter guy
Others will probably jump in on this too, but this problem seems to be an
inherent problem with all 500 series Hasselblad prior to the 503CW model
when using longer focal length lenses. On these models the mirror cannot
evenly illuminate the entire field. The CW models have the "gliding mirror
system" which is supposed to fix this problem with longer lenses. I think I
am right on the details of this - I'm sure someone will correct me if this
isn't the right diagnosis. When I was shopping for a 500 series body I read
as much as I could about the differences in the 500C through 503CW models
and I think this "gliding mirror" thing is the only difference between a
503CXi and a 503CW. I decided to buy a 503CW model; however, I don't have
any longer lenses so I can't really speak from first hand experience. But I
hope this helps in your search for the cause of the dark screen.
Ken Hurst
----- Original Message -----
From: "A Shooter" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001
Subject: view finder problems
| folks,
|
| I have brought this up before, but I thought I might double check...
| For about a month now I have been shooting with my 503CXi. At one
| point I thought the focus might be off, but now I really think it
| was me. On the other hand, a problem I notice as soon as I put my
| 150 CT* on the camera is the darking at the top of the view finder.
| I bought the Beattie screen that has the lines in it for 8x10.
| This darking is a gradual thing that starts at the top and goes
| all the way down to the horizontal line on the screen. Ofcourse,
| it drives me nuts!
|
| First off, does anyone know what migh be causing this problem?
| I see that Dick Werner sells a manual on both film backs and
| on the bodies. Can I fix this myself with the manual? Considering
| I bought all the equipment used, should I simply bight the bullet
| and send it off to Hasselbald to get a full check-up?
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: view finder problems
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
The peripheral rays of the cone of light that exit the lens (when it's wide
open) are not all reflected by the too-small mirror. The newer bodies have a
mirror that doesn't just pivot down to the latch, it pivots down, as is
familiar, and then slides lower parallel with it's surface into the latch
position (effectively MAKING IT LONGER) to intercept the rays that exit the
bottom of the cone (top of picture and screen). When you release the shutter
it slides back up as it pivots so as not to slam into the lens and/or body.
It's actually an elegant, trouble-free mechanism that does it's job very
well. I suspect that Hasselblad engineers had no way of knowing they would
have to eventually modify their 500 series bodies to fix a problem that they
couldn't have possibly known about until the faster, improved, larger exit
cone long lenses were designed. Since everything in photography is a
compromise of one kind or another, it was the gliding mirror or bigger,
longer, heavier bodies. Not a difficult choice in my opinion.
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: 11 Photos on A12 Backs
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
> Is there anything that is really "adjustable" on an A12 back? I thought
> most problems with these was fixed by just lubrication and cleaning, that
> nothing is really adjustable...
There are several adjustments on A-12 backs. It is imperative that the film
winder and the counter stop at precisely at the same time. This affects the
spacing between the first and second frame. Also...on the newer backs there
is an adjustment for the "0" stop (where the counter disc rests without the
magazine inserted) on the counter. This adjusts the leader length. There is
also the long return spring that can, in some cases, lose it's tension
making things iffy. That's about it for adjustments.
Inconsistent spacing, film dragging, weird, expensive noises, jamming, not
stopping on "1", and many others are reasons for getting the lil' bugger
cleaned, lubed and adjusted. If it costs more than $60 you're getting
charged too much no matter who does the work. Several parts are prone to
wear. There are only 12 parts or so that need acute attention but they NEED
that attention.
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: 11 Photos on A12 Backs clarification!!
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Honest!!
Real adjustments with three screws riding in curved, elongated slots that
control when the winder lever stops. Hopefully, EXACTLY when the counter
wheel gets to "1" as indicated by the white ready-flag making it's
appearance.
As for the "0" stop...when you remove the magazine the counter wheel spins
back to it's start position. That start position is (the older backs don't
have this adjustment) nothing but a pin on the bottom side of the counter
film stop wheel (forgive the weird terms but these parts really don't have
descriptive part names, I have to make them up) that comes to rest against a
pivoting lever whose adjustment is an eccentric collar with a hold down
screw. Hope this helps.
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
> From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001
> To: [email protected]>
> Subject: RE: 11 Photos on A12 Backs
>
>>> Is there anything that is really "adjustable" on an A12 back? I thought
>>> most problems with these was fixed by just lubrication and
>> cleaning, that
>>> nothing is really adjustable...
>>
>> There are several adjustments on A-12 backs. It is imperative
>> that the film
>> winder and the counter stop at precisely at the same time.
>
> Is that an adjustment, or is that just correct assembly? Perhaps I'm being
> too literal with the word "adjustment". To me, correct assembly or
> bent/worn parts replacement isn't an "adjustment".
>
> I guess bending springs/plates can be considered an adjustment...but I
> really meant intentionally made to be adjustable...like an automobile front
> end alignment. It sounds like the "0" stop you mentioned may be a
> purposeful adjustment. How is that done?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss 250 Sonnar vs 250 apo for Hasselblad
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001
rubber ducky wrote:
> Is the gain great enough to show in a 16x16 or 20x20? If you have
> used both, what are your opinions?
You must mean the Superachromat. There is no Zeiss 250 mm apochromat that i
know.
A Superachromat is quite a bit better than even an Apochromat.
Yes, the Sonnar-Superachromat is the better lens of the two by far.
But when using such a lens you must take the necessary precautions: use a
solid tripod, take extreme care when focussing, use a good film, etc. If you
don't you might as well use the ordinary Sonnar.
And yes, the gain shows even in smaller prints.
I had the opportunity to try the Superachromat once, and am still saving up
to get one myself.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 250 Sonnar vs. 250 apo
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001
bradleya wrote:
>> Just wondering if, through use, any have made a switch from the 250
Sonnar to the apo version?
As i mentioned in another place, there is no Apo version of the 250 mm.
There is a Sonnar-Superachromat 250 mm. Superachromats are even better than
apo's.
>> My largest prints are an occasional 16X16 or 20X20. Most are 8X8 and
12X12. About 95% of what I do is on Cibachrome using 100asa Kodak and Fuji
films. The few I make with print film is 160 asa.
I have a 180 Sonnar and I am greatly satisfied with it, but I am thinking
about something with just at bit more reach.
For my needs and style, the 350 and 500 are a tad too long.
Is the price difference that justifiable limiting print sizes to the ones I
have mentioned?
Any comments or observations will be greatly appreciated.
The 250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat surely is a sublime lens. But you'll need to
adopt a very precise style of working to gain the full benefit of its
marvelous quality. In 'normal' use, you will see a difference between it and
the 180 mm, but not a lot. Yet, if you put it on a solid tripod, etc. it
will blow you away.
It is certainly better than the ordinary 250 mm Sonnar and 250 mm
Tele-Tessar. And quite visibly better too.
So if 350 mm is too long, 180 mm too short and you want a perfect lens, yes,
the Sonnar-Superachromat is worth every penny.
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 250 Sonnar vs. 250 apo
>(SNIP)
>
> The 250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat surely is a sublime lens. But you'll need to
> adopt a very precise style of working to gain the full benefit of its
> marvelous quality. In 'normal' use, you will see a difference between it and
> the 180 mm, but not a lot. Yet, if you put it on a solid tripod, etc. it
> will blow you away.
>
> It is certainly better than the ordinary 250 mm Sonnar and 250 mm
> Tele-Tessar. And quite visibly better too.
> So if 350 mm is too long, 180 mm too short and you want a perfect lens, yes,
> the Sonnar-Superachromat is worth every penny.
>
>
Strangely on the Hasselblad site the Sonnar-Superachromat is referred to on
it's page and elsewhere as the "SA". Nowhere do they tell you now what "SA"
means! And this is a CF lens not a CFI! I was told by and unreliable source that
the Tele-Tessar for the 200 system stacks up well against the
Sonnar-Superachromat (or SA). The diagrams of the lens elements don't' inspire
such confidence for me. Boy the SA used to cost around 3 grand! Then one year
they casually doubled that price! But I never had a spare 3 grand that year anyway!
Mark Rabiner
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 12 exp roll in a 24 exp mag?
I've done this numerous times. And actually gotten 12 exposures. The first
seven or eight exposures are spaced OK. Eight through twelve start spacing
more and more between frames (the take-up roll having film AND paper makes
a larger circumference and moves more film with each wind.) You won't be
able to put the negs in a Printfile sleeve as the last two frames are way
out there.
Other than that... it works fine. You just have to remember to either count
exposures or keep looking at the frame counter and stop at 12.
Jim
Peter Rosenthal wrote:
>Peter-
>Nobody has ever asked me this before but theoretically it should work.
>Frankly, I'm curious. You will get large frame spacing and will have to
>modify the films start position, but it should work. This might be good
>common knowledge for everyone to store away in their heads. Just in case!!
>
>Let me see... I don't have a test roll with me (at home, I'm trying to do
>these gymnastics in my head) at the moment but I'd do this. Remove the back
>from the camera first and remove the dark slide. Load a roll of 120 in your
>A-12 (I'll assume you're using an A-12 and not the older 12 backs with the
>porthole) and wind to the start arrow as usual. The goal here is to turn the
>crank while COUNTING winder lever turns until the leader and a good first
>frame spacing go dancing across the frame aperture. If the counter stops at
>1 before you see film, use a toothpick from your Swiss army knife (don't use
>wood or you may need to have wood removed from the back) to poke the counter
>release arm in the lower hole in the back faceplate to get yourself the
>white flag (how metaphoric!) and continue counting winder rotations. If you
>get to the film way before the counter stops you'll need to modify your
>"arrow" position.
>
>Now that you know how many winder turns you need to get to the first frame,
>you can duplicate it every time. Keep in mind frame spacing will be fairly
>large which means you probably won't get 12 frames, probably. If you like to
>keep the back on the camera when loading film you may need to release the
>shutter during the wind just to get past the 1 on your counter. But it's
>the winder turns you need to know.
>
>I'll try this at work today and give you a report tonight of my findings but
>I suspect someone will beat me to it. I hope they share it with the
>group!!!
>Peter
>--
>Peter Rosenthal
>PR Camera Repair
>111 E. Aspen #1
>Flagstaff, AZ 86001
>928 779-5263
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Aaron Wallace [email protected]>
Subject: Re: CB Mythogenic
>>> Q.G.de Bakker wrote in the thread "I can't believe it":
>"The quality (ahum...) of the CB lenses, to pick another example, too is
>very apparent in your pictures. [...]"
I think the issue is not that there is a difference between the CB lenses
and C/CF lenses, but if it in fact the difference manifested by the CB
lenses is "very apparent" in the pictures that typical Hasselblad users
take in the field. If I recall, Dr. Fleischer found the differences using
a very fine-grain emulsion and enlarging the print to 4' square. The
picture was of a test pattern, taken under controlled circumstances. I'd
bet that if you were to take identical pictures with comparable C/CF and CB
lenses in normal shooting circumstances and hold the
negatives/transparencies side-by-side, the difference would not at all be
"very apparent". You'd probably find more variation trying to take the
exact same shot twice with the *same* 500-series lens and camera (film
flatness, leaf shutter speed variation, vibration, wind, subject movement,
focus accuracy, and everything else that conspires to ruin the perfect
photograph...)
This reminds me of the unfortunate reputation that the Contax G 35mm lens
has--yes, it's the worst lens in the G lineup (there has to be one in any
lineup), but it's still a fine optic, better than almost any SLR lens on
the market. Ditto for the CB lenses, they're perhaps not the best that
Zeiss/Hasselblad offers, but they're still take very nice pictures.
--------------------
Aaron Wallace
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] Is it really worth the $$
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
There is one other issue that should be addressed (that hasn't been) when
considering spending a LOT of money for a camera. Quality. Not just
photographic quality but the quality of what you hold in your hands. As
someone who sees the guts of a lot of equipment, I can tell you that you can
pick any part of a Hassy at random and it will be great stuff! Sometimes
the design can be quirky (we call it personality) but there is NEVER any
compromise in materials or construction. The backplate of the bodies are
not stamped pieces of mystery metal (are you listening Bronica?), they are
machined out of a solid piece of aluminum. Brass, steel, stainless steel,
aluminum and springwire, all where they belong and where they do the best.
The design of the bodies are as simple as they can possibly be. No more
parts (are you listening Mamiya?) than you'd want. This is why, except for
variable market forces, you can get your money back out of them for the most
part. Even 30 years from now. They tend to be short on features but only to
keep the cost down, me thinks. The aperture control mechanism on the CF
lenses is a real thing of beauty. Sliding rings, cams, spring-loaded levers,
microadjustments, things really fit well...makes me giddy thinking about it.
One other thing. If I do my job well, they do their job well. No bending
thin metal parts (are you listening Pentax 6X7?) to make them work as
designed. What do we actually own that is made this well? I can't think of
much. At least in my house.
Something to think about?!...
Peter
--
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: AF or focus confirmation?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> My understanding from rollei user group postings is that the AF camera
> does use the older lenses
Just so nobody misunderstands: you can indeed use the old, non-AF lenses,
but it isn't an AF camera when you do.
If you really want/need AF, you will have to invest not only in the new
body, but in a new set of lenses too.
> I don't know how long it will be before the other 2 competitors announce
> their AF variants, or if they decide to hold off given the recession and
> drop in demand for medium format (esp. in Japan). They may be holding off
> to reduce stock so they aren't stuck with lots of old model cameras. For
> example, hasselblad's 40% drop in prices on the high end 20x series bodies
> might make more sense in this context, yes?
You seem to think that Hasselblad is amongst those planing to introduce AF
technology, even a fully fledged AF system. I'm not so sure that they will.
But if they do, they must have invested huge amounts in it already, so i
don't think it would be wise to wait too long.
Apropos the drop in price(s): as far as i know it was one item only, the 203
Fe camera body (and in the U.S. only. Haven't seen a similar reduction over
here in Europe. Yet?). So what do you know more that makes you mention it in
plural?
> [...] But I would be surprised
> if we didn't have at least 3 AF 6x6cm models by this time next year,
It has been asked several times already: what makes you so confident, what
do you know, what have you heard. Please share!
> if only because the other competitors can't wait now that rollei has
jumped
> in (and zeiss has got the lenses to meet their and rollei's standards..).
Perhaps the wise thing Rollei's competitors should do is sit back and see
how Rollei's adventures into the realm of AF MF go. For most photographers
switching MF system is a costly affair, not done lightly, so the other
manufacturers can wait until their customers start complaining about why
they can't have AF from their chosen brand, i.e. wait until they actually
know there is a market for such things.
I personally don't think demand for AF is very large in (professional) MF
photography. It would perhaps be good in wedding photography, but i can't
think what other branch of MF-photography would benefit. And i'm cautiously
convinced that one of the reasons why Contax chose 6x4.5 as format for their
AF camera is that somehow this format has more appeal to photographers
considering stepping up from 35 mm. These photographers usually have a
different approach to MF photography than the ones using the "classic" MF
systems. So i think it is a very daring move on the part of Rollei to try
and market an AF 6008. Too daring perhaps. But i suspect that they are more
pushed into taking such a gamble by shrinking MF markets than the other
brands. Their piece of the MF-cake always has been a bit smaller than that
of Mamiya and/or Hasselblad.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1423
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001
Steven Baker wrote:
> What is the essential difference between C an CF lenses?
Apart from optical design, just about everything.
Different shutters: C lenses have a Synchro-Compur, CF lenses a Prontor
Shutter disengagement: the lens shutter in CF lenses can be disengaged so
the lens works as if it were a shutterless F lens with focal plane shutter
Hasselblad cameras (hence the "F" added to the "C" designation).
Shutterspeed-aperture interlock: You have to actively disengage this on C
lenses, and engage it on CF lenses.
Depth of field scales: C lenses have two pointers, moving when aperture
setting is changed. CF lenses have a printed scale.
Depth of field preview: when engaged on C lenses the aperture says shut
until you either fire the shutter or set the aperture to its maximum
aperture. On CF lenses the aperture shuts and opens again at the flick of a
switch.
Filter bayonet: C lenses take bayonet 50 accessories, CF lenses larger
bayonet 60 accessories.
Ergonomics: C lenses have narrow knurled metal rings, CF lenses have more
comfortable rings, and rubber surface on the focussing ring.
Apropos optical design: in the transition from C to CF the 40 mm and 500 mm
lenses actually were redesigned. The 120 mm CF lens gained a stop (went from
f/5.6 to f/4).
From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev lens on Hasselblad body
Date: 18 Jan 2002
Stephe [email protected]> wrote:
> This isn't good. From reading the kiev list at delphi, the rear filter is
> part of the optical design and the lens is soft if used with no rear
> filter. They recomend to ALWAYS use at least the clear/UV filter for this
> reason. I haven't tested this but other who I trust have.
Yes, the rear 'compensator' (clear glass filter) is an essential
part of the optical design and may never be omitted! (as stated
by the manufacturer.)
So this is _no_ good idea, getting a matching Kiev body is much
better and easier (anyway, nobody will carry a fish-eye always
and erverywhere, so the weight addition will not matter that
much).
Hartmut
--
Remove all numbers from email address to reply directly.
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
Date: 18 Jan 2002
from a hassy list pointer by Akhil Lal:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001tUS
quote:
The MF market in the US was down 50% during 2001. Hasselblad sales down
30% in the US. - USA is 20% of Hasselblad's total market. - Sales in
Europe down 10%, and the total MF market in Europe also down 10%.
and
Hasselblad's management don't think the company can survive on its own,
looking for someone to buy them.
end-quote:
see URL for details - thanks, Akhil for pointer...
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Anti-twist for Hasselblad 500CM?
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
David Meiland wrote:
> Can anyone point me to a good piece of hardware to prevent twisting of
> the 500CM body, hopefully on the Bogen hex QR plates? I've got two
> heads that use these plates and would like to avoid switching heads,
> but the dinky piece of cork they mount on the plates has long since
> smeared off, and never worked anyway. If the plate had a couple of
> raised ribs on it to mate with the plate on the bottom of the body, it
> would be ideal. The problem is worse with the 500mm C lens, which has
> a round protrusion on the bottom for the tripod mount. Any ideas?
Get a piece of hard rubber about 1/8 inces (3mm), drill a 5/16 inch (8mm)
hole, cut to size, and glue it to the tripod plate. That's what I did on
my old Marchioni Tiltall. It's been on it for for more than 20 years now.
