A Hasselblad, more than 40 years after first looking.

JeffS7444 said:
Vince, here's a similar early-type finder currently listed on That Auction Site:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/304684720633

My 500C dates back to 1966, but I purchased the finder separately, and I deliberately chose the older style because I thought I wanted my camera to have more of a vintage vibe. But be advised that this design has some tendency to pop apart at the hinges, and I've got the main hinge pin of mine held in place by tiny drops of clear JB Weld. It's too soon for me to know whether this is an effective fix or not.
Click to expand...

I’m always amazed at how much the waist-level finders cost - I think they should be about half that.

I have a very early 500c (the 647th one made) and I’m looking for a finder like that, but I’m hoping to find one for under $200. Ah well a boy can dream….
 
Vince Lupo said:
I’m always amazed at how much the waist-level finders cost - I think they should be about half that.

I have a very early 500c (the 647th one made) and I’m looking for a finder like that, but I’m hoping to find one for under $200. Ah well a boy can dream….
Click to expand...

I hear your frustration: Sometimes auction sites seem to be full of the same endlessly-relisted items, with prices that no one actually seems to pay, Can't recall what I paid for the finder: $100? Less? But it was sold as a broken item, and this was before the pandemic kicked off a shopping frenzy. Around the same time, I recall seeing a Leica M6 Titanium listed by KEH at a little less than $1500, and I thought that seemed like sort of an okay price (but not quite a smokin' deal) - who knew that Leica M6 would become the must-have lifestyle accessory of the pandemic?
 
OlivierAOP said:
For the 1600f/1000f users here is some lens data for the old Zeiss lenses. Site also lots of info for the V-mount Zeiss lenses.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/H...e57Lenses.aspx

Thanks to Vince Lupo for the GAS. Found an Ektar 80mm. Might get a Kiev 88 straight from Ukraine to use it (its 1000f was dead).
Click to expand...

I’m not sure that the Ektar lens will fit a Kiev body, as I’ve read various sources online (however accurate or inaccurate they are) that the thread pitch is different. Usually it’s people wanting to go the other way round, mounting Kiev lenses on a Hasselblad body, and I know that modifications are required to go that way. So there’s a possibility that it might not work.

I have Richard Nordin’s excellent ‘Hasselblad Compendium’ book and has tons of info on the 1600f/1000f as well as all the lenses that were available for the cameras plus the accessories. In addition, the book comes with a DVD that has supplemental info, including delivery records of all the 1600f and 1000f cameras. Like Victor Hasselblad himself, the company kept meticulous records so it’s easy to find delivery info on your 1600f/1000f. One of mine went to Willoughby’s and another (the Lennart Nilsson 1000f) was sold by Hasselblad directly, so it never left Sweden. Sadly neither camera has its original lens nor back.

As far as lenses that were available for the 1600f/1000f, the two lenses that were never made available to the public were the 55mm Wide Field Ektar and the 254mm Ektar. I think they only exist at the Hasselblad Museum.
 
With the 1000f and a recently acquired 250/5.6 Sonnar lens shot wide open, Ilford Pan F.

I had a bit of flare at the bottom of the frame, as I was shooting almost directly towards the sun. I corrected it as best I could, however I made a print of it earlier today on Epson Legacy Textured and it came out great.

Have to say I love how all the Zeiss lenses for the 1000f render the backgrounds.

Riley's Leaves by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

With the 80/2.8 Tessar.

Trail Web by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Vince Lupo said:
I’m not sure that the Ektar lens will fit a Kiev body, as I’ve read various sources online (however accurate or inaccurate they are) that the thread pitch is different. Usually it’s people wanting to go the other way round, mounting Kiev lenses on a Hasselblad body, and I know that modifications are required to go that way. So there’s a possibility that it might not work.

I have Richard Nordin’s excellent ‘Hasselblad Compendium’ book and has tons of info on the 1600f/1000f as well as all the lenses that were available for the cameras plus the accessories. In addition, the book comes with a DVD that has supplemental info, including delivery records of all the 1600f and 1000f cameras. Like Victor Hasselblad himself, the company kept meticulous records so it’s easy to find delivery info on your 1600f/1000f. One of mine went to Willoughby’s and another (the Lennart Nilsson 1000f) was sold by Hasselblad directly, so it never left Sweden. Sadly neither camera has its original lens nor back.

As far as lenses that were available for the 1600f/1000f, the two lenses that were never made available to the public were the 55mm Wide Field Ektar and the 254mm Ektar. I think they only exist at the Hasselblad Museum.
Click to expand...

I think Kiev and Hasselblad have the same M60x6 pitch, at least within tolerances. But they are out of phase so a Ukrainian lens will barely engage a Hassie, whereas a Hassie lens will overturn on the Kyiv. In both cases they would be misaligned (one can unscrew the camera mount and rotate it) and the lock won't work. We'll see!

An unofficial (adapted) wide-angle for the Hasselblad was the Fujita/Kaligar 52mm f3.5.
 
