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 60/3.5 vs 80/2.8
Old 07-03-2018   #1
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Hasselblad 60/3.5 vs 80/2.8

A little while ago I began my Hasselblad journey after many years. Initially I had the 50/4 FLE and the 180/4, both in CF, paired with a 500c/m body. An excellent combo, but heavy, and missing a "walk around 'one-lens' lens".
Those of you who know me know that I am horrible at decisions about what lens to take, and that i like just one lens to make my life easier. Photography is just a hobby, so I like it to be relaxing.

In my ultimate "one lens" quest, I ended up trading the 50 and 180 for a 60 and 80, of which only one will stay. I searched the internets for comparisons between the two and couldn't find one, so here goes. My process and rambling out in the open.

First up, the size of the lenses. The 80 is as small as it gets, the 60 is a bit longer (the 50 is bigger still and the 180 is much bigger). How much longer? A little shy of two lens caps worth.


(please excuse the portly lit iPhone shot)

First win the the 80. Smaller is nicer. But apart from that, the controls are (exactly) the same between the two lenses, the 60 just has a bit more out front.
The front element on the 80 is very recessed and protected, the 60 is close to the front and exposed. I'd imaging the 60 will benefit from a hood more often, but I'm not going to get one. Second win to the 80...

to be continued...
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #2
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,890
You're looking at the wrong characteristics. Which one works for the images you produce? The 80 is a normal lens, like using a 50mm on 35mm film. The 60 is a moderate wideangle. Like a 35mm lens on 35mm film. The 50 you traded off is a slightly wider lens, like a 28mm on 35mm film.

When I shot Hasselblad, I used a 50, 80, and 150. When I sold it and got the Mamiya 6 because the Hassy was too heavy for a cripple like me to carry, I had to use the three lenses Mamiya made for it, since there were only three. They were a 50, 75, and 150. Basically identical to what I used on the Hassy, so it worked out perfectly for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #3
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,083
The biggest thing I struggle with on the Blad now is focusing. I find the 80/2.8 easier to focus than the other lenses I've tried. So the 80/2.8 is my keeper. Pic with Tmax 100.

John Mc
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #4
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,129
a problem i'd like to have :-)

i use the classical 50/80/150 setup, however in C T* versions. i have a preference for traditional "normal" angle of view, so the 80mm sees most use. on the other hand, i could imagine that a 60/100 setup would work just as nicely for me, with the 100 being the primary choice.

when being out in the field (which typically means in the streets of a city), the weight leads me to bring only one lens, and that will be the 80 almost always. or my weakness breaks through and i go 135.

cheers,
s.
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #5
daveywaugh
Blah
 
daveywaugh's Avatar
 
daveywaugh is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 354
I always had the standard 50 / 80 / 150 too. Loved all the lenses. The 80 was so nice as a walk around - light, fast and compact... BUT the 60 is something special. I knew a few photographers who would always wax lyrical about two Zeiss lenses; the 60 and the 180. I did borrow a 60 once, and the rendering (to my eyes) was quite different to the 80. Less harsh, smoother but still sharp. Nicer bokeh too. Anyway, field of view and ergonomics will probably be your primary concern, but I'd be interested if you feel there's a difference in rendering. If I ever get a Hassy again, I'd certainly be on the lookout for a 60 :-) Oh and that 180 too!
__________________
website.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #6
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,740
The 60mm has a good track record as a point an shoot on 6x6 - Biogon moon ;-)

I tried 38,50,60,80,100 and 150 lenses over the years.
I found I’m only really comfortable with the the 60 and 80mm lenses.
Both the field of view and balance of the camera with WLF and these lenses work well.
The 38-60 hood is always on my 60.
__________________
It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #7
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
... Which one works for the images you produce? The 80 is a normal lens, like using a 50mm on 35mm film. The 60 is a moderate wideangle. ...
Which brings me to the next point...

Most of my photography could be described as intimate environmental portraiture (i.e. taking candid photos of friends and family). I tend to favour a moderate wide angle close up. As far as focal length goes, either 60 or 80 would work, but as far as minimum focus distance, the 60 wins hands down. The below shot is both lenses at minimum focus wide open.



Which brings me to my next point. Both lenses go from infinity to min focus in the same amount of rotation, but since the 60 goes closer, the distance from infinity to 1m is much less and so it is faster to focus too. A big double win for the 60mm for my use.

to be continued...
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #8
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
The biggest thing I struggle with on the Blad now is focusing. I find the 80/2.8 easier to focus than the other lenses I've tried. So the 80/2.8 is my keeper. Pic with Tmax 100.
John Mc
I find the extra brightness helps indoors with 80/2.8 compared to the f/3.5 and especially the f/4 lenses.
Excellent photo.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #9
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenInTime View Post
The 60mm has a good track record as a point an shoot on 6x6 - Biogon moon ;-)

I tried 38,50,60,80,100 and 150 lenses over the years.
I found Iím only really comfortable with the the 60 and 80mm lenses.
Both the field of view and balance of the camera with WLF and these lenses work well.
The 38-60 hood is always on my 60.
The balance when you hold them on the camera is a big point. The 50 and more so the 180 are really front heavy. The 80 is definitely the most balanced, the 60 is not far behind.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #10
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveywaugh View Post
I always had the standard 50 / 80 / 150 too. Loved all the lenses. The 80 was so nice as a walk around - light, fast and compact... BUT the 60 is something special. I knew a few photographers who would always wax lyrical about two Zeiss lenses; the 60 and the 180. I did borrow a 60 once, and the rendering (to my eyes) was quite different to the 80. Less harsh, smoother but still sharp. Nicer bokeh too. Anyway, field of view and ergonomics will probably be your primary concern, but I'd be interested if you feel there's a difference in rendering. If I ever get a Hassy again, I'd certainly be on the lookout for a 60 :-) Oh and that 180 too!
So far I havenít seen much difference in rendering between any of the CF lenses Iíve had (50,60,80,180), but Iíll keep posting as long as I have them both and see what we see!

I keep hearing so many good things about the 180, but is just so big and heavy that I never wanted to take it with me.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #11
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
You should select the lens based on the subjects you most often shoot and the perspective you like not physical features. Really no one can answer this question for you.

My personal preferences based on the subjects I shoot are 120 and 60. If I could only own two lenses this would be the pair. If I could carry 3 lenses I'd add my 40. My 4 lens kit would be to add my 180. The least used lenses I own are the 80 and 250. An alternate trio to the 60 & 120 would be my 50, 100 & 180.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #12
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
You should select the lens based on the subjects you most often shoot and the perspective you like not physical features. Really no one can answer this question for you.

My personal preferences based on the subjects I shoot are 120 and 60. If I could only own two lenses this would be the pair. If I could carry 3 lenses I'd add my 40. My 4 lens kit would be to add my 180. The least used lenses I own are the 80 and 250. An alternate trio to the 60 & 120 would be my 50, 100 & 180.
Two things are important for me, the ergonomics and the optics. In my mind they are intertwined. The ergonomics have to work for me - I'm just not going to use a lens that I don't enjoy using for whatever reason regardless of its optical qualities. The optics then have a good field of view and aperture for my applications, and be of sufficient quality.

This thread is not about me asking for advice, it's more about sharing my thoughts about the two lenses. There were not many comparisons of the two side by side, lots comparing the 50 and 60, but not the 60 and 80.

I like the idea of a 120 to go with the 60 as a special purpose lens for macro use when I'm in that mood.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #13
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Rendering at close distances is of some interest, so here I shot both lenses (focused on the rail) at 1m and f/4. The flowers in jars are about at 0.7-0.8m and the trees in the background are a few meters away.



As has been my experience with the other CF lenses I used, nothing offensive or unexpected, just a pleasing rendering.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #14
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Distortion is similar in both lenses in the range I typically use, both are corrected with a +4/5 adjustment in Lightroom.



So that's it for my "technical" evaluation, the 80 is smaller and lighter, the 60 focuses closer, significantly closer.

Time to go shooting with them and see how they feel!

Please add your thoughts and experiences (and photos) taken with either of these lenses!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #15
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 703
this is an interesting comparison piece as I've just purchased my first HB. based on the sample images i've seen on flickr, the 80mm is like a 50mm (35 equiv) in the horizontal and 35mm in the vertical. The 60mm is like a 35mm in the horizontal and a 28mm in the vertical.

i prefer the 80mm for the full square image, but i could see the 60mm being particularly useful if i intended to do 6x4.5 with the a16 back.

keep sharing your thoughts michael.
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #16
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayernfan View Post
this is an interesting comparison piece as I've just purchased my first HB. based on the sample images i've seen on flickr, the 80mm is like a 50mm (35 equiv) in the horizontal and 35mm in the vertical. The 60mm is like a 35mm in the horizontal and a 28mm in the vertical.

i prefer the 80mm for the full square image, but i could see the 60mm being particularly useful if i intended to do 6x4.5 with the a16 back.

keep sharing your thoughts michael.
Thanks,
It took me a while to compare between 135 and 6x6. I sometimes think of them as the 135 focal length cropped to a square (so the 80mm on 6x6 is really like a 34mm 135 lens cropped to a square, and the 60mm is like a 25mm on 135). But itís really a bit different to that in use I often find myself using the extra height, so the 60mm on 6x6 is like a 38mm in 135 with some extra height. In the end a lens on 6x6 is just different, and translating between 6x6 and 135 is a fools errand.
Enjoy the Blad!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #17
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
The 80mm is not similar to 50mm on 35mm!
It is more like a 40mm, therefor wide angle.
The 60mm is way harder to focus unless have modern brght screens.
Pentaprism would be big assist..
I gave up decades ago using real medium format(as with film) as a quick snapper!
Weight, bulk, short rolls, difficulty of exact focus was simply not for me!
Yes I mainly used TLR in studio (Mamiya C series and lenses).
Walkies and family envoirmental, nothing comes close to 35 mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #18
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 574
It's not a lens comparison, but for examples of the 80mm Planar on film, Johnny Patience's blog may be of interest. It's the only lens he uses for medium format work, so you can browse the blog and easily see how it renders different light and subjects:

http://www.johnnypatience.com/blog/

(check the intro copy to make sure it's shot with his 'blad).
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #19
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastel View Post
a problem i'd like to have :-)

i use the classical 50/80/150 setup, however in C T* versions. i have a preference for traditional "normal" angle of view, so the 80mm sees most use. on the other hand, i could imagine that a 60/100 setup would work just as nicely for me, with the 100 being the primary choice.

when being out in the field (which typically means in the streets of a city), the weight leads me to bring only one lens, and that will be the 80 almost always. or my weakness breaks through and i go 135.

cheers,
s.
First world problems right!

The 60 C T* lens has a different body to the CF, the CF is ~2cm shorter and shares the B60 filter with the other CF lenses. I think I would avoid the 60 C T* for the size and odd filter size, same optics though. Iíve heard the 100 is excellent, but itís a bit of a nowhere focal length for me.

I hear you with respect to weight, it adds up quickly when a second lens adds a kilogram! Hence my search for a single lens for the Hasselblad.
Itís almost lighter to add an F3 with a wide angle and short tele than to add the 180mm Hasselblad lens to the kit!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #20
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
The 80mm is not similar to 50mm on 35mm!
It is more like a 40mm, therefor wide angle.
The 60mm is way harder to focus unless have modern brght screens.
Pentaprism would be big assist..
I gave up decades ago using real medium format(as with film) as a quick snapper!
Weight, bulk, short rolls, difficulty of exact focus was simply not for me!
Yes I mainly used TLR in studio (Mamiya C series and lenses).
Walkies and family envoirmental, nothing comes close to 35 mm.
I agree with respect to the field of views, which is why the 0.9m close focus on the 80 becomes frustrating.
As for the other points, Iím young and itís fun. And the big negatives are great! Short rolls mean I get to see the photos in a timely fashion, itís a positive not a negative! I have the original Hasselblad screen, itís plenty bright enough as long as thereís enough light to handhold!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #21
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
The 80mm is not similar to 50mm on 35mm!
It is more like a 40mm, therefor wide angle.
The 60mm is way harder to focus unless have modern brght screens.
Pentaprism would be big assist..
I gave up decades ago using real medium format(as with film) as a quick snapper!
Weight, bulk, short rolls, difficulty of exact focus was simply not for me!
Yes I mainly used TLR in studio (Mamiya C series and lenses).
Walkies and family envoirmental, nothing comes close to 35 mm.
The 80mm Planar is, according to Zeiss, an 81.2mm lens with an angle of view of 38 degrees.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF80.pdf

(or 38.1 degrees according to the lens calculator I use: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:17,%22av%22:%228%22,%22fl%22:81.2,%22d%22 :3048,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0})

This makes it an approximately 52mm lens equivalent on 135 format when looking at the horizontal angle.

Edit: it's roughly equivalent to a 38mm lens on 135 when looking at the vertical angle of view.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #22
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,179
I have the 40mm, 60mm, 80mm and 100mm. It really depends on your personal preferences. You have been trying both 60 & 80 which is what I would do myself. All of these are excellent.
__________________
ďThe secret of getting ahead is getting started.Ē
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #23
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,078
For me the only advantage of the 80 is weight, not even size. I adore the 60 and how the photos look and the minimum focus distance and the ability with a wide angle to throw the background so much out of focus are wonderful advantages. The 60 would be my one lens for sure.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #24
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
You're looking at the wrong characteristics. Which one works for the images you produce? The 80 is a normal lens, like using a 50mm on 35mm film. The 60 is a moderate wideangle. Like a 35mm lens on 35mm film. The 50 you traded off is a slightly wider lens, like a 28mm on 35mm film.
This is my way of approaching this decision. I just have a little different idea of the focal length equivalents. I agree the 80 is like a 50 on 135 format. It's the "normal" lens. But the 60mm Distagon has the same horizontal coverage as a 40mm on the Leica. (36mm/54mm = .66, or 2/3.) So I just take 2/3 of the Hassie focal length to get the 35mm equivalent based on horizontal angle.

For me, 60mm on the Hasselblad, and 40 to 35mm on the Leica or Nikon, is the "natural view" focal length that takes in the area that I'm usually aware of with my eyes.

So I use the 60mm more than the 80.

By the same reasoning, I consider the 40mm equivalent to 26.6mm (so 28mm is the closest standard equivalent). The 50 then is like a 35; the 100 like a 67mm; the 120 Makro-Planar is an 80mm; the 150 Sonnar is like a 100; and the 180 is like a 120 on 35mm.

For photographing in a place like the Rockies, or Big Bend National Park, etc., I feel I must have the 40, 50, and 60 for my wides. It's been years since I was a minimalist! I need to get back to being one.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #25
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 953
60 looks like a great all rounder to me..never used HB though..
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #26
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
This makes it an approximately 52mm lens equivalent on 135 format when looking at the horizontal angle.

Edit: it's roughly equivalent to a 38mm lens on 135 when looking at the vertical angle of view.
see my post above. you can pretty easily tell this by looking at images from either lens.
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #27
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 588
I work with 60 & 150. Nice kit. Very portable. Close focus capability w/ the 60. Subject isolation and/or a bit of reach with the 150. Both lenses are good to excellent performers with a nice bokeh.

I find it an empty exercise to compare field of view between the 2x3 format and the square format. (You know, like saying an 80 on a Hasselblad is like a 50 on a Leica.) It's just so different - specifically the short axis field of view. I like both, but it's like I'm using a different part of my brain to compose the image.

Get out there and make some photos today.
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenotar/


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #28
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
I have the 40mm, 60mm, 80mm and 100mm. It really depends on your personal preferences. You have been trying both 60 & 80 which is what I would do myself. All of these are excellent.
ďAll of these are excellentĒ. Indeed, this is part of the beauty of the Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses, you can just pick one based on the focal length you require and it will be excellent. On the flip side, itís impossible to disregard any of them based on mechanical or optical qualities!

I think the 60 or 80 will be the general purpose lens.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #29
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
For me the only advantage of the 80 is weight, not even size. I adore the 60 and how the photos look and the minimum focus distance and the ability with a wide angle to throw the background so much out of focus are wonderful advantages. The 60 would be my one lens for sure.
The close focus is so nice. My favourite all time lens in any system is the 35mm summilux pre-asph for the Leica M. But in the end I couldnít live with the 0.9m minimum focus distance, itís just too limiting for what I do. 0.7m and it would be perfect.
The size of the 80 allows the camera to sit flat in my Domke F6, the 60 and the camera sits on its back. Not a deal breaker but makes a difference.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #30
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
This is my way of approaching this decision. I just have a little different idea of the focal length equivalents. I agree the 80 is like a 50 on 135 format. It's the "normal" lens. But the 60mm Distagon has the same horizontal coverage as a 40mm on the Leica. (36mm/54mm = .66, or 2/3.) So I just take 2/3 of the Hassie focal length to get the 35mm equivalent based on horizontal angle.

For me, 60mm on the Hasselblad, and 40 to 35mm on the Leica or Nikon, is the "natural view" focal length that takes in the area that I'm usually aware of with my eyes.

So I use the 60mm more than the 80.

By the same reasoning, I consider the 40mm equivalent to 26.6mm (so 28mm is the closest standard equivalent). The 50 then is like a 35; the 100 like a 67mm; the 120 Makro-Planar is an 80mm; the 150 Sonnar is like a 100; and the 180 is like a 120 on 35mm.

For photographing in a place like the Rockies, or Big Bend National Park, etc., I feel I must have the 40, 50, and 60 for my wides. It's been years since I was a minimalist! I need to get back to being one.
I find I gravitate to different focal lengths on different systems which makes selecting a base general purpose lens for a new type of camera hard. For example I love a 35mm lens on a 135 rangefinder and canít get the hang of a 50mm. On the other hand, I love a 50mm on a 135 SLR and skip the 35mm in favour of a 24mm. On the Hasselblad the 50mm was too wide, I feel 100 would be too long, so itís 60 vs 80...

Iíve always wanted an SWC for as long as I can remember, so Iíd go that instead of the 40mm. The prices just arenít coming down!

Everyone needs a bit of minimalism in their lives.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #31
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxElmar View Post
I work with 60 & 150. Nice kit. Very portable. Close focus capability w/ the 60. Subject isolation and/or a bit of reach with the 150. Both lenses are good to excellent performers with a nice bokeh.

I find it an empty exercise to compare field of view between the 2x3 format and the square format. (You know, like saying an 80 on a Hasselblad is like a 50 on a Leica.) It's just so different - specifically the short axis field of view. I like both, but it's like I'm using a different part of my brain to compose the image.

Get out there and make some photos today.
Iíve seen this combo a fair bit, effectively replacing the 50-80 out of the 50-80-150 standard issue kit with the 60. It sounds like a great 2 lens kit!

Iíve got a day off today with my girl (school holidays in Queensland), so Iím heading out with the Hasselblad and the 60 and 80, Portra 400 and Delta 3200. Ready to rock and roll.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #32
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,129
one thing i find mildly annoying with the C version of the 80 is the location of the distance ring. my fingers easily tangle with the release button while adjusting the distance.
not an issue with the CF, however.

one word on the 150 - i find it on the portable side of inconvenient, if a bit front heavy. and i like its results. no experience with the 180, so i can't compare.

enjoy your day!

what the sonnar is good for by sebastel23, on Flickr
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #33
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastel View Post

one word on the 150 - i find it on the portable side of inconvenient, if a bit front heavy. and i like its results. no experience with the 180, so i can't compare.
From what I understand the 180 is bigger, heavier, and even more front heavy than the 150 (3cm longer and 300g heavier!). The lens diagrams show the mass of glass at the front of the 180 compared to the 150, so I can only assume the 150 would balance a lot better.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #34
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,129
Hi Michael,

good to know. So I made the right choice (for me), avoiding the 180.
:-)

Hope to soon to be able to report on a comparison between 80 and 100.

