Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Hasselblad V Lens - Recommendation for Headshots
Old 03-26-2017   #1
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Hasselblad V Lens - Recommendation for Headshots

Years ago, maybe decades, I was taught that photography was similar to my career choice in that it involves a lot of problem solving. Presently, I can't be happier with the 80mm for general use. It is wonderful to use and I discovered more yesterday with the 55mm extension tube that macros are quite easy.

I would like to do tight headshots/close ups with approximately 12" coverage on the focus screen. Not sure what I need for an extension tube (with shallow dof). Nor am I sure which lens will give me a closer minimum focus length for a similar coverage (12")...
(thinking in Nikon terms it would be like using the 50mm - 1.8)

Your recommendation on both a lens and/or an extension tube would be appreciated as I continue working on a new portfolio with the Hassy.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #2
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,184
In general, the 'standard' Hasselblad kit for most photographers has been the Planar 80mm f/2.8 for general use and the Sonnar 150mm f/4 for portraits and headshots. The Sonnar 150mm doesn't focus particularly closely; it will get down to a 16x16 inch field of view at 1.4m closest focus. Add a +1 diopter close up lens and you can get to your 12x12 field.

I've done 90% plus of my photography with the 500CM using either the Planar 80 or Sonnar 150 lenses, and a handful of close-up lenses.

Or you can consider the superlative Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. A little shorter focal length and 1:2 magnification (that's down to a 4.5 inch square field) possible with no lens accessories. It is an incredible lens—beautiful sharpness, superb bokeh, a wonderful piece.

The remaining percentage of my 500CM photos have been made with the Makro-Planar 120mm.

(I only recently acquired a Distagon 50mm f/4, with the notion that if I stick with the Hassy V system, I'll need it if/when I buy a CFV-50c digital back. In that event, the 80-150 pairing will be replaced with the 50-120 pairing. I haven't used the 50 just yet.)

G

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
Years ago, maybe decades, I was taught that photography was similar to my career choice in that it involves a lot of problem solving. Presently, I can't be happier with the 80mm for general use. It is wonderful to use and I discovered more yesterday with the 55mm extension tube that macros are quite easy.

I would like to do tight headshots/close ups with approximately 12" coverage on the focus screen. Not sure what I need for an extension tube (with shallow dof). Nor am I sure which lens will give me a closer minimum focus length for a similar coverage (12")...
(thinking in Nikon terms it would be like using the 50mm - 1.8)

Your recommendation on both a lens and/or an extension tube would be appreciated as I continue working on a new portfolio with the Hassy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #3
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
In general, the 'standard' Hasselblad kit for most photographers has been the Planar 80mm f/2.8 for general use and the Sonnar 150mm f/4 for portraits and headshots. The Sonnar 150mm doesn't focus particularly closely; it will get down to a 16x16 inch field of view at 1.4m closest focus. Add a +1 diopter close up lens and you can get to your 12x12 field.

I've done 90% plus of my photography with the 500CM using either the Planar 80 or Sonnar 150 lenses, and a handful of close-up lenses.

Or you can consider the superlative Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. A little shorter focal length and 1:2 magnification (that's down to a 4.5 inch square field) possible with no lens accessories. It is an incredible lens—beautiful sharpness, superb bokeh, a wonderful piece.

The remaining percentage of my 500CM photos have been made with the Makro-Planar 120mm.

(I only recently acquired a Distagon 50mm f/4, with the notion that if I stick with the Hassy V system, I'll need it if/when I buy a CFV-50c digital back. In that event, the 80-150 pairing will be replaced with the 50-120 pairing. I haven't used the 50 just yet.)

G
Perfect! Thanks, Godfrey!!!
With the 120, I can get what I need in Macros and tight headshots/etc.

Love it!
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #4
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 394
Dave, I agree with Godfrey on everything he has said. I did go to shoots with my Wedding buddy and his Hassey; but this type of photography just was not for me, as you already know. I did see him use the 80 mm very often on the female using either a Softar I or II with very good results. Dave you can Google it's uses to see if it meets your piece of cake??
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #5
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,028
Agree with Godfrey. The 150 worked nicely for me. I did try the 250 for a while for headshot (not head and shoulder shots), but found it just didn't work as well for me as the 150.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #6
RandyB
Registered User
 
RandyB is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SouthEastMiddle Tennessee
Posts: 37
The 120mm is an excellent choice for head shots EXCEPT that it is too sharp for some subjects. It will show those little tiny fine hairs and any blemishes on the face no matter how attractive he/she is. I wound up using a Softar 1 on most of my female shots.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #7
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyB View Post
The 120mm is an excellent choice for head shots EXCEPT that it is too sharp for some subjects. It will show those little tiny fine hairs and any blemishes on the face no matter how attractive he/she is. I wound up using a Softar 1 on most of my female shots.
Randy, and I agree as all Macros are blazing sharp. You have to be a photographer in this field with a lot of patience in dealing with the female population. One wants her blemish to show up and the next wants it to soften or disappear. Lol
This is an area that I lack the patience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #8
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Great info here, thanks!