Gene Pallat
From: "Daniel Taylor" [email protected]>
To: "Hasselblad Users Group" [email protected]>
Subject: re: Kiev vs hasselbald prisms
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001
> I have noticed that with the 150,
the top of the viewfinder gets dark.
this is normal for lenses longer than 100mm when
using older Hasselblad cameras without the newer
GMS (gliding mirror system). it is very noticeable
with the 180mm lens, however the vignetting does
not effect the film image.
focusing a Hasselblad can be difficult and
problematic without the proper eyepiece corrections.
the new PME45 has a diopter adjustment and the
view through the viewfinder is crystal clear. it
is really quite marvelous how Hasselblad's seem
to put you into the image. I recently configured
one of my cameras for lightweight travel, and needed
to buy the -2 diopter correction lens for the
magnifying hood. this made all the difference in
accurate focusing. it is critical, in my opinion,
that the image you see when you compose and focus,
is of the quality that allows you to feel connected
emotionally with the subject. this improves your
photography, and you should take the requisite steps
to make this connection happen.
hug your Hasselblad ...
From: Jim Williams [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
Can anyone give me some input?
I've been interested in getting a Hasselblad 500 series for some time.
I'm not a wedding photographer, but like shooting scenics and
portraits. (I'm not a professional, either.)
I like the 6x6 format and the Zeiss lenses, but I've read on photo.net
(particularly by Phillip Greenspun), that Hasselblads aren't very
reliable. He intimates that they need a lot of adjusting and
maintenance (going in the shop), etc.
Is this true? Are they as reliable as Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax 67, Fuji,
etc.?
Are the lenses that much better than, say, Pentax 67?
Thanks for any help. I'd really like to put my mind at ease.
Jim
From: "eMeL" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
Jim Williams [email protected]> wrote
> I've been interested in getting a Hasselblad 500 series for some time.
> I'm not a wedding photographer, but like shooting scenics and
> portraits. (I'm not a professional, either.)
>
> I like the 6x6 format and the Zeiss lenses, but I've read on photo.net
> (particularly by Phillip Greenspun), that Hasselblads aren't very
> reliable. He intimates that they need a lot of adjusting and
> maintenance (going in the shop), etc.
>
> Is this true? Are they as reliable as Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax 67, Fuji,
> etc.?
IMO Greenspun sometimes tells emotional stories of utter misery or joy with
very little factual information. I read him just like you should read this
message - with a barrel of salt {g} He fancies the "working pro" approach
with lots of use and abuse of the equipment, hence his conclusions. Every
camera requires repairs and adjustments under such conditions. OTOH I tend
to baby my equipment...
Before switching to Rolleiflex 6008i a couple of years ago, I had been a
long time Hassy user (since the 70s) and had very little problems with the
equipment other that doing stupid things, such as dropping a magazine on a
hardwood floor or sitting on the dark slide...
My transitional 500C - 500C/M camera (ca. 1973) never needed any
adjustments. The 500CM (1980(?)) developed a slight light leak in the
body-magazine coupling and was adjusted 3 times in 10 years but I was using
it every day...the 150 Sonnar's shutter was adjusted a couple of times and
the aperture ring on my 50 mm lens stopped working once. I jammed the body
once or twice and bent the filter ring of the 80 mm lens once. I had once a
mysterious breakdown on the 500 EL/M - the camera would fire only every
other press of the shutter, but it went away all by itself (was it
moisture..?) Well..that's about it - these were all my problems between 1974
and 1998.
For scenics and portraits you should be fine and your camera may never need
any adjustments or repairs! You may want to pick up a cheap, beat up extra
body (just in case - for all these times when your main body jams in the
middle of the Mojave desert) but treat is as an added insurance.
>
> Are the lenses that much better than, say, Pentax 67?
>
De gustibus...Zeiss lenses are very contrasty (with some exceptions...) bat
both Pentax and Zeiss are very sharp.
Good shooting!
Michael
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
I've had a fairly complete Hasselblad system for about 2 years and
have had occasion to have several repairs made. All of my gear was
bought used, and as far as I know, someone could have used it
professionally for 25 years before I got it. However, I have
-had 2 out of 3 A12 backs serviced for film spacing after having
maddening intermittent problems with overlap. One back required 2
attempts to make the repair right.
-had 1 out of 1 A16 back serviced to correct the function of the film
status signals.
-had a 500CM body fail to function correctly during a long trip. It
stopped closing the rear shutters completely after exposure, and
required removal of the back and a little prodding with a finger to
get them shut. I got all the shots I wanted, but had a repair bill
afterwards.
-had a C lens fail to time long exposures correctly. A CLA corrected
this.
-had ZERO problems with CF lenses. Mine are fairly old, I believe, and
work flawlessly.
-had zero light leaks in spite of how many I have heard of from
others.
Now, I use my cameras a lot, particularly on the road, and have had
lots of repairs made to other makes and models, also old and used.
However, I would not go to any important shoot without a couple of
spare Hassy backs, a spare body, and enough lenses to get me through.
The stuff will break and when it does you can't probably fix it
yourself. Fortunately, there is Brad.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
**Check the reply address before sending mail
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: 12 Aug 2001
if you use current hasselblads all the time, and have them annually
serviced as most heavy users esp. pros do, then they are very reliable...
if you use older models and if you don't use them very often, like maybe
for an annual trip, it is easy to forget all the details of operation.
Some of the early 500C models have greater tendency to hang-up and require
use of a tool/coin to unjam see unjamming hassys (3 pages listed at
mf/cameras.html - e.g., http://photoweb.net/pw_tech/hassy_unjam.html )
similarly, rarely used lenses may gum up lubricants etc. The biggest
errors are user errors in loading film and so on (film run thru paper side
up so no exposures etc.). On the older backs you have to do some tasks
like resetting counter which are easy to forget if not often used etc.
Again, a later auto-series back would eliminate this glitch too, but if
you buy an older model as an entry level kit, there are more issues to
mess up and chances for user errors so it varys by model and how much you
use them or like reading manuals before infrequent uses ;-)
Felts on the backs also wear out if you constantly pop in and out the dark
slide (and the slides should be black so they don't reflect light into the
back and onto film when this starts to happen, aargh! ;-). or if you store
the backs with the dark slide in and compress felts etc.
the 500EL and EL/M have issues with battery charging, memory of cells etc.
as well as possible glitches in settings during charging, confusing
control labels (now which one locks mirror up for single shots? hmm? ;-)
personally, I've had more CLAs done on my hassys and glitches than with
bronica S2 or Kowa or other medium format rigs which get similar use; most
of this is due to having an earlier 500C vs later transitional or 500C/M
no camera system is perfect, nor perfectly reliable; nor foolproof; you
should be able to list some of the problems and missing features etc. of
any camera system as well as the advertised features and benefits - see
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gindex.html for sample pros and cons by
pro photographer Danny Gonzalez to see a great example of such a
listing...
HTH bobm
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
Jim Williams wrote:
> Is this true? Are they as reliable as Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax 67, Fuji,
> etc.?
Mr. Greenspun spins some ripping yarns. None of it is true.
If you don't use your Hasselblad professionally, and thus put relatively few
films through them (yet still quite a lot), they will work for 30 and more
years without even needing servicing. Ever.
And even if you do thoroughly put them through their paces, they probably
still outlive any of the brands you mention above. 30 year old, perfectly OK
Hasselblads are very abundant. You can't say the same about Fuji's or
Pentax's, can you?
> Are the lenses that much better than, say, Pentax 67?
They are extremely good.
The differences between the Zeiss lenses and the other top brands'
top-of-the-range lenses however are very small. So small in fact that it
would be very difficult to decide which one makes the better lens. So
nothing to worry about.
> Thanks for any help. I'd really like to put my mind at ease.
You can't go wrong buying Hasselblad.
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: 14 Aug 2001
Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:
>
>Felts on the backs also wear out if you constantly pop in and out the dark
>slide (and the slides should be black so they don't reflect light into the
Yeah, but then you can't use them for fill reflectors in macro work.
And no, I'm not kidding.
Steve
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Non Contax Advice From Hasselblad Users
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
Austin Franklin wrote:
> Blads are comparatively
> slow, mechanical, difficult to learn to use properly, and expensive.
Er, huh? The only one I agree with is expensive, but compared to a Contax
645, they are not. The are mechanical in the sense that any camera is
mechanical...but the 203/205 etc. have amazing electronics in them.
Absolutely superb. They are NOT slow. If someone is slow with one, they
are using it wrong, period!
As far as difficult to learn to use properly...well, I disagree there too.
Once you learn how to hold a Hasselblad correctly (that's as difficult as
it
>gets IMO), everything else is very very easy.
Clarifications are in order:
While not expensive compared to the Contax 645, Mechanical Hassies are
certainly expensive in comparison to the Mamiya and Pentax 645's, and even
to the Mamiya RZ67. As for the electronic versions, see below.
Yes, the 203/205 are electronic; however, to one who could barely afford a
used 500cm outfit, a camera that costs $7K with 1 lens and a back is way
out of my league. The only Hassies I've owned (a 500c and the current
500cm), are fully mechanical. IMHO, that's one of their main virtues. My
CM was built in 1987, and runs as if it were brand new. I'm not sure that
too many of the electronic cameras could do as well.
I have to disagree on the speed issue, however. Compared to using a 35mm,
or even to using a Pentax 645, using a Hasselblad 500cm is slow! No motor
wind, no rapid advance lever, no automatic mirror return, reloading film
every 12 or 24 exposures, taking an external meter reading and manually
setting it on the lens: All contribute to relative slowness of operation.
For me, it's a price worth paying, since I use 35mm for work requiring fast
operation. I use Hasselblad for image quality, the ability to show
large-size contact proofs to clients, the all-speed flash synch, and, if
the truth be known, for the indescribable feel of the Hasselblad for
hand-held shots (I can shoot hand-held at 1/30 second with the Hassie; only
1/60 with my Nikons: Just better balance). The first time I ever held
one, back in 1969, I knew I had to own one. Ironic that holding one seems
to be hard for some people: I've never known another camera that fits so
naturally into the hands, or stays so steady there. Can anyone say that
about vertical shots with the Contax?
Difficulty? How long did it take you to load a Hasselblad the first time?
How long the 100th time? I can do it by instinct now; but it still seems
to take forever to go through the process when I'm in a hurry(maybe it's
just my aging fumble-fingers, but a 35mm is much easier). How about the
extra little step that it takes to disconnect the linked aperture/shutter
speed dial when the light changes? Or the embarassment when, in the rush
of trying to reload rapidly, you forget to remove the darkslide before
trying to shoot? I've used a Mamiya 645, a Pentax 645, and various MF
TLR's and rangefinders. The only camera I've found that was made within
the last 30 years that's more difficult than the Hasselblad was a Mamiya
RB67.
In any case, we both agree on one thing: There's nothing else that can
compare to Hasselblad. With the small amount of semi-pro work that I do
these days (haven't worked as a full-time photographer since 1978), I
probably can't justify owning a Hasselblad; but the last time I went
looking for an MF camera outfit, Hasselblad was the only one that met my
needs.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev, Hasselblad- What Fits What
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001
Anton Elron wrote:
> Has anyone cut through the bullshit to figure out what Hasselblad
> 1600/1000 stuff does and does not interchange with Kiev, and why?
>
> The backs-what is different? Obviously they are modifiable-what is
> changed?
Kiev backs? I don't know what you can/have to do to them to make them fit.
> Do the backs from the 1000 era Hassy fit the modern ones or vice
> versa?
The older non-automatic backs can not be used with any of the newer, post
1957 models (starting with the 500 C).
The newer type non-automatic backs (made between 1955 and 1968, serial
numbers starting at CC20000) can be used with the 1600F/1000F/SWA and with
all newer cameras. And the same is true of all newer, automatic backs.
From: "Ken Hurst" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev, Hasselblad- What Fits What
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
Hartblei claims to make/distribute(?) backs that are compatible with modern
Hasselblads. I suppose these are basically modified Kiev backs and they are
purported to fit the Hartblei 1006 and 1008 camera. I have not heard any
firsthand reports nor do I have any firsthand experience that could attest
to the reliability or actual compatibility of the Hartblei with Hasselblad
equipment. There's more info at their site at http://www.hartblei.com/ .
If these backs are reliable, they would be a great bargain for Hasselblad
users.
Ken Hurst
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote...
> Anton Elron wrote:
>
> > Has anyone cut through the bullshit to figure out what Hasselblad
> > 1600/1000 stuff does and does not interchange with Kiev, and why?
> >
> > The backs-what is different? Obviously they are modifiable-what is
> > changed?
>
> Kiev backs? I don't know what you can/have to do to them to make them fit.
>
> > Do the backs from the 1000 era Hassy fit the modern ones or vice
> > versa?
>
> The older non-automatic backs can not be used with any of the newer, post
> 1957 models (starting with the 500 C).
>
> The newer type non-automatic backs (made between 1955 and 1968, serial
> numbers starting at CC20000) can be used with the 1600F/1000F/SWA and with
> all newer cameras. And the same is true of all newer, automatic backs.
From: "nathantw" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad questions from anxious medium format newbie
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001
If you get a chance go check out the Ansel Adams 100 Years exhibit in San
Francisco (it's there until January). They have quite a few of his
photographs and to tell you the truth, this is the first time I've seen his
popular photographs up close and personal. They're fantastic. There's always
detail in the shadows no matter how dark and detail in the highlights, no
matter how light. It's pretty amazing. There was one photograph that he
printing in the 1940's, I think, and right next to it is the same photograph
printed in the 1970's. The differences were staggering. It's like he
"learned" to print. Anyway, my point is that if you get a chance to see the
show (I'm sure it's a travelling show so it may go to your city) you'll see
many of the photographs that you see Ansel Adams printing in your books The
Negative and The Print.
Now to your Hasselblad question. I have a 553ELX (my first blad) and a
500c/m. If I were to buy a new 'blad now it would be the now "inexpensive"
203FE. That body suits my photographic needs the most. If I were starting
out I'd actually buy a $600 500c/m body (or a more contemporary one if you
can get it cheap) and then a lens (I'll recommend the 120mm Makro Planer,
awesome lens and very, very versitile) and camera back. If you get a manual
camera you're also going to want to purchase a viewfinder. The metering ones
they make now are really nice. You can also use a hand held meter though, so
if you have that handy then that would be good. A nice, sturdy tripod is a
must. One last thing you'll probably want to buy are a good set of black and
white filters if you're looking to make photographs like Ansel Adams.
Good luck to you! If you have any other questions, please ask.
Nathan
"Robert Wood" [email protected]> wrote
> Greetings,
>
> Up until about 5 months ago, I considered myself a fairly serious
> amature photographer, very proud of my entry level Rebel, and in
> reality, completely naive about the whole art. Then I read Ansel Adams
> books on the Print and Negative and my eyes were opened. I've started
> printing and can honestly say that I enjoy it as much as anything else I
> do. In fact, I'm obsessed with it. It seems to me that the next
> natural step is into medium or large format photography, a medium in
> which I can give each negative seperate developmental control while
> getting sharper pictures at the same time. It would also be much more
> valuable as an educational tool.
>
> I've been looking at Hasselblads and have obviously questioned the
> sensibility of spending, as an amature, such an amount on a camera. I'm
> not a professional after all. The 501CM kit seems to be the most
> sensible route, but I still question the frugality of this. Does anyone
> have ANY suggestions on where I should look? Which model to recommend?
> Essential features I should definitely have? Other brands? I do some
> portraiture and a lot of outdoor nature photography. I hate using
> flash. Any replied would be GREATLY appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
> Robert Wood
From: [email protected] (FrederickL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: Other topic: Chinese TLE w/ 1/500
FWIW... Both Ansel's autobiography and Mary Alinder's biography report that
Ansel consulted to Victor Hasselblad and provided feedback on many features as
the camera evolved...not hard to find, look up Hasselblad in the index of each
one. (yes, I know, Mary Alinder collaborated on the autobiography...so it
isn't a completely independent source...but they both cite copies of
correspondence between Ansel and Victor Hasselblad...and Hasselblad Corp had
the King of Sweden present a medal to Adams for his service.)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad 12 back locked to a 500 C/M body
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Barry-
There is a good chance that the face plate on the back is either loose or
slightly bent. When this happens the darkslide doesn't move the internal
latch out of the way because it isn't where it's supposed to be. The first
thing I'd try is to take a small stainless 6" rule (the 12" will work better
but you have to find one without the cork on the back) and stick it in the
slot up at the top. Very top. These are usually thick enough that the
internal latch will now move out of the way of the release arm/button
assembly. It's tight and it feels crude but it usually works.
There are two things to watch out for. Make sure that it is all the way in
and as far to the top as it will go. If this doesn't do it most likely
there is something floating around the mechanism preventing it from moving
as far as it needs. It's a very simple mechanism. Only so much can go
wrong.
Let me know. I'm curious.
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
> Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad 12 back locked to a 500 C/M body
>
> I have a Hasselblad 12 back locked to a 500 C/M body that cannot be
> removed. When I insert the dark slide, the locking button on the 12
> magazine can be moved enough to partially separate the back from the
> magazine hooks at the top of the body, but that's as far as it gets.
>
> I've tried jiggling the back and using another dark slide, but still
> no luck. It seems like the latching mechanism is moving, but not far
> enough to unhook the back. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Thanks.
>
> Barry S.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ansel and Hasselblad re design?
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001
FrederickL wrote:
> (Hmmm Operator failure...this didn't get posted where I wanted it to...so here
> it is again.)
So i'll attach my reply here too.
> FWIW... Both Ansel's autobiography and Mary Alinder's biography report that
> Ansel consulted to Victor Hasselblad and provided feedback on many features as
> the camera evolved...not hard to find, look up Hasselblad in the index of each
> one. (yes, I know, Mary Alinder collaborated on the autobiography...so it
> isn't a completely independent source...but they both cite copies of
> correspondence between Ansel and Victor Hasselblad...and Hasselblad Corp had
> the King of Sweden present a meldal to Adams for his service.
According to Mary Street Alinder's account of things, which got the
"official seal of approval" from Hasselblad in the form of a publication in
Hasselblad Forum Issue 3&4 (combined issue), 1998, Ansel Adams was presented
with Hasselblad cameras, asking him in return to give his comments about
them. Yet the only recorded occurance of Ansel Adams actually commenting on
the camera was when he apparently found out that the mirror would fall out
if the camera was not held in an upright position (?!).
Hasselblad honouring Ansel Adams was not because of his involvement in the
development of the camera, but because of his achievements in, and for
photography. The Hasselblad Foundation has honoured many more photographers
since.
From: [email protected] (Mr500CM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Help: Hasselblad 12 back locked to body
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
Try another dark slide. There is a part inside the mag that if it
breaks or wears, will give you this problem. Try another dark slide,
once you get it off do not put it back on. Get it seriviced, its not
expensive.
Lance
Barry S. [email protected]> wrote:
>I have a Hasselblad 12 back locked to a 500 C/M body that cannot be
>removed. When I insert the dark slide, the locking button on the 12
>magazine can be moved enough to partially separate the back from the
>magazine hooks at the top of the body, but that's as far as it gets.
>
>I've tried jiggling the back and using another dark slide, but still
>no luck. It seems like the latching mechanism is moving, but not far
>enough to unhook the back. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>Thanks.
>
>Barry S.
To reply, remove NOSPAM from address.
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: 500cm vs. 501cm
intelligence wrote:
"Whats the difference between the two models, apart from the bigger gliding
mirror the 501cm offers?
In your opinion which one is better?"
The main difference is the 501CM has the GMS, a broader and more comfortable
shutter release, the film back has the dark slide holder, and (very important)
the interior flocking to reduce flare is also improved. It lost the shutter
cocked signal on the body. Go with the 501 CM, I did.
Doug from Tumwater
From: [email protected] (Fred)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Diff between 503CX, CXi, & CW
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001
Main differnces,
The 500CX has TTL
500CXi has the above plus has new winding crank design, takes winder
CW
500CW has the above plus GMS mirror mech. (gliding mirror system)
"meme"
[email protected]> wrote:
>Sorry but I went to many sites but still can't figure the difference between
>these models
>
>Can anyone enlighten me with the diffferences between these models (apart
>from the age difference)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [HUG] conversion of F lenses
From: george day [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Ouch, pricey. Seems like a better bet is selling and then just buying a
new, warrantied lens and calling it good.
"[email protected]" [email protected]> wrote:
> An F lens can be upgraded to FE status if the lens mount is fastened with
> Phillips or cross point screws. Hasselblad USA charged about $500 to upgrade
> one for me about 3 years ago.
From: "Fritz Olenberger" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Closeup -Lens or tubes?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001
I own a 0.5 Proxar that I use for occasional closups, an the results are
pretty good (whatever that means!). I have also used tubes that I have
rented. For a 120mm lens, a 0.5 Proxar would give you roughly the same
range of magnification as a 32 tube -- about .25 to .5. The tube may be an
optically better solution, but you should borrow or rent both to see if you
can tell a difference in the results. One thing I like about the Proxar is
that it is very compact, fitting easily in the pocket of a photo vest. They
are also quicker to put on and take off. Image brightness on the focussing
screen is not reduced, and exposure compensation is not necessary. They are
less expensive. However, if you want higher than 0.5 magnification with
your 120, you would want to go to the 56 tube, since the 0.5 Proxar is as
strong as they get. (You can stack the Proxars for higher magnification,
but I cannot comment on the quality of the result.)
-Fritz
----- Original Message -----
From: mary parisi [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 11:32 AM
Subject: [HUG] Re: Closeup -Lens or tubes?
> I use the Hasselblad 120mm macro as my normal lens on my 503 CW and for
> a long time I've needed to get closer. I had planned to buy tubes
> thinking this would avoid putting additional glass into the works but
> after talking to someone who just bought a Hasselblad close up lens for
> his camera I'm now thinking this might be better. The tubes will cause
> me to use a slower speed or larger F stop. I would appreciate the
> opinions of those who have a strong preference for one or the other.
> Thanks - Mary
From: "Frank Filippone" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] 40mm vs. 50mm
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001
Perspective distortion comes from position and attitude ( looking up of
down) of the camera relative to the subject. It is not affected by Fl,
manufacturer, witches or the Ghost of St. Ansel. If YOU were 1 inch from
someone's nose, his ( or her) face would look funny too...... Back up, the
face will look better. Prove this to yourself by shooting someone's face
( a 10 year old boy is very helpful for this) from 6 inches away. Reshoot
it using the SAME lens at a distance of 15 feet. The negatives will prive
to you thatr the head is a different size... smaller at 15 feet than at 6
inches. Same lens, different position of the camera, different
perspective. Now take the shot from 5 feet away using your 50mm lens,
change to the 150 lens, reshoot from a distance of 15 feet. You will see a
different perspective, because you have changed position. The head will be
the same size.
The rule of thumb is to use the lens that matches the IMAGE AREA you want,
from the DISTANCE you like the perspective from. Pick the position fromo
the perspective you wish. Then pick the FL from your ( infinite) choice of
lenses based upon what you want to record on the film. Sometimes you can
not back up or get closer than you would like.... then you WILL get some
form of image distortion, because what you wanted is not what you can shoot.
BECAUSE you can not stand where you want.
Barrel distortion comes from the glass in your lens ( as opposed to position
of the camera.) Let's keep lens anomalies separate from perspective.
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: film DOfocus etc. Re: Poor Mans Leica ?
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> a followup point, the lunar hasselblads had rousseau (sp?) plates to help
> eliminate film flatness problems, glass plates with + marks for measuring
> against which the film was pressed (already in a vacuum ;-) to get
> maximally flat film surface.
Apropos R�seau plates: they are a nice tool just because using these, and
knowing the geometrics of the optics used, you do not have to worry about
film flatness issues (and film dimensional stability) that much. You can use
the grid to calculate the true position of each grid point, despite the
image being distorted because it was projected on a non-flat surface. No
matter how flat you try to push the film, it will not be flat anymore once
it has been processed (and you do have to process film before you can do
measurements from it ;-)). So for doing precision measurements you will have
to find a way around that, and using the grid plate helps.
But film flatness remains problematic regarding resolution.
Subject: Re: [HUG] longer lens suggestions
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]>
From: "Charlie Goodwin" [email protected]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001
Ed,
Since you are exploring the choice of lenses, and kind of starting from scratch with the larger Hasselblad camera....I would urge you to note a couple
of factors in choosing long lenses for 2 1/4 work: the sorts of angle of view you use most for this work, i.e. what magnification your previous 35mm
work required, and the bulk and cost of same for the larger 2 1/4 camera.
Before all else, you are buying angle of view/or level of magnification when you acquire a lens. Important details like cost, bulk, handling, maximum aperture, closest focussing, filter sizes, etc... can follow quickly once
you have decided upon the focal length, but I suggest first deciding on focal length, and then dealing with the rest.
Since you have a 120 and a 2x Mutar, whether or not the combined optical quality is good or not, you now have a good tool to get a feel for what a 240 or a 250 does in terms of angle of view with the 2 1/4 format...far less than a 250mm on a 35 camera, but nonetheless, beginning to be a genuine "long" lens. Is it long enough to be useful for your purposes? Or is it still too short? If it is long enough to be a good start, in terms of it's field of view, then read up from the comments of the other folks who have replied to your enquiry.
If the "240"mm lens is still really just too short, then I would ask whether
you could borrow or rent a 350 or 500 because you need to get a feel for the substantial mass and consequently more challenging handling of them. Definitely bigger than some of the same focal length for 35. Personally, I
find the handling of the 500 on the Hasselblad to be a bit off putting... far, far more than the roughly equivalent 300mm on a 35; thus I urge you to "try before you buy".
I would get what you use the most first, and purchase less used focal lengths later, once you have really gotten used to the first lens, and know what teles are like with the 2 1/4. Said strategy will help with the budgetary area too, by spreading out your purchases over time.
If on 35 mm cameras you use the 200 most, then something like the 350mm is
a rough equivalent.
If you use the 300 most on your 35, then something like the 500mm is close
to the equivalent.
If the 500 is your tool of choice on the 35, then perhaps you are looking at a 500 with the Mutar, (but that cobbled up combination is a beast, dim viewing, much image shake......ugh. Others on this discussion group better technically versed on Ziess optics might be able to address whether any quality issues arise or not with such a combination.)
Back in my 35mm days I got a very heavy, very long lens that got far less use than it deserved, because the bulk and weight of it precluded me taking
it out as often as I should have. My cautionary notes to you are born of
a less than wise history of buying a couple of big fancy photographic toys
that saw little use.
Long lenses can make very expensive paperweights, so use one if you possibly can, before you purchase.
Good luck, and happy shooting,
Charlie
> I need help selecting a longer lens. I shoot nature and landscapes,
> primarily. For years I have used 35mm gear and rely on my 200, 300 and
> 500mm fast lenses for wildlife and landscape shots. I particularly like
> the longer lenses for extracting landscape elements. With my "new"
> Hasselblad (503CW, 50mm, 80, 120 makro) I lack the "reach" I need for many
> shots. I recently picked up a 2x Mutar, but haven't taken delivery yet.
> Now for the questions. 1. Is it true the 120 and the Mutar yield
> unacceptable results? 2. Should I look for a 250 or a 350? 3. How abo=
ut
> a faster 180 w/ the 2x Mutar? Budget is a concern. I'd probably be
> looking for these items on eBay or elsewhere. Any suggestions would be
> appreciated.
>
> Ed Post
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] longer lens suggestions
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001
Dr. Ulrik Neupert wrote:
> From a budget point of view the 250 mm and 500 mm C-lenses are the cheapest
> telephoto lenses you can buy for the Hasselblad. The optical performance of
> the 500 mm C-lens (design from the early 1960s) suffers somewhat from colour
> fringing and it is slow to use. The 500 CF is much nicer (better corrected,
> internal focussing, shorter min. distance) but much more expensive. The 250
> + 2x converter results in a very dark screen. I got my 500 CT* in like new
> condition for 1500 DM (700 US$).
The CF 500 mm Tele-Apotessar has been dropped by Hasselblad (i posted a
message about this earlier, but it didn't make it to the list).
Hasselblad think using one of the Superachromats plus appropriate
teleconverter is the better solution. Is it? Or is it just an economical
decision?
Anyhow, anybody wanting to buy a Tele-Apotessar should perhaps do so soon
before they are all gone.
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001
To: [email protected],[email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] longer lens suggestions
George Day wrote:
>Frank,
>
>Have you noticed any difference in outcome when you use the 180 + 1.4x as
>compared to the 180 + 2x? My understanding has been that image quality is
>hardly affected by the 1.4x, but it is affected significantly by the 2x.
I use my 180 and a 2x "Zeiss" extender (the real extender!!!) with
basically zero degradation. I have printed many 20x24 Cibachromes from this
combination and see nothing that even hints of degradation.
I cannot comment on the current 2x (Fuji? Keocera? (SP) ) extender. I was
told by my local Hasselblad rep to find an old Zeiss 2x, so I did, and it
is wonderful.
Jim
From: "Richard S. Zimmerman " [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] FE 60-120
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001
-----Has anyone noticed a distinct collapse of Hass. prices on ebay
over the last several months? More unsold lots? Lots not reaching their
reserves or not even attracting any bids if the opening bid is not low
enough? Is it the economy? Supply and demand? Any thoughts?
Thanks
Dick Zimmerman
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001
From: Vick Ko [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] FE 60-120
Yes. I'm trying to sell an A12 and can't even cover the price that I
got it at. Sold a body and just covered
my purchase cost (but just barely).
My local camera dealer said:
1) the commercial pros are going digital, and trading in their
Hasselblads. The digital camera pays for
itself in no time (offsetting the cost of film and time).
2) it's Christmas too - typically a slow season for used camera sales -
according to a camera store friend of mine
...now if some mint Rolleiflexes would only drop in price more .....
Vick
"Richard S. Zimmerman" wrote:
>
>
> -----Has anyone noticed a distinct collapse of Hass. prices
> on ebay over the last several months? More unsold lots? Lots
> not reaching their reserves or not even attracting any bids
> if the opening bid is not low enough? Is it the economy?
> Supply and demand? Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dick Zimmerman
>
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] 500 mm Tele-Apotessar discontinued
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001
What i have been suspecting for quite some time now was today confirmed by
Zeiss: the 500 mm Tele-Apotessar will no longer be part of the Hasselblad
line. Hasselblad think using a 300 or 350 mm Superachromat plus appropriate
teleconverter will be the better solution. It may be, but is at least 1.5x
more expensive.
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001
Subject: [HUG] 500mm Tele-Apo discontinued
To: [email protected]
If Zeiss is truly discontinuing the 500 tele-apo it is very unfortunate. I
have this lens and have found it to be remarkable in its ability to produce
sharp images. Even with the 2x mutar (1000mm) this lens does a great job. I
find that I tend to prefer the longer focal length lens when using the
Hasselblad and would really be lost without the 500 tele-apo. To be sure,
this lens requires the use of a sturdy tripod and mirror lockup to take
advantage of its optics. But that's how 95% of my images are taken anyway.
From: Charles Barcellona [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad - 120mm vs. 150mm vs. 180mm
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001
The classic choice is the 150mm Sonnar, but I lean toward the 180mm Sonnar.
For my shooting, the 180 lets you get tighter head and shoulders than the 150
(without using
an ext. tube). I also use the 250mm Sonnar with the 21mm ext tube (an older
one) for VERY
tight head shots.
I'm going to disagree with another post that says the 120/150/180 are all pin
sharp. The 120MakroPlanar
is not really up to the others at any less than about 1:10 magnification (my
estimate there). Shots taken at
medium distances and long distances are noticable lower in contrast, and have
less detail (just less crisp)
than those taken with the 150 or 180. The 180 is an outstanding lens,
surpassing even the 150,
and does VERY well even at closer (portrait) distances.
I'd suggest going with the 150 or 150, and bypassing the 120 unless you REALLY
want/need a macro
lens.
Charles
Chicago User wrote:
> I'm wondering, in terms of a Hasselblad 503CW, which is the most popular
> head and shoulders lens for portraits; 120mm, 150mm or 180mm?? I have used
> the 180mm with a Mamiya RZ67 quite a bit and like the results. One guy
> tried to sell me a 120 macro lens for he Hasselblad, swearing that it was
> the sharpest. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> -Robert
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
Subject: [HUG] lens manufacturing codes
From: Rick Nordin [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
There has been some interest in the request for the rubber stamped codes on
the rear baffle of Hasselblad lenses and what they mean over the past week
or so. I thought I'd present an explanation.
I'd been puzzled by the codes for some years but it took some compilation of
data from lots of lenses to make some sense of it. Here is what I understand
of the significance of these codes. This information has not be been
published anywhere before so the HUG is the first to know!
The C series lenses have a three or four numeral code (stamped in (usually)
red ink on the rear baffle) where the first one or two are the year (in
code) and the last two are the month. The year codes run from "2" for 1959
to "22" for 1979 (sequentially, in a number for year substitution)
(according to my present calibration!). Not all early lenses (before about
1964) have the code. Many lenses have two or three numbers from when they
were returned to the factory for service. Some lenses have illegible stamps.
I've used this code system as a confirmation for my earlier lens dating
system (given in the tables in the Hasselblad Compendium) and it is easier
to remember than the tables of numbers! Examples: 402 is February 1961 and
1507 is July 1972.
The later C lenses (after 1979) and the CF lenses have a different system
with a month code as a letter and the year code a number which, when
reversed, provides the year (plus in later lenses, a trailing A or B, the
significance of which is still unclear). Examples G68 is July 1986 and B39A
is February 1993.
There are a whole variety of complications to interpreting these codes. They
are not all straight forward! Many lenses which were produced in relatively
small numbers had serial number blocks assigned to them and then were
produced, in some cases, over a number of years, so will have quite
different stamp codes but similar serial numbers.
The date code is more accurate than the serial numbers as far as date of
production estimated by serial number, but may also represent the date the
lens went to the factory for a major repair.
Hope this answers more questions than it generates? I certainly would
appreciate any more numbers that list members could supply and would try to
answer questions on this subject as best I can.
Rick Nordin
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad - 120mm vs. 150mm vs. 180mm
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001
DBaker9128 wrote:
> I like the 160 CB in part because I am a Tessar fan. The Tessar lens formula
> was know as the "Eagle Eye of Zeiss" during the first half of the 20th century.
> There is something very elegant and impressive about a lens which can perform
> so well in the modern world of optics using just 4 elements of glass. I also
> use modern Tessars with my 35mm equipment and I find them all to have wonderful
> contrast, superior flatness of field and light weight. The last two
> characteristics are important to me and more complex formulas often compromise
> these in the accumulation of glass in the search for faster maximum apertures.
You do know that Tessar is a generic name used by Zeiss? You do know that
there are many, many Tessar designs, all of them different? You do also know
that there are good and there are not so good Tessar designs among them? And
that the praise given to the 1920's Tessar in no way tranfers to all Tessar
designs?
Good. Just thought i checked.
From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad - 120mm vs. 150mm vs. 180mm
Date: 12 Dec 2001
"Chicago User"
[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm wondering, in terms of a Hasselblad 503CW, which is the most popular
>head and shoulders lens for portraits; 120mm, 150mm or 180mm?? I have used
>the 180mm with a Mamiya RZ67 quite a bit and like the results. One guy
>tried to sell me a 120 macro lens for he Hasselblad, swearing that it was
>the sharpest. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.
I think a lot of this is just personal taste. For what it's worth,
I traded my 150 C lens in on a 120CF. Before doing this, I did a fair
amount of testing of the two lenses. Even on distant subjects, I
couldn't discern any visible difference in quality on Fuji Velvia
transparencies viewed with a 15x loupe. I haven't compared the 120
to a T*-coated 150, so I can't confirm or deny the statement that
a modern 150 exhibits higher contrast at distance.
I do shoot a fair amount of macro work (although not as much as
I used to).
I've never used the 180, but by all accounts it is *really* sweet
lens.
MY advice, as always, is to see about renting before you make a final
purchase decision.
Steve
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [HUG] conversion of F lenses
From: Adrian Bradshaw [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Well folks here is the word from Sweden:
> Conversion of F lenses
>
> Dear Mr. Bradshaw,
>
> I am afraid that we have some bad news for you regarding the conversion.
> Unfortunately, this is no longer possible due to that some of the integral
> parts are no longer available. This program was terminated last year.
>
>
> Best regards
> Thomas Noren
> Manager, Technical Support
--
Adrian Bradshaw
Corporate and Editorial Photography
Beijing China
http: //www.apbphoto.com
http://www.liaisonphoto.com/bradshaw.htm
http://www.liaisonphoto.com/bradshaw_e.htm
From: [email protected] (grandguru)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad repair question
Date: 24 Jan 2002
> Yes, you can fix it yourself quite easily.
WRONG!
> I could explain the procedure but i think that this webpage does it better:
>
> http://www.multimania.com/cesarigd/photoe2b.htm
>
I dont recommend that you try this! It is only half right. In my
experience Hasselblads jam when there is a fault, fix the fault dont
just ignore the syptoms.
> I do too think that it is the lens that is causing this problem. Have it
> checked by a competent repair person.
From: "skgrimes" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad repair question
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002
Push open the rear flaps on the body and you can see that there is a slotted
shaft at the bottom middle of the baffle at the front of the camera that
houses the coupling to the lens. Using a good screwdriver, (one that is not
rounded or worn and that fits the slot tightly), try turning it clockwise.
Do not force! If it turns until it latches--so that when you remove the
screwdiver and it stays put, you can then remove the lens from the body. If
it does not latch and you have jeweler's screwdrivers you can remove the
just to the right of the cocking shaft and carefully take out the baffle so
as not to deform it. Inside, you will see two screws on the left side of the
mechanism, a larger one above and to the left of another. Loosen the top one
by several turns then tighten the lower one. This will back off the cocking
key on the body away from the lens. After a few turns try and remove the
lens. If it still does not want to go, repeat the proceedure until the key
assembly is as far out as it will go. The lens should come off. If it
doesn't it is time to take it to the shop. If it does come off, reverse the
two screws to tighten the front assembly of the camera to its normal
position. You may now try and cock and fire the camera to see if it is
functioning. One way of seeing if there is a problem with the body is to
lightly press one finger against the front coupling key of the body while
you release it. If it does not fire through but hangs up, or if it feels
rough, it is time to take it into the shop as this indicates that the body
has a problem. To check the lens, you can use a coin that fits the slot on
the rear of the lens that couples to the key on the body. If the shutter
blades are closed, turn the key in the direction of the little arrow near
it. If it does not turn it is time to take it into the shop as this
indicates that there is a problem. If you can cock the sutter, or it is
already cocked, set the speed to one second or so. Then, to the right of the
coupling you will see a small baffle that protects and houses a tiny lever.
This is the cocking latch. Using a small screwdriver, press down on it. The
lens should fire. Cock it again and fire it. If everything seems fine try
mounting it on the body and see if it works normally. If it does try firing
the lens at different speeds and iris settings. It may work fine, in which
case, re-assemble the light baffle. Sometimes there is really nothing wrong
with either the camera or the body and you have suffered a random and not
readily repeatable glich. However, even if it now works, it could indicate
that there is a screw or other part loose and floating around in the lens or
body which could rejam it at any time and possibly do some real damage next
time depending where it gets caught.
I have been repairing Hasselblads for twenty-five years and it is my
experience that jamming of this type usually indicates that there is a
problem that needs to be dealt with by a professional. At the very least I
think it would be a good idea to have both lens and body checked out by a
repair shop that knows these cameras. Needless to say, do not force anything
while trying any of the above. While Hassys use a lot of spring tension and
it takes some force to turn things, if it don't turn or suddenly feels very
tight, stop, or you could really cause some serious damage. More than once,
I've seen something that would have been a fast and inexpensive repair
turned into major and expensive work replacing broken gears, shafts and the
like because of someone determined to make the thing work, no matter what.
Good luck, be careful and if you have any questions, feel free to e-mail or
call me and I'll do my best to help.
Pierre
S.K. GRIMES -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
153 Hamlet Ave. (5th floor) Woonsocket RI, 02895
+ Lenses mounted into shutters.
+ Shutters repaired, restored.
+ For more info-- http://www.skgrimes.com.
(updated 8-1-01 Site Map)
Now: flat and pointed tip Spanner Wrenches
http://www.skgrimes.com/span/index.htm
"grandguru" [email protected]> wrote...
> > Yes, you can fix it yourself quite easily.
>
> WRONG!
>
>
> > I could explain the procedure but i think that this webpage does it
better:
> >
> > http://www.multimania.com/cesarigd/photoe2b.htm
> >
> I dont recommend that you try this! It is only half right. In my
> experience Hasselblads jam when there is a fault, fix the fault dont
> just ignore the syptoms.
>
> > I do too think that it is the lens that is causing this problem. Have it
> > checked by a competent reapir person.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] LF Film cassettes (was: light leaks)
To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001
> Hello! When you use Large format (and Rollei) film/plate cassettes,
> do you remove the slide completely or do you leave it in a couple of
> millimetres in the cassette to avoid light leaks? /Patric
Patric:
When I use the Rollei cut film back I remove the dark slide
completely. As pointed by Jerry you would have hard times to use the
waist level finder on either your TLR or your SL66 !! (which was
designed to take the same 6.5x9 film cassettes, vertically). However
you could use the dedicated ground glass attachment ;-);-)
However the question of light leaks on the "entrance" slit of a cut
film or rollfilm holder is a serious one due to ageing of the
light-tight felt or foam there. If you do not remove the dark slide
completely, this may help you minimise light leaks but this will not
prevent ageing of black felt or foam.
My experience in formats larger than 6x6cm is very limited ; in my
Rollei 6.5x9cm cassettes when they are empty I store them with the
dark slide removed to let the felt "get some rest". I store the
cassette+slide with a rubber band pressing the dark slide against the
cassette, the whole is stored in a clean plastic bag to avoid dust. I
realise that I should, may be, add some silica-gel for long term
storage. Of course the felt on the Rollei cut film back is also "at
rest" when off the camera.
For Hasselblad film magazines, this question of foam (or felt ?)
ageing and replacement is well documented on Bob Monaghan's web site.
I do not think any Hasselblad user ever keeps the dark slide "partly
in" ; and, yes, there is a safety lock (blocking the release button
when the dark slide is "in") but, to the best of my knowledge, it is
actually disengaged slightly before the dark slide is completely
"out". Another point according to various distinguished Hassy users
and contributors on Bob M's web site, is that it sounds more
reasonable to store an empty Hassy magazine with the dark slide
removed to minimise foam ageing. Beware of dust, however.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Lens Date Coding?
Rick Nordin has confirmed that Zeiss stamped an inked date-code on
Hasselblad lenses from 1959 until 1980. The code is a four-digit bit on
the back face or final ring and is simple enough: the first two digits +
1957 give you the year of manufacture and the second two digits give you
the month. For instance, on my 5.6/135 S-Planar 4735527, the code is
"1106". This gives us June, 1968, as the date of production: 1957 + 11
1968, and 06 June.
The code, being in ink, has often worn off or become illegible.
Can some of you SL66 guys check your lenses to see if they bear a similar
marking? And I'd appreciate those with newer (post-1980) lenses for the =
SL
or 600x families to check their lenses for either an inked code or an
engraved one. (It now seems that the inked code on Hasselblad lenses was
replaced around 1980 by a code stamped into the lens mount when the Heirs
of Victor installed the lens mounts.)
Thanks!
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Lens Date Coding?
koelwebdesign wrote:
>It's all black inside my Planar 100/3,5T* for Hasselblad.
>I believe it's from 1978.
>
>"...code stamped into the lens mount..."
>It's not there..
>But as I said, I believe it was produced before the eighties.
The date code has been used since 1959; the system changed around 1980 from:
year code (code + 1957 =3D year of production) and month code - 1106
June, 1968
to:
letter code for month (A =3D January, L =3D December) and reversed year code -
C39 March, 1993
Set the lens to its closest focus and look inside the lens tube (the light
baffle) for a stamping. It should be in purple ink and might be quite hard
to see or decipher. There might be multiple stamps, if the lens has been
back to Zeiss for servicing.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001
To: [email protected], [email protected]
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: [HUG] Eastern Sierras
I personally use B+W & Heliopan 67mm filters on my Hasselblad lenses with a
67 to B60 adapter. You can screw as many 67mm filters together as you wish.
I do the same with B70. I use 77mm filters and a 77 to B70 Hasselblad
adapter. Likewise, you can screw as many 77mm filters together as you wish.
I use a Hi-Tech 4x4 filter holder for nd or color grads. It has a 67 & 77mm
adapter (actually adapters from 55mm to 86mm). It has two slots for glass
or resin squares, or in the case of grads, rectangles.
So with one 67-B60 or 77-B70 adapter, you can go wild with any combination
of regular filters and/or squares.
But I wouldn't encourage too many air-to-glass surfaces in front of that
fine Zeiss lens. you can get away with a couple, but more than that would
be questionable. The image fine detail would degrade.
Jim
mikec wrote:
>Fritz,
>
>Thanks much for the response. It makes me want to ask another question:
>You speak of using two panes of glass over the lens, How do you get two
>filters mounted at once? My Hasselblad bay 60 filters do not accept
>another filter on top
>of the first one.
>
>I am a surrealist myself with regards to color saturation, I like heavily
>saturated colors. I tend to polarize skies heavily also, so I like
>polarized effect in yours.
>
>Thanks again...
>
>-mike
>hpp://www.mcallahan.net
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad 205TCC versus 205FCC
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001
Hi all,
I am trying to figure out what exactly the differences are between
the 205TCC and the 205FCC. So far, I learned that the 205TCC is
missing those two features:
- Ab mode (auto-braketing)
- programmable fill flash
Are there any other differences? Specifically, what about lens
compatibility? I know there was a TCC series that was replaced with
the FE series. Any differences? Also, I think there was a back
specific for the TCC camera.
Thanks for any info!
Manu
From: Stephe Thayer [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Getting a BRONICA SQ-Ai
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> A good friend of mine bought one of the Bronica SQs a number of years ago.
> He owned it for two years, of which time it spent 20 months in the shop.
>
> The lenses are excellent, the concept is great, but the execution, at
> least in his case, left a lot to be desired.
>
> Godfrey
Hard to go by one example. I have a friend who bought a used 500C setup
(the normal 50-80-150 kit with 4 backs) and has taken the body to the shop
twice with jamed lenses, had three backs either leak light or that had
film spacing problems and one lens the shutter stuck open in less that a
year. The lenses are excellent, the concept is great, but the execution, at
least in his case, left a lot to be desired. G> I can't say though this
didn't influence my choice to not get a 'blad as it taught me ANY camera
can be a problem child.
--
Stephe
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 205TCC versus 205FCC
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001
Manu Schnetzler wrote:
> I am trying to figure out what exactly the differences are between
> the 205TCC and the 205FCC. So far, I learned that the 205TCC is
> missing those two features:
> - Ab mode (auto-braketing)
> - programmable fill flash
> Are there any other differences?
The viewfinder display of the FCC shows "SET" when the camera's shutter is
set to "C" to remind you that the shutterspeed displayed has to be set
manually on the lens' shutter. The TCC does not.
The TCC warns you when the shutterspeed determined by the metering system is
longer than the speed set on the shutterspeed ring by blinking the
shutterspeed in the viewfinder display. The FCC just ignores the
shutterspeed ring setting (obviously not in manual mode) and uses the
shutterspeed indicated by the metering system.
The TCC sets itself to flash setting when a dedicated flash is connected and
the ready light comes on. In flash mode the TCC will make the exposure using
the shutterspeed set on the shutterspeed ring, and not using the speed
indicated by the metering system. So you must make sure to set the
shutterspeed ring to the time indicated by the metering system.
The FCC does use the shutterspeed indicated even when a dedicated flash is
connected.
> Specifically, what about lens
> compatibility? I know there was a TCC series that was replaced with
> the FE series. Any differences?
No. Only the name was changed from TCC to FE.
> Also, I think there was a back
> specific for the TCC camera.
Indeed. The "E CC" back has an additional "Zone" dial not present on the "E"
backs. This dial is used to set any desired Zone System N+ (expansion of
tonal range) or N- (contraction) compensation. The "ECC" back still is
available.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 CB Lens for Hassy
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001
Frank Filippone wrote:
> Are there any comments out there on this lens? I think it will not work
on
> a 200 series body ( True if I own a 201F???)
No. True only if you would own a 202 FA.
> Any optical differences between this lens and a CFi lens?
> Mechanical?
Both Hasselblad and Zeiss said when asked that they had no info at all about
the CB 120 mm lens except that "The CB 4/ 120 mm lens is only available in
special product combinations and then only to certain markets". Where did
you find one?
When i asked again, Hasselblad replied:
"I don't have the specifications in front of me but I can get them if you
wish."
That, of course, was exactly what i has wished. So i asked them a third
time. This was the reply:
"I will pass on your request about CB 120 specifications to our lens
expert."
Next their lens expert replied:
"I hope that the technical information about the CB120 mm lens already has
been given to you."
Still not deterred by this, i asked again. Now they replied:
"Carl Zeiss have produced some general information on the CB series.
[typically very long Zeiss URL snipped by me] I have nothing specific
available otherwise to hand but do recommend Carl Zeiss as a source of
technical information."
And Carl Zeiss? Somehow i don't think they even know they made this lens at
all.
My guess is that this lens is optically the same as the CF and CFI f/4
Makro-Planars, but in a CB mount.
From: "Frank Filippone" [email protected]>
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>,
[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] 120 CB Lens for Hassy
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001
The lens turned up in Hong Kong, which matches the earlier stories of the CB
lens line in Asia.... they want them cheaper.....so the lenses were made for
that market
The Zeiss and Hassy guys sure know how to evade an answer.....
So the lens will work on my 201F in F or C mode? Please confirm....
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>, [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 CB, again
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001
Malcolm & Sylvia Brickwood wrote:
> According to my 1999 Hasselblad Products Catalog ... and I quote ...
>
> CB120 Code 20055
> Zeiss Makro Planar CB 4/120mm
> "With the makro-Planar design the CB 120mm is optimized for the close up
> focusing range and the relatively large aperture makes it ideal to
> combine with close-up accessories. As the optical performance is high
> over the entire focusing range it is also a useful lens for general
> photography."
>
> Malcolm
Oops! I hadn't seen your post. If i had i wouldn't have posted the same
info.
But you say you saw it in the 1999 catalogue?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
Jesse Hellman wrote:
> I'm puzzled a bit about the use of the 120 for tight head shots.
> [...]
> Any thoughts on this?
I think you're absolutely right.
120 mm is far too short a focal length to be used for tight head shots. You
need to be too close to your subject to do that, with horrific results.
Myself, i use 250 mm for tight head shots. In my opinion that is about the
right focal length.
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
From: Malcolm & Sylvia Brickwood [email protected]>
To: Hasselblad User Group [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] CB Lens Debate
All
I seem to recall there being some previous discussion concerning CB
lenses but it was about the time I joined HUG so can't remember precisely.
In case it might be of interest to anyone else, we thought that we would
share our experience comparing the 80 CB lens that we own with an 80 CFe
that we rented.
We did a series of tests at various apertures including close up, mid
range and far away objects, processed the film (FP4+) and made 8x10
prints at x7 enlargement from a corner of each negative. Of course, we
used a tripod, lens hood, mirror lock, etc, etc.
In blind tests we can't tell the difference -- well on one, maybe the CB
looks better, but that must be our imagination? Maybe for someone doing
x zillion enlargements it might be an issue but I don't think it's ever
going to be a problem with my modest 11x14 prints.
Is this in line with other's experiences?
Now I don't need to worry over those Zeiss MTF curves :-)
Malcolm
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: [HUG] another spacing issue
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
> I never much looked at the spacing on my Hasselblad negatives and
> slides, but now that it was discussed on the list I have noticed a fair
> amount of variation within each roll. Some of the issues have been
> discussed already, but did anyone bring up the issue of the continuously
> changing diameter of the takeup spool? Does the magazine compensate for
> the incremental change in diameter as successive exposures are made?
Yup! It sure does. The counter disc is the mechanism that determines where
the film stops for each frame. Unlike your 35 mm camera, the counter does
much more than go along for the ride. A spring-loaded arm falls into a notch
on the counter wheel at each # and the other end of the arm STOPS the film
from moving any farther. Each numbered notch is in a slightly different
place, relative to the last, compensating for the larger take-up spool
diameter. There is an additional notch that corresponds to frame #1 that
stops the external wind lever so it cannot go past #1 in the initial wind.
Variation within a roll is evidence that it is a mechanical device with a
fair amount of slop built-in and the mechanical train has 6 or so things
that have to happen EXACTLY the same way at the same time to make the
spacing exactly the same. Impossible really, without sprocket holes.
Yet once again...more than you wanted to know...
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001
Subject: [HUG] Re: CB Lens Debate
To: [email protected]
Malcolm wrote in a test between the 80 CB & CFE:
"In blind tests we can't tell the difference -- well on one, maybe the CB
looks better, but that must be our imagination? Maybe for someone doing x
zillion enlargements it might be an issue but I don't think it's ever going
to be a problem with my modest 11x14 prints."
Well, Malcolm I think your testing is pretty close to the real deal. The
Zeiss / Hasselblad MTF's were very close on these two lenses anyway. I have
always been very happy with my 80 CB. I would hazard to say that
manufacturing tolerances could tip the balance one way or another when
comparing these lenses. A respected Zeiss employee, Dr. Kornelius J.
Fleischer wrote in a post on Photo.net in February of 1999:
"When I compared a CB 80 to my CF 80 shooting high resolution Kodak Ektar 25
color negative film and using a very good tripod I could not detect a
difference in the prints 25 inch x 25 inch. This was approximately 10 times
magnification. With the negative under a microscope at 30 x magnification I
found, the CF 80 offered somewhat higher resolution than the CB 80. Expect to
see differences once you enlarge to 4 ft x 4 ft and larger and look at these
prints from with in one foot."
Doug from Tumwater
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Portrait technique question
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002
Tourtelot wrote:
> I am about to do some head-shots, just tight head and shoulders or even a
> bit tighter. With either of the lenses that I own that I might expect to do
> this, a 150/4C and a 250/5.6C neither has a minimum focus distance that will
> allow for such a tight frame. Do the portrait shooter among you use Proxars
> to get a tighter frame, and if so, which one (or two) would be most
> beneficial to me. Also assuming this is true, I can assume that the quality
> of the extra glass is still acceptable for some (non-diffused) sharp tight
> head shots?
250 mm plus 32 mm tube for tight head shots.
Excellent quality. Just remember to add 1 extra stop in compensation for the
extension.
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002
From: Don Nelson [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Portrait technique question
Tourtelot wrote:
> I am about to do some head-shots, just tight head and shoulders or even a
> bit tighter. With either of the lenses that I own that I might expect to do
> this, a 150/4C and a 250/5.6C neither has a minimum focus distance that will
> allow for such a tight frame. Do the portrait shooter among you use Proxars
> to get a tighter frame, and if so, which one (or two) would be most
> beneficial to me. Also assuming this is true, I can assume that the quality
> of the extra glass is still acceptable for some (non-diffused) sharp tight
> head shots?
I have both chrome 150 & 250 lenses. I also have 21mm and 55mm extension tubes which I recommend for close shots rather then Proxars. I have lurked here for a long time but have never heard mentioned that the 21mm extension is very
nice because it starts focusing where the 150 leaves off (when 21+150 is attached at infinity), so lets you move in from close focus point. 21mm was a design decision length for the 150mm lens. I see no similar logic regarding 55mm
extension & 250 though it works ok for close work if 21 is not tight enough.
I have used my 120 with the 21 on very tight shots. Subject said she started to love/use her eyes after seeing the (large/quality) prints.
Remember later chrome lenses can be multi coated just like T*. The small increase in image quality did not mean anything until Marketing picked it up (Japan's Marketing).
In love with my Chromes,
Don
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad repair question
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002
Grand Master Chuck wrote:
> I was playing around with my camera today, and I put on a lens that I
> haven't used much, and I snapped a shot and it seems as though the
> mirror is stuck. I am wondering if there is a quick and easy way to
> unstick the mirror or not. As is, I cannot remove the lens, and I
> cannot turn the winding crank, neither of which can be done while the
> mirror is flipped up. So basically I am wondering if this can be fixed
> by me (a fairly inexperienced person at camera repair). Please e-mail
> me if you can help. Thanks. Oh yeah, I am shooting with a Hasselblad
> 500 CM, and a very old Zeiss 150mm. I think it may be the old lens that
> is causing problems, but i really don't know. Thank in advance.
Yes, you can fix it yourself quite easily.
I could explain the procedure but i think that this webpage does it better:
http://www.multimania.com/cesarigd/photoe2b.htm
I do too think that it is the lens that is causing this problem. Have it
checked by a competent reapir person.
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002
From: Akhil Lal [email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]>,
[email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad
Hello Everyone,
Here's an interesting post from photo.net concerning Hasselblad's fiscal condition:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001tUS
Regards,
Akhil
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Subject: plungercam hassy
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Mark Tucker, a professional photographer in Nashville I believe has done some
fabulous shots with his homemade "plungercam" (he calls it) where he adapted a
loupe as a lens to his Hasselblad. Also a section describing his modifications.
Website is www.marktucker.com I think
Love his work, very natural and alive.
I just got an old Polaroid cheapy with a plastic lens I'm going to try and
adapt to my Speed Graphic with a 120 back.
[Ed. note: I get a chuckle out of the idea of a plunger to hasselblad lens mount, but the resulting photos are definitely another tool for the photographer!...]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay
tigerarm2000 at [email protected] wrote:
> I was curious about who the orignial Salyut desingers are and if
> Salyut is a copy of Hasselblad 1600 F. There is a lengthy discussion
> on Kiev Report forum.Someone even translated an article written by a
> Taiwanese with many pictures of both camereas.Now I tend to believe
> that Salyut is a copy of Hasselblad. If you see those pictures of
> both cameras' insides you can see they are almost identical.
> Hasselblad might have developed the first 1600F based on a German
> camera.
Once more let me tell this story. Some years ago I talked to an elderly
retired engineer from Zeiss-Ikon. He said that he was the designer of the
shutter used on a prototype camera that Z-I was developing for the German
navy, primarily for use on U-boats. He said that when the Russians took
the Contax works to Kiev they also took the prototypes and tooling for this
camera, which became the Salyut and Kiev 88 series. His explanation of
Hasselblad was that one of the prototypes being tested on board a U-boat had
been captured by the British and sent to Sweden, a neutral country, for
research.
Now, of course, this is not the way Hasselblad tells the story, but when I
wrote a systems manual for them back in the 80s I was able to ask some old
timers at Hasselblad about this story. What got to me was that none of them
denied it, as I would expect, and some said, off the record, that it might
be so.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay
Bob Shell wrote:
>
>I've told my story and that's that. The designer is now dead. People who
>were at Hasselblad at the time have said it is possible, and no one at
>Hasselblad has ever been willing to flatly say it is not true.
>
>Personally, I think the story is true.
Bob
The story could not possibly be true, as Zeiss Ikon was NOT designing any
aerial recon cameras for the Germans during World War II. Zeiss had
divested itself of this responsibility (after all, Kuppenbender was in
charge of the entire optical industry as well as of Zeiss) early on, and
had farmed out the job to other and much smaller companies, as the overall
market for this stuff was relatively minuscule.
I would think that the statements of the chief designer would count for
more than those of your anonymous dude, in any event.
Finally, given that we do know the heritage of the Hasselblad 1600F --
Volk HK 12.5 to Ross HK 7 to Hasselblad 1600F, the process would seem to
crystaline and transparent to need much more analysis.
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay
Marc James Small at [email protected] wrote:
> The story could not possibly be true, as Zeiss Ikon was NOT designing any
> aerial recon cameras for the Germans during World War II. Zeiss had
> divested itself of this responsibility (after all, Kuppenbender was in
> charge of the entire optical industry as well as of Zeiss) early on, and
> had farmed out the job to other and much smaller companies, as the overall
> market for this stuff was relatively minuscule.
Who said anything about an aerial recon camera. I said a camera for use
by the German navy on board U-boats, which was stated as the reason for
using stainless steel for the shutter curtains.
I do not think the story is impossible at all. It is no stranger than the
Contax 35mm becoming Kiev.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay
Bob Shell wrote:
>Who said anything about an aerial recon camera. I said a camera for use by
>the German navy on board U-boats, which was stated as the reason for using
>stainless steel for the shutter curtains.
>
>I do not think the story is impossible at all. It is no stranger than the
>Contax 35mm becoming Kiev.
Well, Bob, Zeiss Ikon wasn't designing a U-Boat camera, either. They did
produce a Contax set for U-Boat periscope use, but had nothing in the
pipeline. Times were REALLY tough for the German optical industry during
the War, and they just had no additional resources to dedicate to
designing ANYTHING. Zeiss Ikon, the largest German camera company, did
not officially design ANYTHING from 1938 to 1945 -- the work on the Contax
S was done by Nerwin and his boys during their lunch breaks and, had they
been caught, they would have been told to cease and desist.
And all Zeiss Ikon design was conducted at the old ICA works in Dresden,
which was destroyed by the Fire Bombing in February, 1945 -- that is why,
Postwar, the Contax IIa and IIIa had to be redesigned from the ground up,
as only set of Prewar Contax II and III plans had survived, at the
corporate headquarters in Dresden at the Ernemann Tower, and the Soviets
did get these.
So, no, if the Soviets did, indeed, derive the Salyut from a German
prototype, it was the Volk HK 12.5. But Occam's Razor compels us to
accept the far simpler solution that they just copied the Hasselblad
1000F.
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay
Marc James Small at [email protected] wrote:
> Well, Bob, Zeiss Ikon wasn't designing a U-Boat camera, either. They did
> produce a Contax set for U-Boat periscope use, but had nothing in the
> pipeline.
OK, Marc, you are now forcing me to delve back into memory from more than
ten years ago and look for notes. The man is only anonymous at this point
because I don't remember his name. After the war he worked for Heinz
Kilfitt as a mechanical designer, and was the main designer of the very
advanced Kilfitt SLR with a super fast metal bladed shutter.
Unfortunately that camera never was produced, and only a few prototypes
were built. I don't think anyone knows what became of those.
I'll see if I can go back to my sources and notes and flesh out the details.
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: Jesse Hellman [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] more Ilford spacing woes
Having sent two perfectly good A-12 magazines out for unnecessary
servicing, I've been following all the discussion on Ilford with
interest, paying more attention to loading.
Jim Brick's explanation that it is the thickness of the spool onto which
one is loading was a big help. And to align the arrows at the corner,
not the triangle.
But I still have occasional problems with Ilford, and it appears to be
due to this: As I wind on the Ilford leader, at times it does not make a
TIGHT roll with the first turn. If the film is not tight on the spool,
it actually creates a core with a greater diameter (an Inadvertently
Larger Core, or ILC, and this leads to increased spacing between frames
and the last frame being too close to (or worse, over) the end of the
film. I noticed that if I wound the film very carefully for the first
turn, the spacing between frames would not be off.
The Ilford film comes with a leader doubled over. If I use it that way,
I have to be careful it does not load at a slight angle - that is, the
film is not at an exact right angle to the core. This that can create
the ILC mentioned above.
How do you all deal with this? Are there secrets to loading Ilford? I
have tried un-doubling the doubled-over flap, but this is a pain and
does not hold well in the wide slot they use.
How do you all do it? I assume that a company that makes such good film
has not missed such an obvious thing, but I have not read anything about
it and do not know if I am the only person who occasionally has this problem.
Jesse
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Light Traps
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> some repair types will do this for $15 or so (often $45 up for entire back
> CLA), works out to about $1/year of use, so check locally for prices
> too...
Somehow i have the impression that Hasselblad in my neck of the woods is
cheap when it comes to servicing backs.
They sold me replacement light traps for approx. $4 per set, and offered to
service my backs, including replacing the light traps, for $19 per back. I
wish they were always that cheap... (They aren't though. They just quoted me
$200 for a F-lens CLA...) ;-)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002
From: "Peter G. Walker" [email protected]
To: mistwalker [email protected]
Hasselblad Mailing List [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: Zone metering system in Hassy 205FCC
Jim,
I have used the 205FCC extensively for about 5 years and still love that
Zone mode. It works in a similar manner to the D (differential) mode on
the 205 and 203 cameras, except it uses zone numbers in the settings.
Here is how it works:
Let's say there is a spot in the image area that you know you would like to
place in a particular zone (let's say for example that the image has some
dark green leaves and you decide that they are an important component for
exposure setting and you would like them to be zone 3). You would point
the viewfinder's spot at that part of the image and press the AE lock button
on the left-hand side. The shutter speed will now be set to expose that
area to fall in zone 5 (NB. not yet zone 3). This is because the default
starting zone when you press the AE lock is zone 5. Zone 5 seems to be the
most logical starting point but you can change the default starting zone to
any that you prefer. If you fired the camera now, the dark green leaves
would be placed in zone 5 and the whole shot would probably be overexposed.
Using the blue up and down arrows next to the AE lock, you change the zone
number to what you want. (in the dark green leaf example, you'd press the
down button 8 times (1 click = 1/4 of a zone) until Zone 3 is shown in
display. If you fired the camera now, the dark green leaves would be
placed in zone 3 and, assuming the rest of the image area was within the
zone range of the film, you'd have a good exposure.
Or, if you want to be more careful that other key parts of the image are
close to their optimal exposure, you can use the spot meter to scan other
parts of the image. As you move the spot over different part of the image
the display shows what zone they would fall into. But the shutter speed
does not change unless you press the blue buttons. If you fired the camera
now, the dark green leaves would still be placed in zone 3.
But, if the scanning shows that some other part of the image is way off its
optimal zone, you can make some fine adjustments with the blue buttons,
going back to the original spot to see what affect the adjustments have had
on your original zone 3 placement for the dark green leaves. Of course, it
is always a trade-off, but the combination of the zone mode and the spot
meter really let you see what the effect of that trade-off will be.
As with the D setting, the exposure setting stays locked until you press the
AE lock again. This enables you to take several shots of the same scene (as
long as the lighting does not change) without rethinking exposure. Even if
you change lens or f stop.
It also provides for easy bracketing. Determine the first exposure, shoot,
blue button up two presses, shoot, blue button down four presses, shoot.
(or, you can do auto bracketing in another exposure mode (A = Auto)).
One final point, if you shoot B&W, have control over the film processing and
use one whole roll per subject, you can also include the zone system's
processing adjustments into the process. There is a small dial on the 205's
film magazine that lets you set the N setting for the processing. But
that's a whole new topic that I don't know much about.
I hope that this does not sound too complicated. It really feels very
simple when the camera is in your hands.
The upside is that it gives very precise exposure control in a method that,
if you know the zone system (or are prepared to invest a little time
learning it), is very intuitive.
Of course you can always use the zone mode for a rapid "grab" shot. If the
default AE lock starting zone has been left on zone 5, point the spot at a
mid-grey, a blue sky, a light green grass, or anything else in the
mid-tones, press the AE lock, point and shoot.
I use the Zone mode for most of my shots and find it to be intuitive and
very accurate.
Regards
Peter
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.peterwalker.com
From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] 205TCC
> Fellas,
>
> This guy who want to sell his 205TCC gear wants (House, winder F, two
> E12CC) for 'at least NOK 40.000'(4.040 $) for this gear that costed
> (list prices, mind you) NOK 80.000 (8080 $). I think that 60.000 NOK
> (6.060 $) is closer to what this gear was sold new for some years back.
>
> What do you think, fellas, is it a fair price?
>
> What are the major differences between 205TCC and 205FCC? Something I
> should cry myself to sleep for not having?
> Tom of Oslo
Hi Tom,
I wrote up the differences in the TCC and FCC a little while ago, and posted
them to this list. Here they are again for sake of ease:
1) TCC does not have autobracket mode
2) TCC does not have fill flash programmability
3) FCC shutter controlled from 34 minutes, TCC from 16 seconds
4) Control dial is laid out differently
I would say that a price of $4k for a 205TCC, with a winder and two backs,
with no lense is slightly high. It's not outrageous, but I believe it's
high. I bought an FCC/E12CC back/110/2 FE lense and ~$800 worth of extras
(Polaroid 100, D40 flash, flash bracket, quick mount plate) for $4200, as
new. It was a great deal.
Another main difference in FCC vs TCC is resale value. The FCC, I would
say, is worth about $500+ more...and it's also newer.
Austin
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] tubes
Feliciano di Giorgio wrote:
> Does anyone know of a chart or web site, that shows how close you can
> get
> when using the various extension tubes on a 150mm/f4-C lens?
Minimum field of view (with full use of the 25 mm lens extension):
Tube 8 :- 25.9 cm square; -0.7 EV
Tube 16 :- 20.8 cm square; -0.9 EV
Tube 8 + 16 :- 17.4 cm square; -1 EV
Tube 32 :- 14.9 cm square; -1.2 EV
Tube 32 + 8 :- 13.1 cm square; -1.3 EV
Tube 32 + 16 :- 11.7 cm square; -1.4 EV
Tube 56 :- 10.6 cm square; -1.6 EV
Tube 56 + 8 :- 9.6 cm square; -1.7 EV
Tube 56 + 16 :- 8.8 cm square; -1.8 EV
Tube 56 + 32 :- 7.6 cm square; -2 EV
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
Mxsmanic [email protected] wrote ...
> ..
> I don't understand why other vendors would not simply duplicate the
> vees. It would be extremely easy. Heck, even a few minutes with
> Photoshop would produce good imitations. Why, a scheming photographer
> could probably even create his own on a film back with a few minutes and
> a little Dremel electric tool.
Look, Hasselblad - regardless of the presence or absence the "vees" also
delivers consistent quality...I can imagine that many a Kiev user would be
tempted, though, to add the "vees..."
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: Acu matte screens
you wrote:
> I see that the current screens are
>called Acu matte D, does anybody know if there is any improvemnet to these
>screens?
From my collection of old 'blad literature it seems the Acute-Matte screen
was upgraded to "D" during Winter 96-97. Hassy claims the improvement was a
brighter image with no sacrifice of contrast, plus the addition of new
screen models.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: Eyecup for Prism/Finder
B&H has flat eyecups for Hasselblad prisms for eyeglass wearers (Mfr# 85424 �
B&H# HAECQ: $6.00) or oval types (Mfr# 85416 � B&H# HAEC: $13.00).
Buy a couple, they come off as you know.
Doug from Tumwater
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] NIKITA KHRUTCHEV AND HASSELBLAD
Fellas,
In my search for pictures up and down my house, I found a book I havn't
read for years: Nikita Khrutchev's 'Memories'. It is transcripts of
audio tapes (from the time the first 'casette tapes' made the market)
which one of his sons had smuggled out to the west and had released as a
book just after he died. He dictated into the tapes after he was sacked
(as with John F. Kennedy, he was 'removed' as Secretary General of the
Politbyrau' after the Cuba Missle crises) by Kosygin and Brechnev.
Nikita Khrutchev was originally born in Kalinovka in the Kursk region,
but moved to the Donbas region of Ukraina, and was very much regarded as
an Ukranian by his fellow communist leaders. Regarded as a 'simple,
practical guy from the country side', by the many intelectual snobs of
St.Petersburg in the Politbyrau (like Kosygin). In his memoars he is
very frank and streight forward, - which he always were, with the many
vices of the society of the USSR verses 'The West'. Like the quality of
different products.
I don't want to turn this into a political fora, but just mention few
things about the legacy of Nikitia Khrutchev as viewed by many Russians
today: He is regarded as a hero for stopping the feared security chief
of Stalin, Beria, taking power after Stalin's death. At gun-point,
actually. His heritage is the beautiful 'metro of Moscow', which he was
the master of building. Beautifully decorated, it is unique in the
world and one the few thing Russians are proud of after the communist
time.
Undoubtedly he was a charismatic and good leader, managing to 'get the
Russians up in the morning out of share enthusiasm', as a taxi driver in
St.Petersburg once told me (contrary to Stalin who made the same feat by
shear terror). He had great belief in rockets both as a weapon and as a
means of exploration the outer space, but managed to stem the
'militarism' of the USSR for a while (it was picked up by his
predecessors). He genuinly wanted to turn communism into superiority
and improve the standard of living for his fellow Russians. He had no
fear of 'getting dirt on his shoes', dig into details to get matters
solved, a trait he shared with Winston Churchhill.
He was the first communist leader who visited the west and was 'joyed
like a child' (his own words) about all he saw and all the good ideas he
could bring home to 'make life easier for us in USSR' as he sayes. On
his journeys in the west he received many gifts. All from bulls for
breeding milk-cows (from Jens Otto Kragh, the Danish prime minister who
was a farmer) and different types of weath grain (from a porminant weath
grower in the Mid West USA) to test out in the fields back home. To
laboratory equipment try out in Russian hospitals or a copy of a
'Holywood Western' ('they sure know how to swing the guns in America').
And so on. As a communist he did not regard these as 'personal gifts',
but gifts he had receved 'on behalf of the Russian people'.
A few thing he did keep, though. Actually, only two things he mentions
in his memoars. A pair of Carl Zeiss binoculars he received from Konrad
Adenauer ('they are of very good quality, definately better than we make
them ourselves', he frankly states) and which made it possible for him
to 'admire the beautiful suroundings of Moscow and the rich bird-life in
the spring' (since then, Moscow has trippled in size and with it's 12
million inhabitants, turned most of the 'beautiful suroundings' that he
saw into a 'concrete inferno'). '- And the camera that the mayor of
Gothenburg, a Social Democrat, gave me' (actually, it was a personal
gift from Victor Hasselblad himself, given at a 'tour of the Hasselblad
factory') "- It takes 'damned good pictures' ('ochin dobre kartinij'-
>From the horse's mouth, fellas) and together with the binoculars is a
constant joy to me in my dreary pensionere days..." .
He lost his first wife in the Great Famine in the 20' and his oldest son
in the Stalingrad battles and had 'grown to appreciate the closeness and
the share value of family life...' - Which his pictures shows. Mostly
taken, all in black & white, at his modest dacha on warm summer days
with the grand children as the most prominent objects of photography.
Tom of Oslo
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on 500 c/m and lens capability
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 0
Austin Franklin wrote:
> It is what the factory record books indicate! Starting serial number was
> #1001, and last one shown being produced was in 1955, #1903...and every one
> in-between is apparently listed. A MERE coincidence, I think not ;-)
I do.
> Well, we certainly can agree that 90x is not the top shutter speed! I like
> your speculation of the 90 being for the angle of view of the Biogon,
When i start rummaging, i will have a look if i can find where it says "90"
is for the angle of view.
> and the 3 kind of makes sense...kind of...
What do you mean, "kind of"? In the year the SWC got this number
designation, every (!) other model got the same "3" stuck to its number
designation. "A MERE coincidence, I think not". Or would that all have been
in honour of the number of SWAs produced? ;-)
The three signified the "third generation". After the original 500 C, SWC,
EL and FC models came the next generation "/M" models. These in turn were
modified/improved again in 1984, becoming "generation-3".
The most important 3rd generation improvement was the Palpas stray light
reduction coating. Without it, the stray light reduction measures included
in the CFi would not have made much sense.
The most visible improvement however was the new generation Focussing
screens. So, as in the change from C to C/M, it is again the
viewfinder/focussing screen that marks the new generation.
(Now we all know that the SWC is (almost) exempt from changes made to
focussing screens. But while it mark the changing of generations, it, as i
mentioned, it was not the only change. And the SWC did get the Palpas
coating as well.)
> ...lucky the AOV wasn't 86.724 or
> something like that...even though, in reality, it very well might be for
> some of the lenses!
AOV?
But i see you haven't heard the latest rumours about their upcoming model,
the 6.684.873 PcCLQMWi?
"P" stands for Prontor; "c" to honour its predecessor, the Compur; "C" for
central shutter; "L" because central shutters are better known to the
English speaking part of the world as leaf shutters, and they do not want to
repeat the previous confusion about the "C", people thinking it stands for
central shutter while it stands for Compur, and all that. (But they included
the "C" meaning just that in the new designation anyway, just to be safe);
"Q" just because it's such a nice, but all too often neglected, letter; "M"
for manual, which, because the camera is, you don't need; "W" for winder. It
takes no batteries. You will have to wind it up, and it will run for 15
minutes continuously, playing "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" (Did i mention
this camera, being manual, is aimed at all those astrophotographers out
there, bored out of their wits, waiting for those looong exposures to
complete? It comes with a pair of gloves and thermal underwear too. But you
will have to pay extra for the lenscap); "i" for improved (Already); and
finally 6.684.873 for the number of cameras they (hope to) sell in the first
year of production, or the product of the angles of view of all different
lenses that can be used with it, whichever one of the two comes closer.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 50mm T* lens with heavy marks
If you want glass for this or any other Zeiss lens, this is the guy to
try.
Wilco Jansen Hassy Parts Int.
Geik 34
1276 Je Huizen N.H.
Holland
Telephone:035-525-7119
Fax:035-526-2596
He reworks Hassy lenses and puts other glass into them. Therefore, he
has a lot of standard Zeiss lens glass. His prices are right.
You can also email Zeiss in Germany and you will find that their prices
are just a fraction of what Hasselblad USA will charge.
On Jansen's last price list, he lists the front glass for a 50C/T* for
$216 and the rear glass for $215. It is nothing to change the glass in a
lens. The most you will have to do is refocus the lens which is no big
deal.
Hope this helps,
--
Dick Werner
112 South Brighton St.
Burbank, Ca., 91506
(818) 845-4667
[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs)
I thought I remembered seeing some references to a Hasselblad 35mm back,
and so I went thru promotional material, and price lists from '69 thru
the present (not ALL material, but a reasonable sampling). What I found
was the following:
1. No reference to ANY 35mm format prior to 85/86 Product Catalog ('69-
85/86). The only thing that came close was the "16S" back, (which is a
square "superslide" format on 120 film, that can be mounted in slide
mounts & projected in a 35mm projector); and the 70mm film, and film
cassette (that "looks" like the 35mm equivalent if you squint, but is a
much larger magazine).
2. 1985/86 Product Catalog:
In the special applications section, under "Special Film Magazines" they
refer to "several different modifications have been made on Hasselblad
film magazines for type 120, 220, 70mm, and 35mm film". No other
data/pictures were given.
3. 1987/88 Product Catalog:
Again, in the very back of the catalog in a special applications area,
reference is made to:
63073 Film Magazine A2035 (black)
Produces at least 19, 1x2 1/8 (24x55mm) frames on 135-36 film
4. 1994 Catalog:
Reference is made to (again, in the back of the catalog):
Magazine A2035 - for film 135 (19 frames size 24x55)
5. 1996 Catalog:
Reference, in back of catalog to (note: the "35" may be a typo):
63073 Magazine A2035 (black)
For type film 135
(19 frames, size 24x35mm)
A point of interest is that the 35mm magazine was NEVER referred to in
the main catalog... it was always hidden away as a footnote or embedded
in text. One might guess that all of them were special order.
Hopefully this information may be of use to those who may want to run
one of these magazines down. At least you now have a part number!
-David Gerhardt
([email protected])
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> bradley hanson wrote:
>
>> Coincidentally, the new issue of Hasselblad FORUM shows an old
>> prototype
>> back that held 35mm for vertical panoramas. The entire issue is
>> dedicated
> to
>> the Hasselblad XPAN.
>
> This 35 mm back has been taken beyond the prototype stage. It was
> offered
> for sale during the 80s, featuring in several Product Catalogues.
> It probably still is available from Hasselblad.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kiev Backs for the Hasselblad
bad news is that Kiev Camera has raised the price from $99 to $149, they
must be catching on? ;-)
from http://kievcamera.com/prices.php under "Hasselblad" compatible accy's
Spot/TTL metered prism $149.00
Magnifying hood $85.00
NC-2 prism finder $99.00
TTL Metered Prism $109.00
Polaroid back (Haselblad compatible) $149.00
NT-12 film back $149.00
the Kiev88 mailing list (egroups.yahoo.com) has given high marks to these
NT back for flatness (esp. Sam Sherman, who has written and done a number
of tests on these issues, see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronica.html for articles
[the kiev88 backs remain at $60 for 6x6cm auto-12 back style]
hope this helps - bobm
Mark Kronquist wrote:
> Anyone A. have any experience using the fairly new Kiev backs that now
> properly fit Hasselblad 500 series cameras
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does the 1/focal length rule hold for MF?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Looks great ... certainly for a full-frame shot I don't see any sign of
> softness at all. Of course, if you enlarge it to wall size and view it from
> a foot away, maybe you'd see something, but I don't really know.
>
> Was this 250mm one of those fancy superachromatic lenses or what? (I'm not
> familiar with the longer focal lengths available, except that I heard that
> some were truly superachromatic, i.e., fully corrected at all wavelengths.)
It says so in the "photo information" part.
The Superachromat advantage is definitely lost when using the lens handheld.
Since i know you won't believe it when i say that, here's what Zeiss' very
own Kornelius J. Fleischer has to say about it:
"Utilizing the image quality potential of this lens fully requires adequate
technique: high resolution films like Velvia and Portra 160 VC, very sturdy
tripod and mirror-lock-up, meticulous focussing, maybe even focus bracketing
to compensate for film flatness errors, thermal expansion, alignment
deviations of focussing screen, mirror, and the like."
;-)
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002
From: Jeff Grant [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Proshade or Lee?
The Lee system will let you use graduated filters, and it is certainly
less precise than the Hasselblad proshade. Be prepared to fiddle around
with the Lee shade to get a tight fit in the holder. I have used it
mainly with a 60 and so have had very little need to adjust it. I use
standard Hasselblad shades when I don't need the grad as they are far
less bulky.
...
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002
From: John Jungkeit [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: lenses to lust after test Re: [HUG] Pictures with 250/350
I disagree! The only difference with focus of an SA
lens is focus beyond infinity and its ultra sharpness.
I believe Wildi and Hasselblad would disagree with
you. Adequate technique may be required when utilizing
any photographic equipment. I primarily shoot Fuji
400 print film, as my primary use is portrait. I am
not quite so sure the extra price for an SA is
justifiable, but some times you can find a good buy.
Do you think you can see the difference between the
two type lenses?
John
--- Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlensenvy.html for tips
> on using a 6x6cm slide
> and millimeter ruled tape measure to compare views
> of various lenses
> (250mm, 350mm). This can help you decide which focal
> length fits your needs
> best.
>
> Note that the SA lenses require a serious effort to
> get the best results
> (per Fleischer quote courtesy of Q.G. de Bakker,
> viz:
> Utilizing the image quality potential of this lens
> fully requires
> adequate technique: high resolution films like
> Velvia and Portra 160 VC,
> very sturdy tripod and mirror-lock-up, meticulous
> focussing, maybe even
> focus bracketing to compensate for film flatness
> errors, thermal
> expansion, alignment deviations of focussing screen,
> mirror, and the
> like.... quoting Zeiss' Kornelius J. Fleischer
>
> Does this match your shooting style? If you are more
> of a handheld type
> shooter, you may be as well off with the very good
> 250mm non-APO lenses?
>
> regards bobm
From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002
Subject: THE SHOCK OF SEEING THE FIRST HASSELBLAD IN AMERICA
THE SHOCK OF SEEING THE FIRST HASSSELBLAD IN AMERICA
I was in my office at the J. Walter Thompson Company in New York. The phone
rang. It was Burt Keppler calling from Modern Photography. "Hey Art, exciting
news, Y'know that long rumored Swedish camera, the Haselblad? It came. I have
it right here on my desk. I want you to do a test and write up on it ASAP.
C'mon over". This was in about 1949 or so, and a new world of photography was
about to open.
I grabbed a cab. Walked into Burt's office and there was the 1600F spread all
over a table. Burt said," there it is Art. I'll bet POP has one also and if
so, they'll give it to Schwalberg to write up. I don't want them to beat us
into print with it. So get to work fast and let's be first on the street with
this story."
I picked up each part. It was a shock. The fit and finish were superb. The
design was revolutionary. It was a dramatic advance in camera design such as
had never been seen before. It was of course a 1600F with an 80mm F/2.8 Ektar
lens. The groundglass image was dazzling, far brighter than a Rollei.
I packed it up and took it home and started shooting. It was a dream. In fact
one of the very first shots I made won an Art Directors Award at the annual
Art Director Show the very next year.
Shooting, changing magazines and lenses at the speed of light, all this was
revolutionary in 1949. There had never been anything like this before. I did
resolution tests on the lenses. Excellent.
The point of this message is in reply to those who trash the 1600F mindlessly.
It is like trashing the Spirit of St Louis or the Nina the Pinta and th Santa
Maria. The 1600F was a pioneer that demands the highest respect. Without it
nothing could have followed. The next time anyone mentions the 1600 F do it
with reverence and in hushed tones preferably with hat in hand.
\BTW, the Modern and POP articles appeared in the same month.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?
"Engel, E" [email protected] wrote:
> I'm wondering whether or not I should settle for C lenses, instead of
> getting greedy and aiming at CF or even better. My question is, are CF(E/I)
> lenses really that much better than the old C's?
Edo-
The new lenses (CFI/CFE) ARE better than the older lenses. You're really
asking a question about the magnitude of the cost/performance tradeoff. I
have one of the new 40mm Distagon's (CFE), and I'm continually amazed by the
control of lens flare & contrast alone. However, there ARE other ways to
control flare, etc, to a degree with the older lenses (careful positioning
of lighting, using a newer body with the improved internal coating...). From
my point of view, it becomes a financial decision. When I bought my 203, I
kept one older "CF" lens (150), and purchased two new CFE lenses to round
out my setup (40, 80, 150). Depending on the number of lenses you need, and
the state of your finances, you need to decide how important it is for you
to have the "newer" lenses.
An additional consideration is whether or not you "ever" intend to migrate
to a 200-series camera. If the answer is "yes", then this adds a little more
weight to the "go for CFE" side of the equation.
Which lenses were you considering? That may also have a bit of an impact.
I've yet to see anyone complain about even the "C" version of the SWC.
Short answer: it depends on you & your finances. If you are building a
system for the long term, or are always looking for the additional "edge"
(AND can find the finances), then dig deep & go for the newer lens.
I hope this helps. My experience with CF & CFE lenses has been very
positive; and the difference in quality was very noticeable on the 40CFE.
Finally, I personally like the "feel" of the focusing ring of the newer
lenses better than either the "C" or "CF"; that alone might have done it for
me. Although I realize this is a "personal" decision.
Good Luck on your decision!
--
David Gerhardt
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002
From: rstein [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Metering Knob
Dear Friends,
Godfrey DiGiorgi is a very wise man. The selenium cell meter winding
knob is a very useful item for any 500-series owner. I picked one up cheap
and even paid to have it repaired by HB when it fell apart ( my fault )
because it is soooo useful in the field. It won't do no-light metering and
it won't do a 1 degree spot reading but if you are a tourist shooting colour
neg ( 5 stop latitude ) or B/W ( anything you like ) you can reduce your
load to one camera on a strap and a pocket full of film.
I would also advise the inveterate bargain bin hunters out there to
snuffle round the camera stores for HB accessories and get the accessory
shoe that slides onto the side rail and takes a standard flash. I keep one
mounted and a very small flash unit in my other pocket when I go out
touristing - it is perfect for lighting up shadows and poking eyelights in.
Uncle Dick
PS I realise that last sentence can sound a little ghastly, but the portrait
shooters will know what I mean. If you really want to poke eyes in use a
Sykes-Fairbairn.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002
From: Rick Nordin [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] "Hasselblad Historical Society"?
Pleased to see some interest in formation of some sort of "Hasselblad
Society" ("connaisseurs/collectors/afficionados/repair-or camera(wo)men
have an interest in institutionalizing their activities" - thank you
Thomas). I have been attempting to put a website together but like most
everyone else, there never seems to be enough time to do all the things that
I'd like to. Thanks for the suggestions on web address availability.
I've had some discussions with staff at the factory and there is support
there for a "collectors and users" independent website. I've not contacted
any of the national distributors.
What I'd like to ask of the members of HUG is to let me know if there is
interest in some sort of organization out there (I'm never sure how many
people out there have strong interest in this) and if anyone is interesting
in assisting (or leading?)?
I was assuming a web format quarterly newsletter, on a home site which would
have sections dealing with History, Hardware, Tips and Repairs, Sources of
Equipment / Information and whatever else might be appropriate. I have
accumulated lots of material but would welcome contributions from anyone
willing to submit articles (any volunteers?).
The name of the potential organization has been the subject of some previous
discussion. Leo Wolk has suggested "Victor Hasselblad Society" and a variant
of that might be "The Friends of Victor Hasselblad" - in order to be
something distinctive from the Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, Hysterical Societies (as
Leo has pointed out!). Any preferences?
Any interest or suggestions on this subject gratefully received!
Rick
[email protected]
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] New in hasselblad world (sent again)
Sent again hopefully w/o HTML...
________________________________
I would buy a 203FE as it is both a 503 and a 203 in a single unit. Buy CFE
lenses as they work and meter automatically in the FE mode and the 203
meter works flawlessly in the "C" mode. You have your choice of lens
shutter or focal plane shutter. Use the lens shutter for all speeds slower
than 1/125th, when possible. No worries about the battery. Remove it (or
let it go dead) and you have a full 503 at your disposal. It all works
perfectly.
The 203FE without a battery IS a mechanical 503 camera. Complete. I know.
I've been out in the back country without a spare battery. I always carry a
Pentax Digital Spot meter for B&W zone type work or checking the brightness
range of a scene. It also comes in handy, if you are stupid like me, and
let your battery run out at the wrong time.
203FE
40CFE, 80CFE, 120CFE, 180CFE, 250CFE, 350CFE (it doesn't get much better
than this!)
PM45 prism (no meter needed - the 203FE meter is superb!)
FE winder (easy to put on and take off)
Pentax Digital Spot meter for B&W work etc.
Maybe a 110/2 FE for those low light shallow DOF situations
Neither wildlife nor landscapes need fast lenses. Wide apertures = very
little DOF. 99% of the wildlife photos are taken when the animal is
motionless. Art Wolfe routinely takes exquisite wildlife photos at 1/15sec
with 600/5.6 lenses stopped down to f/11. Or wide open (f/11) with a 2x
extender. A tripod is the key element.
I have the above system, minus the 250 & 350 lenses, and it the best
photography system I have ever owned. I went to Brooks Institute of
Photography (1959/61) and worked as a commercial photographer for many
years. Deardorf, Sinar, 500C, and Leica. Now I am a fine art photographer
(mostly landscape) and use Linhof, 203FE, and Leica. My 203FE system is the
overall best camera system I have ever owned!
Before the 203, I bought a 503CW and used it for a year or so. My daughter
needed a camera system for school so I gave it to her and bought a 203FE
for myself (Hasselblad promotion involved.) It is the best!
Jim
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Headshots and extension tubes
Headshots and extension tubesPaul Clark Photography wrote:
I plan on taking headshots with my 150mm lens on my 501CM. Which
extension tube would work best?
What (if any) is the formula for making the determination?
Estimate the field of view you want to have. Divide image format's size by
the size of the required field of view. The result is the magnification
you'll want. Multiply the focal length of the lens by that amount, and
you'll know the extra (compared to infinity focus) extension needed.
Say you want a tight head shot, 28 cm x 28 cm. The image format is about 5.6
cm, so the magnification needed is 5.6/28 = 0.2
0.2 * 150 = 30 mm.
Don't forget that the lens itself can provide part of the extension needed.
The 150 mm lens has about 25 mm of built-in extension (using the focusing
helicoid). So a short tube (8 mm) will be enough.
It's better though to get a tube having a length that is as near to the
amount of extension the lens has on its own as possible. So if chosing only
one tube to go with the 150 mm, i would pick the 16 mm (or, better still,
the old 21 mm).
The 32 mm tube takes you even closer, but leaves you with a gap between the
lens' full 25 mm (field of view approx.35 cm) and the tubes' 32 mm (field of
view approx. 27 cm. Minimum, with full lens extension too: approx. 15 cm).
Good if you don't need anything between these two limits, bad if you do.;-)
The (approximate) minimum field of view using the 150 mm lens with 16 mm
tube is 21 cm square, using the 21 mm tube it's 18.5 cm square.
Remember though that using the 150 mm lens, full lens extension and the 16
mm tube will require an exposure compensation of about 0.9 EV. (The lens
without tube but with full extension needs 0.6 EV extra already!)
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] polarizer and films
Your lens has 86mm threads. Buy a B+W 86EW polarizer. That's what I use
most of the time. The EW means Extra Wide so the glass is wider than 86mm
and will not vignette on wide angle lenses. I think B+W and Heliopan make
thin filters also. 86mm thin polarizers should also work. Thin filters have
no threads on the outside so you cannot stack any other 86mm filter on to
it. But you wouldn't want to as it would vignette.
Jim
Juarez de Queiroz Campos Jr wrote:
>Any suggestions on polarizer options for distagon 40mm ?
From: Martin Debuch [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy & Kiev questions
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002
JackBlack wrote:
> Hi, all!! Where can I read up on the different Hassy models to get a
> feel for the different features and such??
Hi!
Here is some information from Hasselblad about the 500 series.
http://www.hasselblad.com/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Information/500_series.PDF
As long as I didn't find anything about the focal plane shutter featured
200/2000 series, here are few differences i remember (hopefully I remember
it right ;-)).
2000FC (production starts 1977)
- focal plane shutter (titan foil)
- long mirror (no dark cutoff in the finder when using lenses f > 150mm)
- shutter stays closed when remooving the magazin for the film, that ist
dangerous because the shutter foil is extremely fragile.
- features three modes for mirror behaviour
- can use all lenses (C, CB, CF, CFi, CFE, F, FE) except the really old
ones made for the 1600F and 1000F.
- The built in shutter in the lenses can be used alternatively to the focal
plane shutter.
2000FC/M
- Features a mode when the shutter snaps open if magazin is remooved
(therefore the body has to be fully cocked).
- other features are same as 2000FC
2000FC/W
- Can use a special winder, the rest is like 2000FC/M
- afaik featuring Acute Matte-screen.
2003FC/W
- Features a ttl-flash like 503CX etc.
- This is the last model featring the focal plane shutter made of titan foil
201F
- same as 2003FC/W, but using a shutter made of cotton instead of
titan-foil.
205TCC
- build in metering
- I don't know the differences between this bodys and the actual 205FCC.
The 202FA, 203FE and 205FCC are actual models therefore see the catalog
from Hasselblad.
http://www.hasselblad.com/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Brochures/Catalogue2
001_English.pdf
1600F + 1000F + Kiev 88
- these are very old (build afaik between 1948 and 1957).
- The Kiev 88 is a copy from the 1000F.
- this cameras have a different lens mount (afaik the same as the Kiev 88).
I hope this helps a little bit (please don't worry about my typos, my
English is not too good)
greeting from germany :-)
--
Martin Debuch
Email (Formular): http://www.debuch.de/cgi-bin/homepage2/email.pl
Homepage: http://www.debuch.de
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1692
...
Dick,
Just be sure not to tighten the screws TOO much, as you will snap the corner
of the screen off. I find MANY of these cameras with the corners of the
screens snapped off...and it stinks, because the screens for the earlier
cameras (1000 and 1600) are VERY hard to fine.
A word of caution...
Austin
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
>Fellas,
>
>As mentioned. I have just bought myself a 203FE with a 80 mm/2,8, a E12
>magazine and a PM5 prism finder. I have a question to you of the guys
>with experience with this camera and the use of old C-lenses and light
>metering.
etc...
Tom,
There's not much difference between a "C" lens and a "CB" lens. Basically
the housing. Neither has the "F" mode switch. It's a shutter and diaphragm
in a focusing mount.
But Wildi says that CB lenses are OK and "C" lenses are not OK.
Poo!
They're both OK!
They operate identically on a 203FE.
And in the stop down mode, the meter doesn't care if it is a CFi, CF, CB,
or C lens. They all pass light through the lens set at the working
aperture. The meter sees it the same.
Jim
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] It's catalogue comparison time once again
Comparing the 2001 catalogue to the new V SYSTEM brochure:
Apart from the new 'book' being far nicer to look at, there is not much
news.
- Product catalogue numbers are now prefixed by "30". The change does not
reflect a change in product.
- The X System (XPan) is in a separate book
- The ArcBody is gone. We knew that already.
- The 202 FA is gone too. Again, we knew that already.
- The 903 SWC is replaced by the 905 SWC. Again...
- The Color Series is mentioned. Not new.
(It says in the book: "beauty is only skin deep". Do they mean that below
the coloured leatherette skin there is nothing beautiful? How does that
tally with the design awards they received in the past? ;-) )
- No more mention of photogrammetric and other speciality products. The 70
mm film backs that were in that category in the 2001 catalogue have returned
to their place amongst the other backs.
- CFE 120, CFE 180, CFE 250 SA lenses instead of CFi versions of the same.
We knew that.
- 500 mm Tele-Apotessarlens has vanished. And that we knew too.
- No more Variogon
- The CB 160 mm Tessar returns (!)
- FE 150 mm and 250 mm lenses are gone. Not news.
- Magnifying hood (the "chimney" finder) 52096 has gone.
- New filter adapter 3040775 for attaching diameter 60 filters on CFi 50 mm lens
- PCP80 projector is gone. We knew it would be. Rotary magazines and
reguistration slide mounts still available.
- Leather case 580 (XPan case) now also billed as capableof holding small V
system outfit).
- Case 507 is discontinued.
- Front lens cap Variogon no longer listed.
- Rear lens cap 135 mm Makro-Planar gone.
- Release cord FK600 is discontinued. That was announced in the 2001
catalogue.
Book ends with a section beginning with "Be special, be different, be heavy"
and goes on listing what we should all be.
It ends with only the words "be there" on a white page. When this page is
folded out we see two pictures of NASA astronauts on the Moon. It doesn't
say where we can buy tickets to "get there"... ;-)
By the way, it's still "40 years in space" jubilee year.
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 220 film in older film magazines
Pablo Kolodny wrote:
> I'm new to this list but - fortunately some names sound familiar - .
> I used to use Hassy stuff many many years ago, then switched to Rolleiflex
> 6000 series, then kept only the TLRs but since a couple of weeks I'm back to
> the Hassy system with a beautiful Super Wide. Yes, one of the earlier
> models, maybe the first or second one.
> The camera I got is particularly ugly but incredibly good for mechanics and
> the lens is with no marks, scratches or whatever else.
>
> This is the first time I'm working with older film magazines. I used to work
> with A12 and A16. This I got with the camera is a very old one.
> I was wondering of the possibility of loading some 220 film since when one
> gets the 12th frame the counter could easily be reset to zero.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with such a thing ?
>
> Thanks in advance, I hope to share some stuff with you all in here.
Hasselblad's original instructions (from 1965!):
"The new 220 film has no protective backing paper and, therefore, no light
must be allowed to leak in through the film window which must be made
light-tight. The manufacturer has therefore made a light-tight plug which is
fitted onto the film window, from inside the magazine, with the number "220"
facing outwards. The magazine can also be sealed against light by affixing
black tape across the film window. Like 120 film, the 220 film has an arrow
going across the first paper section. But 220 film has no numbering system.
It has, however, a dotted line, about 6" before the crosswise arrow and this
dotted line is very important in connection with loading this film in the
Hasselblad magazine.
To obtain the best possible results in spacing between the negative frames,
the manufacturer has prepared three sets of instructions for the three
variations in construction of the Hasselblad Magazine 12 now on the market.
LOADING INSTRUCTIONS
Magazine Construction 1 (Nos 001 - 19,999)
a) Thread the film in the usual manner onto the Hasselblad spool-holder. The
protecting paper is drawn forward so that the dotted line comes to the
center of the receiving spool, (see photo).
b) After the spool-holder is inserted in the magazine, set the
exposure-counter window at 1.
c) Wind the film forwards 7 complete turns (14 half-turns).
d) Expose 12 frames (no stop).
e) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
f) Expose another 12 frames (no stop).
Magazine Construction 2 (Nos. 20,000 - 64,399)
a) Thread the film in the usual manner onto the Hasselblad spool-holder. The
protecting paper is drawn forward so that the dotted line comes to the
center of the receiving spool, (see photo).
b) After the spool-holder is inserted in the magazine, set the exposure
counter window at 1.
c) Wind the film forwards, 10 complete turns (20 half-turns), or until the
framenumber 8 begins to appear in the mechanism of the exposure-counter
window.
d) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
e) Expose 12 frames (until stop).
f) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
g) Expose another 12 frames (until stop).
Magazine Construction 3 (Nos. 64,400 - )
a) Thread the film in the usual manner onto the Hasselblad spool-holder. The
protecting paper is drawn forward so that the dotted line comes to the
center of the receiving spoof, (see photo).
b) After the spool-holder is inserted in the magazine, set the
exposure-counter window at 1.
c) Wind the film forwards 9 complete turns (18 half-turns), or until
framenumber 7 appears in the mechanism of the exposure-counter window.
d) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
e) Expose 12 frames (until stop).
f) Reset the exposure-counter window to 1.
g) Expose another 12 frames (until stop).
Loading in accordance with the above gives relatively good spacing results
troughout. In the older magazines, that is Construction 1 and also
Construction 2, it must be expected that certain frames, especially in the
film-section 8-12, can overlap by a few millimeters. But spacing is better
in the newest magazine, Construction 3.
Regarding the loading of Magazine 16 and 16S which have manufacturing
numbers below 204.200, these should be loaded in accordance with the
instructions according to Magazine Construction 2; from manufacturing number
204.200 and above, according to Magazine Construction 3. In both cases, the
resetting of the exposure-counter window is to be done after 16 exposures
have been made."
End quote.
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] What is GMS?
Ayan George wrote:
> I've read references to GMS (Gliding Mirror System) but
> nothing ever explains what it does and how it does it.
The mirror in the old 500 system cameras was too small. It had to be because
it would otherwise hit the back of the 80 mm lens when swinging up. The
result was a vignetting of the viewfinder image when longer lenses (150 mm
and longer) were used, and when lenses were moved away from the camera by
adding extension (tubes, bellows) in between lens and camera; the top of the
viewfinder image was lost.
The Gliding Mirror System is a way of mounting and moving the mirror in such
a way that it can be larger, and still not hit the lens on its way up. This
is achieved by moving the mirror backwards before/during its swing
upwards(and vice versa on its way down again, of course). So what the GMS
does is provide a full viewfinder image. No more.
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: 70mm almost dead
> you wrote:
> > > Kodak TX 70mm 100' Roll Tri-X Pan Black & White Print Film
> > > (ISO-400) TX473 Unperporated 1.25 Plastic "J" Core is available.
> > > Kodak cat # 852 7616.
> >
> >Henry,
> >
> >I thought those backs were set-up for perforated only, unless
> you modified them...
>
> Arrrgggghhhhhhh! I believe you're correct. Unperf 70mm is for long-roll
> cameras like the (discontinued) Nord and the Camerz.
> Kodak's Portra-160NC is available 70mm perf, but the original
> poster wanted
> b&w.
Hi Henry,
Some guy made, and I bought, a little wheel with a rubber o-ring that
replaced the toothed wheel in the 70 back, that allowed use of unperforated
film. I haven't installed it, I do have it lying around, and can find out
who I got it from if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Austin
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Eric [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 501CM & Motor Winders
Ayan George wrote:
> I really want a 501CM but having a motor winder
> is becoming more important to me. Why can't the
> 501CM accomodate a winder? Is there a good
If you do a search for 501CM +MIR so you get to the MIR website,
there's a guy who makes motor winders for them.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/apcam/apcam_entry.htm
--
Eric
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: Underwater housings
you wrote:
>On occasion, I do underwater photography. I have been using 35mm equipment
>however I would like to start using my Hasselbald.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~atmu/alexhass.html
http://www.marinecamera.com/hasselblad38.html - I know NOTHING about this
company other than the URL.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[Ed. note: see Photo Ads on hassy vees in Bronica Ads etc.]
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] My first roll with 503CW-a few questions
"Tristan Tom" [email protected] wrote:
> I just got back my first roll from a recently acquired used 503CW, and I
> have a few questions looking at the negatives:
>
> -on the top and bottom of each frame, there are some arrow triangle shapes
> coming out of the image frame. There are also two triangles coming out of
> the left of each frame. Is this normal?
The little triangles on the SIDE (about 1/4" apart) are "part" of the
Hasselblad. That's one way to identify negatives taken by the Hasselblad.
These are made by two little "notches" (about 1mm? In height) put in the
magazine (intentionally!), that expose the little areas; they don't intrude
into the 6x6 image area.
The other arrow shapes you refer to, I'm not sure about. There are other
(quite a bit larger) dark triangle shapes in the "unexposed" edge part of
the negative; but I don't know of any "coming out of the image frame" at the
top & bottom.
Hope this helps! Email me off line if you have a follow-up.
--
David Gerhardt
[email protected]
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Today's Hasselblad workshop
Here are a few photos from the workshop:
http://www.schnetzler.com/BladWorkshop
Manu
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] The 160 CB (more)
For anybody thinking about the 160, here's what I cut and pasted
from Photo.net, not necessarily in chronological order. Note
particularly the comments by K. Fleisher, grouped at the end.
Cut and pasted from various threads at
Photo.net, on the relative merits and flaws of
the Hasselblad/Zeiss 160 CB lens:
Well Jim, I also was weighing the purchase of
the 150 CFi or 160 CB up until a month ago. I
researched the MTF charts at the Hasselblad
and Zeiss web sites and concluded that wide
open the 150 was better on contrast and detail
resolution. By f8 the contrast of the two lenses
were a draw (both reasonably high) and detail
resolution was somewhat better for the 150. I
would say the performance of the 160 MTF's
were on par with the 250 CFi which is known
to be a competent lens but not one of the Zeiss
superstars (like the 100 or 180 are). In terms of
weight the 160 is lighter (650g vs. 785g). Bob
Shell of Shutterbug magazine wrote a article a
couple of months ago saying he liked the
handling of the 160 better than the 150. The
best prices I found for the lenses were: $2699
for the 150 at Cameraworld of Oregon and
$2099 for the 160 at KEH. Either way, with
the HUSA equipment rebate, this is the time to
buy a new hassy lens, I got the PM5 prism free,
which costs a $1000 otherwise! Which lens did
I buy? Well I decided on the 160 CB because it
cost $600 less. Also I handhold or use a
monopod with slide film, so the 160's less
weight was a benefit and the 150's better detail
resolution I would likely never see in reality.
So far I have been very happy with the build
quality of the 160 and my slides sparkle!
-- Doug from Tumwater , May 27, 1999;
The MTF curves definately show that the 150
is better wide open, but the difference in
practice will depend on your intended use.
Your experience may vary, but handholding
either lens can easily degrade the image much
more than the difference in these MTF curves.
There are a few applications where excellent
performance wide open is essential, such as
astro photography. Otherwise, remember that
the depth of field is so small with a lens of this
focal length that you will want to use a tripod
and stop down to f11--f22 much of the time.
At these apertures, I expect that you'd be hard
pressed indeed to tell the difference.
As a third alternative, you could look for a
used CF 150. These are quite plentiful on the
second-hand market and a good sample should
not be too hard to find. This lens has always
had a good reputation. Flare is not a problem.
The older C T* version of the 150 is also
worth considering, but it operates a little
differently than the newer lenses so you may or
may not like the feel.
You are right to worry about the weight and
feel of the lens. The lighter weight of the 160
should make it easier to carry and make the
camera feel particularly well balanced.
Which ever lens you eventually choose, you
will likely want to budget for a 16 or 21 mm
extension tube. With the extension, any of
these lenses will focus sufficiently close for
tight head shots.
-- Michael Heal , May 28, 1999;
I'll preface this by stating I've never used any
of these lenses. So why am I responding?
Because I have researched the question in
anticipation of getting one of these lenses. The
factor I'll add is that the new CFI lenses and
the CB lense have better internal light baffling
and suppression. So, even though the 150 is a
tad sharper, the 160 may yield better contrast
and flare resistance than a used CF150. The
180 is significantly sharper than the 150 and
the 160. But, at 180mm it may be a bit long for
portaits in a confined area.
-- Dan Brown , August 10, 2000;
I've had the 160 CB since last April and have
been very happy with it, my chromes are sharp
and rich in tones (I usually shoot hand held
between f4.8 and f:8 at 1/500 sec). The major
benefits of this lens (besides cost savings) I
think come out when hand holding: Because
the focusing collar is spaced farther forward
(compared to the 150) my right hand does not
conflict with the body or my left cradeling
hand; It is lighter weight so I don't get fatigued
by a front heavy lens; It has the improved
ergonomics and long term shutter train
accuracy later adopted by the CFi/CFE
-- Doug from Tumwater , October 04, 1999;
I have the 160CB and agree that it's an
excellent lens. Regardless of whether or not it
actually performs better than the 180 in test
results, as Jerry has already stated, the 160 is a
winner.
I think that many people (myself included)
were initially skeptical that the CB lenses were
of inferior optical quality to the CF lenses.
However, I personally believe that's been not
the case. While the 160CB does not have quite
the same gorgeous fit & finish as the new CFi
lenses, it is very well built. It's also relatively
light & compact making it a great lens for
handheld available light photography.
My primary concern about recommending this
lens to others would be soley based on its
limitations when used w/ Hasselblad's focal
plane shutter cameras. Other than that it's a
worthy contender for any one looking for a
Hasselblad medium telephoto lens.
Regards,
KL Prager
-- KL Prager , May 03, 2000;
My experience with the 120, 150 and 160
lenses as far as landscapes are concerned is as
follows: I owned a brand new 160CB Tessar
and I liked the results it produced with
landscapes, my primary subject matter. Last
October or so this Forum was full of comments
about the CB lenses being inferior to the CF or
CFi models, except for the semi-wide 60-CB.
So, influenced by all the experts here, I bought
a used 150 CF when the opportunity to do so
arose in November. I clearly had one too many
lenses in this range, so I wrote Dr. Fleischer of
Zeiss off line and asked what he thought about
selling the "inferior" 160CB and keeping the
150CF for landscapes. "Don't do it ," he said.
THe 160 is a better lens. I replied that my
actual "experience" showed the lens to produce
great prints from transparencies using the laser
Lightjet process for 20x24-inch output after
making Tango drum scans. But, I said, I must
be missing something because "everybody"
who carries a high profile on this board says
the 150 CF or CFi is better, sharper, nicer
bokeh, contrast, etc. than the "inferior 160CB."
He replied that most of our "experts" didn't
have the lab equipment to test lenses the way
he has at Zeiss and he inidcated that he
doubted those knocking the 160CB had
actually owned the lens or used it for side by
side comparisons with the 150 CFi (which is
also being phased out, by the way.) He advised
I sell my 150 and I note that he has weighed in
on this whole question by recommending the
160CB Tessar for landscapes.
Since this question has come up again, about 8
months later, I'd like to hear from those who
knock the 160CB WHO HAVE OWNED ONE
as well as OWNED a 150 CF and actually
compared the two, rather than just "repeat
assumptions" that the 160 CB "must" be
inferior because it cost less than the 150??
Who has owned both as I have?? What did you
see that made you dissatisfied with the 160
CB???? Mine performs very well and one of
my strongest "exhibition grade" photos was
shot with the 160 CB at F8.
This is not just an "academic question" as I
still have both lenses and am planning to trade
the 150 CF and my 250 SA CF toward a
"New" 250 SA CFE (which will be compatible
with the meters on both my 503CW and
203FE.) I have already sold my 120 CFi to buy
the new 120CFE for the same compatibility
reasons, but I won't get into comparing that
with the 150 v. 160 Cf vs CB.
For what it is worth, the Tessar 4-element
design, especially in this area of focal length,
was acclaimed from the 1890s to WWII as a
great lens design and, what shortcomings it did
have were overcome in the last half of the
century with better glass and superior multi-
coatings.
So who among our "experts" on this board has
owned both and compared them side-by-side
and can offer concrete contradictions to Dr.
Fleischer's findngs in the Zeiss test lab?????
-- CPeter J�rgensen , April 07, 2002;
Hello Wiley, I recently bought a CB 160 for
the equivalent of US$ 1500 and I think thats
great bargain. The results are just great and as
a professional photographer I didn't noticed
any compromises in quality compared to the
other CF lenses I have. In my opinion you
should better go for the CB, the C are just a
little old now (check if the lens is T* coated),
and nobody knows actually how long
Hasselblad will by able to fix the compur
shutter. Regards
-- Andreas Meyer , September 05, 2001
For what it is worth, I'll add my "experience"
to the thread: I bought a 160mm CB, new, in
the box, but probably grey market, at the out-
of-business (via divorce proceedings) auction
of a very large New Jersey camera dealer
earlier this year. I paid $960. I shoot 'chromes
and have laser prints made in 20x24. All this
talk made me rush to my transparencies, prints
and notes to pick out the "inferior" shots made
with my 160 CB lens. I couldn't find any
differences between the 160, my CF 250 SA or
my CFi 120??? I must be missing something.
The lab right now has a couple of rolls shot
exclusively with the 160 and all this discussion
has me anticipating disappointment. I'll let you
know the results in a couple of days.
-- CPeter J�rgensen , September 06, 2001;
No wonder Hasselblad is in financial trouble. I
don't understand the logic of people who will
buy ancient Zeiss lenses (for which parts are
no longer available) and shun the CB lens line.
Coatings and baffling will make more apparent
difference to your results than a small change
in resolution. I think the CB lenses were
exactly what Zeiss and Hasselblad needed to
remain competitive. At least Zeiss are honest
enough to provide performance data even if it
is not always what the customer wants to hear.
The CB 160 is a classic Tessar design anyway!
I think more knowlegable and pragmatic
customers will know that the small reduction
in performance will hardly be noticeable in
practice.
-- Vartan Grigorian , January 29, 2002;
--------------NOTE FLEISCHERS
COMMENTS BELOW--------------
From my experience with all three lenses I feel
Dave and Doug are right. For handheld
shooting the Tessar 160 CB is a very
interesting new lens in the Hasselblad range. It
is also one of the first lenses to come with the
new brilliance enhancements: High key
portraits done with the 160 CB show better
color saturation than those done with 150 CF
or 180 CF and older versions.
It takes the new generation CFi/CFE to reach
the color saturation and image brilliance
offered by the Tessar 160 CB. However, the
tripod user shooting very detailed subjects
intended for very large blow ups (20 x 20 and
up) will prefer the Sonnar 180 CFi. And the
portrait photographer who wants to blur the
background and therefore prefers to use the
lens wide open may also go with the Sonnar
180 CFi. This is my experience as head of
camera lens applications at Carl Zeiss in
Oberkochen/Germany.
-- Kornelius J. Fleischer , October 05, 1999;
Now, here is an authentic comment from
Zeiss:
I just subjected the Tessar 160 and the Sonnar
4/150 to resolution testing on real world film,
not just lab measurement.
With the Tessar I reached more than 160
linepairs per millimeter at f/8. With the
Sonnar, I reached 180. Not too much of a big
difference, is it?
A Tessar, offered at half the previous price, is
a steal. Especially if you consider that it comes
with a straylight absorption capability which is
far better than any 4/150 CF or 4/180 CF can
offer. From my Zeiss perspective, I decided
after the test to keep the Tessar in my personal
arsenal and give back the Sonnars to the
colleagues in the lab.
-- Kornelius J. Fleischer , January 22, 2002;
The lens part of your question is easy: Since
you intend to do landscapes, the 150 is the only
choice of the two, because the 120 is a
dedicated macro lens (the name "Makro-
Planar" says it all) and is therefore optimized
for close-ups and not infinity.
If you want an alternative suggestion for the
Sonnar 4/150: the Tessar 160 is the one that I
recently prefer, after I did extensive
comparisons between the two (150 and 160,
actually I also included the 2,8/150 and the
4/180 in this comparison and, as a result, I
decided for the 160.)
-- Kornelius J. Fleischer , April 05, 2002;
Back to the original question of CB 160 vs. C
150: If there is any sharpness difference in
favour of the 150, it is very small, if at all
visible. The superiority of the CB 160 in terms
of brilliance, color saturation, straylight
suppression is drastic. Take a portrait against
an overexposed white background or a
landscape with large bright sky areas and you
will immediately see it. With my Zeiss insider
experience, I would go for the CB 160.
-- Kornelius J. Fleischer , January 28, 2002;
[Ed. note: I don't have any experience with David's work, just passing on this info/email:]
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002
From: "David S. Odess" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Hasselblad repair service
Dear Hasselblad owner,
My name is David S. Odess, and I would like to acquaint you to the
advantages I have to offer you as a factory trained Hasselblad
technician. I am the only full-time factory trained Hasselblad
technician in Massachusetts devoted exclusively to the repair of the
Hasselblad system. I have twenty-seven years experience, including five
years with Braun North America and the Victor Hasselblad, Inc. factory
service center in Fairfield, New Jersey. A copy of my diploma from the
Victor Hasselblad factory in Sweden will be furnished upon request. I
have the proper factory training, experience, factory tools and genuine
Hasselblad parts to provide you with the quality, timely and honest
repair service that you expect and deserve.
Repair prices are as follows:
500 C, C/M 125.00
501 C, CM 125.00
503 CX, Cxi 175.00
503 CW 175.00
SWC, C/M 195.00
903 SWC 195.00
500 EL, EL/M 195.00
500 ELX 195.00
503 ELX 195.00
553 ELX 195.00
Lenses 125.00
FLE lenses 175.00
Magazines 70.00
Magazine 70 90.00
Prices quoted are for complete cleaning, lubrication and adjustment of
equipment to factory specifications. Parts, if needed, are additional.
Estimates, for which there is never a charge, will be given for damaged
equipment, when extensive parts are needed, or when requested.
Repaired equipment will be returned insured via UPS ground service
unless another method of shipment is requested, and shipping and
insurance charges will be added to the repair invoice. In-shop time for
most repairs not requiring an estimate is normally five to seven
business days, and all repairs are guaranteed for six months.
I also purchase and sell used Hasselblad equipment. All the equipment
that I sell has been overhauled and is guaranteed for six months.
I would sincerely welcome the opportunity to be of service to you, and
thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David S. Odess
28 South Main Street #104
Randolph, MA 02368
(781) 963-1166
[email protected]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Rick Nordin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: Zeiss serial numbers
As my friend Marc has noted, putting an exact date on these lenses is not
straightforward. After 30 years many lenses have been repaired and modified
so are not in original form.
There should be a stamped ink code on the rear baffle - sometimes hard to
see. For 1970 the code will be 13 followed by two numbers specifying the
month. For 1973 the year code is 16.
For the CF lenses (and some late C lenses) the year codes are stamped as a
reverse of the actual year (eg 68 means 1986).
Rick
> From: [email protected] (Hasselblad)
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
> Subject: hasselblad V1 #1777
>
> It is neither on the Net or the Web, though a number of us, including Rick
> Nordin, have been developing such a list for some years now.
>
> The problem is that the Postwar Oberkochen production does not lend itself
> as easily to a rigid co-relation of date and number as did the Prewar Jena
> lenses. But we have been developing a rough guide.
>
> More accurate, of course, are the date coding on the rear lens mount itself.
>
> Marc
> [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
> From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [HUG] Zeiss serial number guide?
>
> Folks,
>
>>> Where on the 'net or web can a person find a guide to Hasselblad Zeiss
>>> serial numbers by lens and year they were manufactured? I've scoured google
>>> and came up empty. Ideas?
>
> Someone previously mentioned that sometimes the lenses have the year
> written inside the lens barrel as part of some "code". If you turn the
> focusing ring to minimum focus the rear element will descend into the lens,
> thus, revealing some numbers in dark red paint. Now, I forget if you needed
> to reverse the numbers (e.g. from 89 to 98) to get the production year or
> if the numbers read the year directly.
>
> Of course, none of the lenses I have available to me right now have these
> markings. But I've seen lenses that did.
>
> BTW: Try searching www.photo.net for this topic. It's a thread which
> frequently pops up.
>
>
> Tom
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Tripod socket
Apparently, you can buy the 3/8" socket from Hasselblad and simply replace
the 1/4" socket by removing the four screws in the base-plate and then the
four screws in the 1/4" socket. This from Wildi.
Regards,
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] 500CM floating focus?
This is a question for those who are truly neurotic about such things:
- I notice that a point of focus can shift subtly as much as three inches
from frame to frame. Why?
- I think I have isolated two sources for this.
1) Mirror 'float' - it's very subtle, but I can verify this by simply
focusing on the groundglass.
2) Film back 'alignment' - here too it's very subtle, but I see this
when focusing on a two dimensional subject and compare frame to frame
differences and it appears that the film itself is shifting 'fore and aft'
ever so slightly.
Comments? Feedback?
- Chris [ http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/ ]
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] C, CF, CFi, CFE, CB???
One of my photo instructors was saying that for Hasselblad to do
another run of the 905 would require buying several years supply of
the special glass that goes into it, which they may or may not do
once the existing supply of 905s is sold. Gossip, I suppose, but it
sounded interesting...
G.
From: [email protected] (dan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad sold to The Shriro Group
Date: 31 Jan 2003
http://www.hasselblad.com/news/newsItem.asp?secId=224&itemId=2534&iShowYear=2003
"Shriro acquires Hasselblad
2003-01-30 The Shriro Group acquires the majority shareholding in
Victor Hasselblad AB. The purchase agreement was announced today at a
press conference at the Hasselblad premises in the centre of
Gothenburg.
- Shriro is well-known to Hasselblad, and has succeeded very well in
selling our products into the key markets in Asia, says G�ran
Bernhoff, President and CEO of Victor Hasselblad AB. Shriro is our
distributor in several key Asian markets and has, amongst other things
shown its capability together with Hasselblad in developing the
Japanese and Chinese markets as major outlets for Hasselblad."
Read more here:
http://www.hasselblad.com/news/newsItem.asp?secId=224&itemId=2534&iShowYear=2003
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Test results: 150 C vs 150 CF vs 180 CF
Folks,
I promised people that I would post the results of my little lens "test".
The purpose of the test was to figure out if I should by a 150 or a 180mm
lens to add to my 80mm. The best way to figure out if you like something is
to try it out, so I rented a 150CF and a 180CF.
In addition, a good friend of mine lent me an older 150mm C with a Grand
Canyon size scratch on the rear element. OK, maybe not Grand Canyon size,
but you get the idea. The scratch is about 13mm long, starts 1mm from the
edge, and ends about 5mm from the edge. Furthermore, there's a small nick
in the glass about 20mm from the beginning of the scratch. I guess the
scratch is about 0.5mm wide at its widest spot. The funny thing is that the
lens seems to perform just fine... But I thought it would be fun to compare
it against the 150 CF.
CONCLUSION:
I'm getting the 180!! Even though it's heavier and more expensive. It
outperforms the two 150's on sharpness and resolution every time. I also
enjoy the slightly shallower DOF, and the tighter cropping possible with
that lens.
Relatively big scratches on the rear element of a lens doesn't seem to
wreak the havoc people have hyped it up to do. There is a slight difference
in sharpness between the scratched 150 C and the 150 CF, but that might as
well be because of the upgrade from C to CF.
HANDLING:
The 180 CF is significantly heavier than the 150 CF - about 25% heavier to
be exact. This makes handling somewhat challenging when you're used to the
shorter lenses (80-100mm'ish) . Even the 150 handles like a "short" lens
(IMO). But I quickly found a comfortable balancing point around the center
of the focusing ring on the 180. And after getting used to handling the
lens this way, I was really quite comfortable with it.
BORING SUBJECTS:
Purpose: Find the sharpest lens.
I shot some brick wall and the stock quotes in the newspaper on Delta 100
and HP5+ (both dunked in D76 by the local pro lab). I shot near minimum
focusing distance at f/4 and f/8 on all lenses.
150 C vs 150 CF: My results are somewhat inconclusive. The two lenses
perform almost identically. On the brick wall test, and on the Delta 100
the 150 CF is sharper. However, on the HP5+ newspaper test, the 150 C is
the sharpest. I might have misfocused the 150 CF when doing the newspaper
test on HP5+... The corner-to-corner sharpness on the CF is much better
than on the C.
150 CF vs 180 CF: The 180 wins hands down every time. Even wide open it is
possible to make out the texture of the newspaper. On the 150 CF you need
to stop down to f/8 to make out the texture. Both lenses show degradation
of sharpness from the center of the frame to each corner, although it seems
like the 180 looses a bit more sharpness in the corners than the 150.
MORE INTERESTING SUBJECTS:
The weather didn't exactly promote landscape photography, but the grey
overcast proved to be a pleasant lighting for flower shots. So I found some
blossoming Hamamelis and did some selective focus stuff. The 180 wins again
on resolution and detail. Both lenses have very pleasant, smooth bokeh,
although, they both show pentagonal out-of-focus highlights. The 150 seems
to show these pentagons a bit more clearly, but that might be due to a less
shallow DOF compared to the 180 at the same lens-to-subject distance.
NIGHT SHOOTING:
Selective focus night shooting needs to be done at f/4, otherwise your
out-of-focus highlights become pentagonal blobs of light, which I find
rather annoying. Fortunately this effect is visible on the DOF preview. The
in-focus bright highlights turn into the usual 10-point star pattern at
smaller apertures.
Tom
From: Bernard Cousineau [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 5/10/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Comparing 200 series bodies.
> Forget the 202FA. It's a white elephant. I help Hasselblad USA teach
> workshops and the poor sods that have 202FA's only get half the fun. Slow
> camera. A pain to use.
> >Then, I see the 202FA. Less sophisticated metering and loses the ability
> >to use C/CF lenses with their shutters but retains them for objective
> >lenses. And the price is right- much cheaper than the 203FE.
The 202FA is certainly the unloved stepchild of the Hasselblad family, and it is arguably a camera that should never have been marketed, but I certainly do not think that you should take it out of consideration.
The one big failing of the FA is that it can not be used with the central shutter in C/CF/CFi/CFe lenses. As a matter of fact, it can't really be used effectively with C lenses at all (unless you are using long exposure times).
That being said, if you don't intend to use daylight fill flash and you have lenses with an F in their name, it works fine.
The other limitations that people state are really very minor to me. You have to carry a backup battery, but this battery is tiny and readily available in good camera stores. It only goes to 1/1000, but how often do you use 1/2000? It is also
compatible with fewer digital backs than non focal plane models.
To me, the real limitations of the 202FA are the same as for the 203 and 205: the user interface isn't all that great.
I really much prefer cameras that let you know what shutter speed you are using without having to look through the viewfinder. Setting the film speed is a chore if you are not using E or TCC mags (in which case the film speed is set on the back using
a proper dial). Changing any setting requires modifying your grip on the camera and looking though the viewfinder at the same time.
The viewfinder display itself is barely adequate. I would much prefer it to be more contrasty (there is a backlight available), and less "digital." I would much rather have a bar graph than have to read "0++" (2/3 stops over) or "-2-" (2.3 stops under).
If you use a prism, you will need a recent model (with the two blue stripes), and you will most likely want the very latest models with slightly lower magnification in order to see the camera's display better. There are a few other incompatibilities
with older gear, such as some extension tubes, that you may find inconveniencing.
I think that the 202FA failed in the marketplace for two reasons. First of all, it is the only Hasselblad model not marketed to wedding photographers (or any photographers that need higher flash synch). Second, the camera is artificially limited. It
seems as if the only real differences between the 202 and the 203 are in the software. It was meant to fill a perceived gap in the product lineup more than anything. Hasselblad eventually "saw the light" and lowered the price of the 203...
On the plus side, it comes with all of the latest Hasselblad upgrades, such as the latest screen, no mirror cut-off, cloth shutter, TTL flash, programable self-timer and excellent light baffling. As you mention, the 202 can be had at very low prices
right now (I got mine for roughly the cost of a mint 2003FCW).
Short answer: if you don't mind the limitations (relative to the 203), the 202FA is a very good choice at the going rate.
Bernard
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Prices dropping/digital thread...
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> thanks to Austin Franklin, quoting Rick Nordin's Hassy Compendium :
>
> Supreme Wide Angle - 903
> Super Wide - 1,039
> Super Wide C - 13,971
> SWC/M - 2,450
> SWC/M CF - 3,550
A correction of perhaps minor importance: the last entry is incorrect.
As per Nordin's stats, there were 6,000 SWC/M with CF version lens produced
upto 1986.
The next version, 903SWC, was introduced in 1989, and there were even more
CF version SWC/M cameras built in 1987 and 1988 that do not appear in
Nordin's statistics.
There are no statistics yet about the 903SWC and later/present 905SWC.
From: Taras Hnatyshyn [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 8/1/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad 500C/M astrophotos
Fellow Hassy enthusiasts,
I've finally got some of my Hassy astrophotos onto my website. Some of them can be found
at http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astrophoto/widefield.html; just look at the first 5 images.
The first three images on http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astrophoto/trails.html are also using
my 500C/M as are the first two on http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astrophoto/lunar.html.
Those interested in the rest of my astrophotos can check out the what's new page
http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astrophoto/new.html or start at the top at
http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astrophoto/welcome.html. I'm hoping that the skies clear
up for the next new moon so that I can take more.
Taras
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 8/6/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] C(F/FI/FE) 120mm f/4 Makro planar
Worse at infinity is relative. Relative to the fact that the lens was
optimized for close focusing. Nothing detectable by mere mortals actually
has been lost for distance photography.
The lens formula is exactly the same for CF, CFi, and CFE. The difference
is that the older CF has a metal body, the newer CFi has a
rubberized/plasticized body, and the CFE is the same as the CFI but with
aperture electrical contacts (data bus) for use with the 200 series camera
metering system.
Jim
Daniel ROCHA wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I have a question about the Zeiss 120/4 Makro planar lens.
>
>I know that the original version is very good for low focusing
>distance but worst at infinite.
>
>I know that the other version is good also at infinite.
>
>But the question is. It seems that the 120 macro exists
>in more than 2 versions !
>
>Anybody can explain me the differences for the
>CF - CFi - CFE lenses.
>
>Thanks a lot :)