Cheers,
sebastian

additional remark:
as I started "cheaply" with the hasselblad, I got some close-up lenses (Bay 50 for the C series). seems to work very nicely - if you don't have highest quality requirements, it's a good compact alternative, certaily lighter than the 120.
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Last edited by sebastel : 07-05-2018 at 04:04. Reason: added remark on close-up lenses
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #35
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
[quote=FujiLove;2819751]The 80mm Planar is, according to Zeiss, an 81.2mm lens with an angle of view of 38 degrees.

[url]
Incorrect understanding of angles..
You are wrong, sorry.
A 75 mm or 80 mm similar to 40 mm on 35 mm.
My experience in actual use!
Diagonal is approx 82 mm on 6x6 cm.
Diagonal in 35mm approx 43 mm.
Look thru viewfinder, screen whatever!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #36
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxElmar View Post
I work with 60 & 150. Nice kit. Very portable. Close focus capability w/ the 60. Subject isolation and/or a bit of reach with the 150. Both lenses are good to excellent performers with a nice bokeh.

I find it an empty exercise to compare field of view between the 2x3 format and the square format. (You know, like saying an 80 on a Hasselblad is like a 50 on a Leica.) It's just so different - specifically the short axis field of view. I like both, but it's like I'm using a different part of my brain to compose the image.

Get out there and make some photos today.
When I leave out the 80mm, I do it by bringing the 60 and 100. It gives me "a little wide and a little tight" pair, without a "hole in the middle." Someone will now say, "Just carry an 80 and either step back one step, or step forward one step." Yeah, I know, but one step doesn't help when shooting a scene 100 feet away! (But say it anyway, if you need to.)

I agree with not comparing formats based on diagonal measurement. The additional vertical height of the square format makes for a wider impression than if cropping to a rectangular shape. But I find it useful to compare based on horizontal measurement. I can get in the same width with 40mm lens on the Leica as I can with 60mm on the Hasselblad. Again, it's 36/54 = 2/3. So for horizontal coverage, 80 x 2/3 is 53.3mm, so the 50 on the Leica is pretty close (some Leica lenses, like the DRS, are a bit longer than 50). And my 55mm Micro-Nikkor is pretty close, too.

I do shoot mostly landscape orientation, and often crop to maybe 16:9 or even 2:1. Those who use the full square format will have a very different view!
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #37
Comrade Conrad
Registered User
 
Comrade Conrad's Avatar
 
Comrade Conrad is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23
With Hasselblad my standard kit has been the 60 f/3.5 C T* Distagon and the 100 Planar. A favorite two-lens setup for me in most any standard format is the long side of the format and 1 1/2 - 2 times the short side of the format. In 6x6 terms that works out accordingly. But I do very much like the 60mm Distagon. In the square format it seems to feel a little wider than it really is. Regrettably I had to sell both 500c/m cameras last spring, so am looking for a replacement... someday! I still have that 60 in the cabinet...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #38
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,179
I also recommend the 60/100 combo. That's a very good pairing. You should try the 100mm. Their sharpest Planar.

I sold my 150 and 250, didn't use them enough.

I adore my 135mm Bellows Planar-S. No need for 150mm.
__________________
ďThe secret of getting ahead is getting started.Ē
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #39
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
I also recommend the 60/100 combo. That's a very good pairing. You should try the 100mm. Their sharpest Planar.

I sold my 150 and 250, didn't use them enough.

I adore my 135mm Bellows Planar-S. No need for 150mm.
So is the 100 your longest (standard) lens Nokton48?
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2018   #40
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
So is the 100 your longest (standard) lens Nokton48?
Yes I consider the 100mm a standard lens.

I also have the 135mm Bellows Planar-S.

And the 350mm F5.6 Tele-Tessar.
__________________
ďThe secret of getting ahead is getting started.Ē
― Mark Twain
  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 14:47.


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.