Are there different Softars to consider or just one?
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #9
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
Great info here, thanks!

Are there different Softars to consider or just one?
There are (3) of them Dave. Either #1 or #2 in the area your going. Personally of what I seen in use; #1 got the most use. I did watch him use these Dave, and he allowed me to look into his viewfinder to see the effect. With your new screen; you will see it immediately before you take and even develop the film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #10
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,343
tierra by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here's an 86mm Zeiss Contax Softar #2 on a 180mm F2.8 Zeiss Sonnar. Mounted on a hot-rodded Pentacon-Six. Fuji NHG400 They LOVED this one. Filter had to be special ordered from B&H and cost nearly $500!! Was worth it, though............
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #11
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by oltimer View Post
There are (3) of them Dave. Either #1 or #2 in the area your going. Personally of what I seen in use; #1 got the most use. I did watch him use these Dave, and he allowed me to look into his viewfinder to see the effect. With your new screen; you will see it immediately before you take and even develop the film.
Yeah, thanks! I found all three online at $75 each. There is also a circular polarizer at $84. Not too bad compared to Leica.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #12
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
tierra by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here's an 86mm Zeiss Contax Softar #2 on a 180mm F2.8 Zeiss Sonnar. Mounted on a hot-rodded Pentacon-Six. Fuji NHG400 They LOVED this one. Filter had to be special ordered from B&H and cost nearly $500!! Was worth it, though............
Yeah, that is getting there! That was not cheap! But worth it as you say. It has a nice glow.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #13
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
Yeah, thanks! I found all three online at $75 each. There is also a circular polarizer at $84. Not too bad compared to Leica.
Make sure you understand what B size your ordering. My 80mm takes a B60 filter size. I will admit there are adapters out there to to help you fit. My 40mm takes a B104, and now your talking big coin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #14
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
16x16 inch field of view at 1.4m closest focus. Add a +1 diopter close up lens and you can get to your 12x12 field.
ditto. the 150mm by itself will get you a head and shoulders portrait. adding a proxar 1m will let you get a headshot.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #15
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,343
I've paid as little as $25 for clean unscratched Bay50 Hasselblad Softars. They are covered with acrylic with dozens of little convex bubbles imbedded, which will scratch if rubbed with lens tissue.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #16
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 773
150 and extension tube?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #17
ChrisLivsey
Registered User
 
ChrisLivsey's Avatar
 
ChrisLivsey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,066
The wedding photographers trick was to use a UV filter smeared with Vaseline, white soft paraffin. The effect could be localised across the frame and the effect varied, woe betide you if you smudged the favourite filter so smeared.
The Softars give that very even effect and some local softness can work better.
The rule for Softars used to be add one for every 15 years, 20 yrs old none, 35yrs Softar 1, 50yrs the 2 then 65yrs the three.

Take care with the longer lenses how much room you have to back off, sometimes a short extension tubes works better.
__________________
Fishing for shadows in a pool.
Louis Macneice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #18
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,343
Fashion shooters used the 150 & Extension Tube 10

Nobody I know over here ever used Vaseline on filters at a wedding
Too much dust, dirt, heat, and activity to make such risks

You shot two sharp, and two Softar.
The couple would decide what they wanted to buy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #19
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
I always liked the 120 macro planar best. The 150 is fine and quite sharp but I like the closer working distance of the 120 plus not having to deal with the extension tube. I never did soften the image very often but I shot corporate headshots, ads and model portfolios so sharp was important. Really I don't think you'll see much if any difference in sharpness between the 120 and 150. There's also a 165, I believe that's the FL, that's probably a little less sharp but probably not by much.

I really never liked softars. I used either a thin film of nose grease or petroleum jelly on a skylight filter. I feel I have more control over where and how much it's soft. You can keep eyes sharper and flesh softer this way. I did a lot of cinematography years ago and sometimes used a black mesh nylon stocking. Now companies make filters with black mesh. It's a very nice overall softness.

If you're on a budget I'd say the 150 because they're very cheap compared to the 120.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #20
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
Here's something to think about. If you're scanning use Gaussian blur in Photoshop. You can control the degree of softness quite easily and use the history brush to sharpen the eyes back to how they were on the film. It gives a great degree of flexibility.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #21
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,326
Agree with X-ray and Godfrey on the 120. You might use the old gauze over the lens trick with certain subjects.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #22
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
Black mesh will help prevent co trash loss. A lot of soft focus filters cut contrast.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #23
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
The older version of the 120 f4 Macro Planar was the 120 f5.6 S-Planar. It's also an excellent lens but I can't remember how close it focuses without an extension tube. The commercial studio I apprenticed in in the early 70's had S-Planar that we used for portraits. I had one I used on my Rollei SL66 prior to my Hasselblads and the Macro Planar.

I also had a 150 Sonnar for both the Rollei and Hasselblads. I rarely used the -50 on the Rollei in favor of the 120 for all types of subjects from food to faces. I also rarely used the 150 on my Hasselblads so I wound up selling it. The 120 is my go to short tele.

If I could only own two lenses for my Hasselblad I'd pick the 120 f4 and the 60 f3.5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2017   #24
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,343
I have the 70s 120mm F5.6 S-Planar T* it's amazing closer-up. Also I would recommend the 135mm f5.6 T* Planar-S Bellows lens which is superlative for portraits

For softness IMO it's hard to beat the qualities of the Rodenstock Imagon, but not on a Blad. Imagons diffuse highlights but do not affect low values or general overall sharpness.

Some just breathe on the filter. Lots of choices. I seldom seldom diffuse anything
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2017   #25
ChrisLivsey
Registered User
 
ChrisLivsey's Avatar
 
ChrisLivsey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Nobody I know over here ever used Vaseline on filters at a wedding
Too much dust, dirt, heat, and activity to make such risks
Must be the cold norther UK climate then
__________________
Fishing for shadows in a pool.
Louis Macneice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2017   #26
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post

if I stick with the Hassy V system, I'll need it if/when I buy a CFV-50c digital back. In that event, the 80-150 pairing will be replaced with the 50-120 pairing. I haven't used the 50 just yet.)

G
A little off topic, but I just found out that the CFV-50c back has been discontinued. News is a couple of weeks old, apparently, but I'm a little behind.
Seems a shame, but maybe it makes sense to them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2017   #27
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
A little off topic, but I just found out that the CFV-50c back has been discontinued. News is a couple of weeks old, apparently, but I'm a little behind.
Seems a shame, but maybe it makes sense to them.
Larry I have been watching for one of those used. By the prices; it appears they are reading our threads. Lol
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2017   #28
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by oltimer View Post
Larry I have been watching for one of those used. By the prices; it appears they are reading our threads. Lol
Wish I'd have bought one when they were marked down to $9,000, new. If I'd had $9,000, which I didn't. Maybe those were closeouts instead of promotions, at least that's how it seems now. Wish they'd kept it around, just for something to daydream about, if nothing else.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2017   #29
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
A little off topic, but I just found out that the CFV-50c back has been discontinued. News is a couple of weeks old, apparently, but I'm a little behind.
Seems a shame, but maybe it makes sense to them.
Yes, I'd heard that some time ago. There are some still available new, used ones will be available, and I'm pretty sure that a new CFV back will be released sometime soon. I'm not ready to buy or I'd hunt one up immediately. But then in some ways I'd like to see a 44x44mm sensor back come out rather than 44x33m. No rush. An X1D is probably the better purchase for me anyway.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2017   #30
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,198
Different system, similar situation. The 80mm on my 6x6 Bronica has a close focus of 80cm. I considered getting an extension tube to get closer for head/shoulders shots, but soon realized that the perspective would become very awkward. The 150mm by itself wasn't a solution either, as without extensions tube it focuses no closer than 150cm, giving the same magnification as the 80, albeit with a flatter perspective. In the end, the solution for me was a 2x tele-converter. With the 80mm mounted, the FOV is comparable to 160mm, but the close focus distance remains the same 80cm as that of the lens, allowing a 2x tighter crop. Downside may be that the effective aperture becomes 5.6 @ 160mm, but you'd have an aperture penalty for an extension tube as well. What's nifty again, is that you can focus from 80cm to infinity and back without removing tubes or diopters..

Not sure what the situation for Hasselblad is, and whether a matching 2x is available for your 80mm. (The PS2x Bronica converter was specifically designed for the PS80 and up, so the quality impact is minimal).
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-28-2017   #31
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,634
no exposure compensation needed with the proxars...and nicer perspective with the 150mm (or even 250mm).

just sayin'!
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:21.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.