Aside from my Superwide C (long since sold), I don't recall ever using a Hasselblad camera handheld, but I decided to do just that today. Loaded it with my not-favorite Lomography Potsdam 100, and off I went. Bought a number of rolls of the stuff when it was initially released, to date have gotten results which are too film noir-ish for my liking, but that could have as much to do with how I'm processing it. (Cinestill DF96 monobath).
 
JeffS7444 said:
Aside from my Superwide C (long since sold), I don't recall ever using a Hasselblad camera handheld, but I decided to do just that today. Loaded it with my not-favorite Lomography Potsdam 100, and off I went. Bought a number of rolls of the stuff when it was initially released, to date have gotten results which are too film noir-ish for my liking, but that could have as much to do with how I'm processing it. (Cinestill DF96 monobath).
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried D76 with the 1:3 dilution? That seems to be my preferred ‘go-to’ for Pan F and Delta I like the results, though it may or may not work with that film, which I’ve never tried. Seems to keep the highlights in check and gives decent shadow detail.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Have you ever tried D76 with the 1:3 dilution? That seems to be my preferred ‘go-to’ for Pan F and Delta I like the results, though it may or may not work with that film, which I’ve never tried. Seems to keep the highlights in check and gives decent shadow detail.
Click to expand...

It's been ages since I've used D76, but sure, I'd be up for getting to know it again. Never was dissatisfied with D76, just got got fixated on the combination of Tmax + Xtol back in the day.

As for Lomography Potsdam 100, once I use up my current stash, I don't think I'll be buying more, because I've also seen scratched emulsion, and there's no way that my handling of the film could have caused some of those scratches.

BTW, what focusing screens are you using on those older cameras?
 
I'm just using plain screens that have the four lines near the center (two vertical lines, two horizontal lines) and they seem to work fine for me. I've personally never been a fan of split-image screens on any camera so the plain ones are my preference. I've never used a Beattie nor an Acute-Matte so I can't tell you how they compare.
 
Couldn't let the stable get too depleted 🙂


Super Wide by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

1957 model, so after the Supreme Wide Angle but before the Super Wide C. Slower shutter speeds are a tad sluggish but still useable. The lens is in great condition and most everything else seems good, though I'll likely send it in to get serviced. I had a Super Wide C a number of years ago and really loved it, can't understand why I parted with it. Not going to make the same mistake this time.

The book was another recent addition -- only $7 including shipping! See there are some Hasselblad items that can be had for cheap.
 
Cheap: I needed a replacement B60 lens cap. They had new ones in cellophane $5. Looked the same as my old ones. So I bought two. And that’s $5 AUD.
 
Focus is off because I screwed the lens focus helicoid together incorrectly (since corrected) but otherwise, I'd say that this camera + lens repair has been a success, but note minor film defects including white streak above VW bus scale model.
Still life - sm.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: Still life - sm.jpg Views: 0 Size: 70.8 KB ID: 4808726
And some not-so-minor defects from this early-production roll of Lomography's Potsdam 100, including someone's fingerprint!
Lomography Potsdam defect.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: Lomography Potsdam defect.jpg Views: 0 Size: 127.8 KB ID: 4808727
I see no obvious scratches or surface streaks on the film itself, and don't see how I could have caused this.
 
Vince Lupo said:
1957 model, so after the Supreme Wide Angle but before the Super Wide C.
Click to expand...
Sweet! Do you cock and release the shutter from the shutter housing itself, or am I missing something?

Mine was a late SWC with chrome barrel but T* coatings. Knowing me, I sold it to fund some other toy, possibly a Fuji GA645zi, which was no slouch either.
 
JeffS7444 said:
Sweet! Do you cock and release the shutter from the shutter housing itself, or am I missing something?

Mine was a late SWC with chrome barrel but T* coatings. Knowing me, I sold it to fund some other toy, possibly a Fuji GA645zi, which was no slouch either.
Click to expand...

No you cock the shutter on the lens but you release the shutter on the lower front body release like normal, wind the film on like normal. Only difference is that the winding of the film does not reset the shutter, although there is some kind of interlock so that you can’t release the shutter until you wind on the film. They only made about 1000 of the Supreme Wide Angle and about 1000 of this model (Super Wide, also known as the SW). According to Hasselblad's delivery records, this one was shipped out on September 24, 1957 to Willoughby's, who was Hasselblad's US distributor.

I just ran one roll of film through it yesterday and I’m going to send it off this week for a CLA. There is a bit of a spacing issue between frames and there's a curious thin horizontal line across the bottom of some of the frames. I'm sure that can be sorted out (at least I hope it can be sorted out!). Other than that the frames look pretty good. One thing that will take getting used to is to sometimes realize that when you think you're really close to a subject, oftentimes you really aren't. It's that wide. I like the fact that it close-focuses to less than 0.5m.

One shot from yesterday - with Delta 100.


Cape Henlopen1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Good going on your repair - looking forward to seeing more photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom