Hasselblad: 80mm vs 100mm

msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
2:09 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
I'm considering a Hasselblad but I'm debating on which lens to make standard.

I hear that the 100mm is superior to the 80mm at infinity but it is worse at close distances. It is generally agreed that the 80mm is slighly retrofocus and so it should be inferior, in theory.

Can anyone comment in the optical performance differences between these two lenses? My feeling is that the optical differences are negligible and that the decision should really be based upon FOV, speed, and balance.

I'm talking about the CF versions, by the way.
 
Let's put it this way: 100mm IS the standard for lens perfection in the Hasselblad line. There are of course other great lenses, but they tend to be more specialized in a way. The real question is, what do you intend to shoot mainly, and do you intend to use the tripod and MLU all the time? For portraits, I would go with the 80, for landscape with the 100.
 
Yeah, I probably am over-analyzing it.

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8E that I love but I wanted a Hasselblad too for a few reasons.

Part of me thought that if I already have a great 80mm lens, then I should go a little wider (60mm) or a little longer (100mm). I looked through flickr and for my application (people, mostly) I think 80mm/100mm works better. Maybe even 80mm.

I'm leaning towards the 80mm or maybe even no Hasselblad. The Hasselblad, is one of those cameras, that everyone just wants. I do see some benefits over Rollei...backs, multiple lenses, prisms, but when it comes down to it. I do not know if I really need any of that...
 
For handheld and simplicity stick with the rolleiflex. If you need to go tele or focus close the hassle is a good option. The 80vs100 is not really a comparison that will show too much difference.
 
If you do primarily tripod work and print large often I'd say go with the 100mm, no question.
Not because there's a big difference, but because it's noticeable in the details and therefore a no-brainer since the focal lengths are relatively similar.

The 80mm is no slouch though, and given it's cheaper and balances a little better IMO it would be my first choice for anyone who shoots handheld a lot or doesn't print larger than A4.

A hard decision no doubt. The difference in image quality isn't huge, but then again neither is the FOV, speed, size or weight (relatively speaking). So it's really up to how much you value each of the above.

I kept the 80mm cause I couldn't decide and left it up to the sale value. I wanted a new tripod at the time. :D

I also agree with pretty much all the above comments on things like using a Rolleiflex for handheld, and the 100mm for landscapes.
 
I can tell you, that the Rolleiflex Planar 2.8 is different than the Hasselblad version. It has less contrast, and in my opinion better bokeh. It is more of a classic B&W environmental portrait lens. With the Rolleinars, it gets slightly less sharp for benefit of closer portraiture, something that many of the greats have discovered a long time ago.
If you want something really different and in a class of its own, get the 110/2 Planar and a 201f. This is in a way like the C Sonnar 50 - at wider apertures the bokeh is crazy and it is not super sharp. Beyond f 5.6 it becomes a razor, with a slightly longer fov. You can add a 60 Distagon - any version, to this, and you will have a great and versatile kit.
 
Thank you everyone for your advice.

I will stick to Rolleiflex for handheld use and compliment it with a Hasselblad if I decide to get into more tripod-orientated work. I don't use a tripod that often so the added value is not-that much at the moment.

As of now, my Rollei's are plenty good so no need to complicate matters.
 
I was going to post this exact same question....so the 100 is really not as sharp as the 80 at close distances? That'll make my decision much easier as i like the smaller size, half stop brighter aperture, and cheaper pricetag of the 80. But if the 100 is really sharper/less distortion at all distances....hmmmm tough call. I already have the 60 as well so it'd make more sense in that respect but i also liked the idea of just having one lens on there all the time...and the 80's so versatile. I'm planning my trip to japan in a month and want to do a series of portraits so figuring out what to bring with :)
 
Last edited:
I have both the 80 and 100 and shoot them on the CFV39 back. No question the 100 blows the 80 away at all distances. The 100 is the standard by which the others are judged. The only other two lenses that I have that come close are the 120 macro planar and the 180 Sonnar. The 180 being a little sharper for general use than the 120 but just a tiny bit less sharp than the 100. I'm splitting hairs here looking at files at 100%. All three are amazing. The 80 is my least used lens and the softest at wide apertures.

The 100 is so good that even Hasselblad uses it as a standard of comparison with the new H lenses. From their tests thee is a very slight drop in quality at close distance with the 100 but nothing you will ever see with film or even digital unless you're making huge prints.
 
Thanks X-Ray! That's exactly the answer i was looking for. *sorry for hijacking the thread Ms Barnes, figured there's no need to start another identical thread hehe* Now i just need to convince myself that its worth 2x the price of the 80 :cool:
 
I think deciding between the 80 and 100 mostly comes down to how you'll use them. If you tend to shoot on a tripod in good light or in a studio, especially with slow film or a digital back, then there's no question the 100 will be a better choice.

However, I shoot my 500CM almost exclusively outdoors, usually handheld, in all kinds of light. I love its compactness and the way it handles, and the extra half-stop gets me almost an extra hour of shooting when I'm losing light. It's given me amazing shots both wide open and stopped down, so I personally never worry about its sharpness. Plus it makes the viewfinder the brightest of any of my V lenses!
 
Very good point Lonemantis....decisions decisions. Actually, for my trip, i was contemplating picking up a rolleiflex 2.8f for its compactness and discreet shutter and since there's no mirror slap...i was told you can shoot down to 1/15th (if you hold your breath that ishehe)...but that's a whole other thread :)
 
100mm

100mm

boomguy57 said:
You're over-analyzing it, methinks. I have the 80mm and it's amazing.
Click to expand...

While it seems not much difference in focal length.... 80mm is normal lens focal length for 6X6, while 100 falls into the short telephote category.

That said, the 100mm lens should be a bit more effective at portrait work.. head shots.

Can't speak to the image quality differences. Just touting focal length standards.
 
msbarnes said:
Thank you everyone for your advice.

I will stick to Rolleiflex for handheld use and compliment it with a Hasselblad if I decide to get into more tripod-orientated work. I don't use a tripod that often so the added value is not-that much at the moment.

As of now, my Rollei's are plenty good so no need to complicate matters.
Click to expand...
Perfectly well thought out decision. You'll find that the addition of a tripod to your Rollei will make a huge difference when you print big.
 
I use Hassy 500c/m for landscapes (mostly) and a few portraits. My bag has 50mm, 80mm and 150mm "C" - rather than "CF" - lenses in it and I can definitely recommend the 80mm (though I haven't used the 100mm). I doubt you can go wrong with either.
 
The one with most LPM is always The Best lens for everything. All others are inferior and the camera will be inadequate with them.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom