Picking Focal lengths for my Hassy

[ComicDom1]

These are the lenses I have purchased to use with my Hasselblad 201F. They include a Chrome C lens 80mm 2.8 T* ( Collectors Item), Chrome C lens 150mm F 4.0 ( Standard lens), and F type lens 50mm 2.8(Wide angle). Today I was finally able to purchase the 110mm 2.0 F lens and I will be waiting for it to ship to me.

The 50mm 2.8 and the 110mm 2.0 are very sought after lenses at least from my reading. These two lenses are focal plane lenses so they do not have a shutter built in them. They allow me the ability to use the 1/1000 shutter speed of my 201F.

The 80mm 2.8 and 150mm 4.0 lenses both have built in leaf shutters. There are certain advantages to having a built in leaf shutter in the lens. The usuable flash sync for the leaf shutter lenses are 1/500 while the F type lenses are limited to 1/90 TTL/OTF flash sync.

As you can tell I do like fast glass. I also wanted to have the advantage of using the camera as a 501 C/M if the battery every failed or I just chose to shoot it that way without the focal plane shutter. In the future, I may add the 250mm.

I would like to know what your thoughts are in regard to the focal lengths I have chosen.

Thanks
Jason

[Xia_Ke]

Sounds like a pretty good selection. The real question is, what do you want to shoot? Subject and shooting style should determine pretty quickly what focal lengths will really be needed.

[ComicDom1]

I really do not stick to one category like landscapes or fashion. Of course, I know it will be different because I am shooting film so it might affect my choices. This is why I wanted to have a good range of focal lengths to choose from. I was just concerned about getting lenses that might be too close in focal length.


Jason

[Loupey]

As a collector or shooter?

The 110mm seems redundant to me. A 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm seem quite sufficient to me. I used my trio of 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm on my MF for years and didn't yearn for anything else - although I did have a 200mm (or was it a 250mm - can't remember now) for a brief time - but never used it so I got rid of it.

Yeah the 110mm is fast (f/2) but are you really going to shoot it wide open? And one of the big advantages of MF is the leaf shutter - so why lose that just to go up one stop in shutter speed?

[ComicDom1]

As a collector or shooter?

The 110mm seems redundant to me. A 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm seem quite sufficient to me. I used my trio of 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm on my MF for years and didn't yearn for anything else - although I did have a 200mm (or was it a 250mm - can't remember now) for a brief time - but never used it so I got rid of it.

Yeah the 110mm is fast (f/2) but are you really going to shoot it wide open? And one of the big advantages of MF is the leaf shutter - so why lose that just to go up one stop in shutter speed?

I am not losing the leaf shutter advantage just go to up one stop shutter speed. The other end of that is that I gain the ability to go up to 1/1000 on the other end of the spectrum. That means I can shoot in brighter light as well. I am sure you can see the value in that.

The 50 2.8 and 110 2.8 F lenses are focal plane lenses and both are highly sought after for the images they can produce. Also please take into consideration what focal lengths I get if I add a 2X Mutar into the mix. The 110 F2 then becomes a 220 F4.

I shoot a variety of subjects including wildlife as well as models, events, landscapes and other. If I stick with all leaf shutter lenses then I really lose the flexibility of the 201F body and I might as well have stuck with a 500 C/M. More than likely I will end up shooting the 110mm wide open because I do shoot in low light where I do not wish to use flash, and this lens also famous for the bokeh it produces. From what I have seen, the bokeh is similar to my Canon 300mm 2.8 lens which I also shoot wide open and do it quite often. I have found that this is one sure way of separating the subject from a background. I also just sold my Canon 200 1.8 which I also shot wide open as many owners of that lens do. Like the 110 F 2.0, the Canon 200 1.8 along with the 300 2.8 are also known as some of the sharpest lenses ever produced.

The Hasselblad F series lenses also have the capability of focusing at a much closer distance to the subject than the leaf lenses do.

If you combine the ability to shoot closer to your subject, along with the ability to shoot in lower light with a faster shutter speed, you have some distinct advantages compared to leaf shutter lenses. All of the things I have mentioned, fit my shooting style. I could easily sell off the 80mm and 150mm and go all shutterless lenses. If I do that then I would be giving up the faster flash sync of the leaf shutter which will come in useful for me as well.

Both types of lenses have their own advantages.

F type lenses also require less service than the leaf shutters lenses do.

You also might not understand why I chose to get a Focal Plane MF Hasselblad. With it I get the best of both worlds. Keep in mind that there is a mode where I can use the 201F as a fully mechanical 501C/M but it will require that I own some leaf shutter lenses to work in that capacity. Not to mention that when I use the focal plane shutter with F lenses I only have to worry about 1 shutter being accurate instead of several leaf shutter lenses who shutters although the same, might vary slightly in accuracy.

I believe I read somewhere that Ansel Adams mentioned this as a primary concern.

I do appreciate your comments. I also think that if you ever have shot or get the opportunity to shoot the 110 F 2.0 F lens, that you might come to appreciate why I chose to add it. Keep in mind there are many who still shoot Contax who have chosen to modify the 110 mount so they could use it on their cameras.


Best Regards,

Jason

[Loupey]

In that case, keep the 110mm and forget about the 80mm and/or the 150mm.

I mean, if the IQ of the 110mm is that much better, why shoot with anything else in that focal range? We shoot MF for the IQ right? Are you really going to sacrifice that for an "inferior" lens?

As for 1/500s verses 1/1000s, I still can't see a big justification for needing 1/1000s. About the only times you need speeds of 1/1000s and up are for wildlife and sports and neither of those are well suited for MF.

[mikeb380]

In that case, keep the 110mm and forget about the 80mm and/or the 150mm.

I mean, if the IQ of the 110mm is that much better, why shoot with anything else in that focal range? We shoot MF for the IQ right? Are you really going to sacrifice that for an "inferior" lens?

As for 1/500s verses 1/1000s, I still can't see a big justification for needing 1/1000s. About the only times you need speeds of 1/1000s and up are for wildlife and sports and neither of those are well suited for MF.

¿IQ? is that like intelligence quotient? Never heard the term in over 50 years of photography. Please elucidate.
Thnx
Michael :aureola:

[Loupey]

¿IQ? is that like intelligence quotient? Never heard the term in over 50 years of photography. Please elucidate.
Thnx
Michael :aureola:

IQ = image quality

[ComicDom1]

In that case, keep the 110mm and forget about the 80mm and/or the 150mm.

I mean, if the IQ of the 110mm is that much better, why shoot with anything else in that focal range? We shoot MF for the IQ right? Are you really going to sacrifice that for an "inferior" lens?

As for 1/500s verses 1/1000s, I still can't see a big justification for needing 1/1000s. About the only times you need speeds of 1/1000s and up are for wildlife and sports and neither of those are well suited for MF.

I am sorry but I disagree with you. If I do give up the 80mm then I will lose the advantage to use the 1/500 flash sync capability. Since th 110 does not have its own shutter, it can only flash sync through the camera body and that is limited to 1/90 flash sync.

The IQ of the 110 F2 is that much better. Anyone who has used this lens is aware of that. The advantage of the shutter speed is the ability to shoot in brighter light with larger F stops. If I am understanding you right, are you saying that the ability to do this is not significant? If you shoot film with lower ISO in brighter light this is a distinct advantage. If my statement is not true then please educate me. I see the shutter speed as well as the faster glass both having distinct advantages in both brighter and lower light conditions. It adds more flexibility to my system.

I have lot of experience shooting sports and much of it has been in poor lighting without flash. Of course one way to compensate for poor lighting is to use a flash, but if the sync speed of the flash is too slow then you have to look at other options. One way is to increase the ISO of your film so you can decrease your shutter speed. If you have the right ISO and shutter speed combination then you can stop action and eliminate blur.

As far as shutter speeds for most sports 1/500s shutter speed has been adequate for me. There are a few exceptions. One of them is Indy motor sports. The angle that you shoot, distance you are from the subject, along with lighting conditions, and the type of image you wish to create will have a direct impact on what you need.

I also shoot models and wildlife. Conditions are not always ideal and I do not necessarily have the time to wait until I have the proper lighting. Since flash certainly might startle and disturb and animal, I have to compensate in another way. Again this is glass, shutter, lighting, and film speed dependent. Its up to the photographer and their personal style to determine what is necessary.

I am sorry but I do not always want to carry around extra film backs or put up with grain when shooting in low light situations. I also do not want to miss a shot because the light was too bright, or I did not have the proper speed film in a back to compensate for it.

Today I shot a parade in very bright light. Then I shot an award presentation that was held both inside and outside. After that I shot football on a high school field in very poor lighting without flash. Think about what I really needed to create good images in all those situations. I only used two different lenses, 1 camera body with very flexible ISO and good noise control, two flashes inside, and one flash outside. All very different conditions that certainly required different setups.

Granted I am not going to take the Hassy and shoot sporting events. I have much better options, but I certainly will use it to shoot models in both bright and low light situations.

I will mention once again the wonderful Boketh of the 110. This is very useful for model shoots and portrait situations when I want to separate the subject from the background. Along with that I still get the close focusing distance of the 110 for tighter shots.

The 80mm also has it uses as a normal lens. I really do not want to write another paragraph on that and I am sure that no one really wants to read it. Instead I am going to show you the differences in the focal lengths I have chosen when compared to 35mm and then ask why you have no objection to the other focal lengths?

50mm F Lens F 2.8 = 32.6mm on Medium format. Difference to the 80mm 19.50

80mm C Lens F 2.8 = 52.1mm on Medium format. Difference to the 110mm 19.26

110mm F Lens F 2.0 = 71.61mm on Medium format. Difference to the 150mm 26.09

150mm C lens F 4.0 = 97.7mm on Medium format.

As you can see most of the spacing between the lenses is pretty consistent. Do you think I should throw out the 50 and the 150?

Faster shutter speeds are not only for wildlife and sports as explained above. People as well as landscapes can be photographed in both bright light and low light as well. I already know this well. While I will never consider myself the worlds best photographer, I have had other photographers shooting the same events I have without the faster glass or as flexible a camera constantly ask me about how I was able to get an image come out better than they did.

As it has been said Photography is Painting with light! My choice of tools are just different than yours. You may get a shot I cannot and I might get a shot you cannot. If I do not limit myself or my choices then my chances of success increase.

Jason

I always try to think outside the box and sometimes I even break rules.

[Loupey]

You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. I didn't expect you to agree but why ask if you already had the answer

One could buy every lens ever made and have a justification for every one of them. But you and I know that we all gravitate to a select few over time. This depends on one's shooting style and subject.

You sold your 300mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/1.8 right? Why? There are plenty of strong justifications for these lenses and both outstanding in their respective focal lengths. Obviously you did not have a need for them despite their "legendary" status. Why keep what you don't/won't use? You didn't in this case.

[ComicDom1]

You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. I didn't expect you to agree but why ask if you already had the answer

One could buy every lens ever made and have a justification for every one of them. But you and I know that we all gravitate to a select few over time. This depends on one's shooting style and subject.

You sold your 300mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/1.8 right? Why? There are plenty of strong justifications for these lenses and both outstanding in their respective focal lengths. Obviously you did not have a need for them despite their "legendary" status. Why keep what you don't/won't use? You didn't in this case.

My original post only asked for other readers thoughts. From my reading, you first took me to task in regard to my choice of the 110. I responded with my reasons and logic behind the choice and didn't agree. In fact, you yourself proposed more questions as this thread has gone along which prompted my responses. Apparently you did not want me to respond.

I will the first to admit, my only real experience shooting MF was with Twin lens Rollei's (a fine camera) which is different from the Hassy all together. Just because I lack experience with Hasselblad camera's and lenses does not mean I do not do my homework. In fact I only started investigating the Hasselblad system and lenses seriously in the last two months. I have learned a lot since then, and much of my experience with both glass and camera bodies come from the use of other formats. I will not appoligize for that, or the knowledge I have gained recently by studying and educating myself in regard to Hasselblad.

I can agree that we do gravitate to select few lenses over time. I personally have more than four lenses for my current 35 mm digital system and that includes both primes and zooms. I use all of them depending on the circumstance. As you have said the lens choice depends on your shooting style and subject but you left out lighting conditions.

Apparently you have misread the part of my posts that refers to the lens I sold. I only sold the 200mm 1.8 and I still have the 300 2.8 which is one of the lenses I used yesterday night. I sold the 200mm 1.8 because my shooting needs changed. I also was able was able to make money on the lens. The decision to sell was a Financial reason as well as a practical one. There are other reasons but I will not go into them here.

I do not consider myself a camera expert or expert photographer. I think that is best left to customers, viewers, and other photographers to bestow that type of honor on me.

While I do not have all the answers, I find it my duty to continue to educate myself and explore others opinions based on facts and their experiences to help me along the way. This does not mean every person's experience is going to apply or be correct for me. I can respect that can you?


Jason

I have learned to think outside the box and sometimes I even break rules.