Hasselblad 60/3.5 vs 80/2.8

[michaelwj]

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...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

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.

 

[mcfingon]

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

 

[sebastel]

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.

 

[daveywaugh]

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!

 

[FrozenInTime]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

... 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...

 

[michaelwj]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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.

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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 haven’t seen much difference in rendering between any of the CF lenses I’ve had (50,60,80,180), but I’ll 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.

 

[x-ray]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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!

 

[bayernfan]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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 it’s 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!

 

[leicapixie]

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.

 

[FujiLove]

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).

 

[michaelwj]

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. I’ve heard the 100 is excellent, but it’s 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.
It’s almost lighter to add an F3 with a wide angle and short tele than to add the 180mm Hasselblad lens to the kit!

 

[michaelwj]

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, I’m young and it’s fun. And the big negatives are great! Short rolls mean I get to see the photos in a timely fashion, it’s a positive not a negative! I have the original Hasselblad screen, it’s plenty bright enough as long as there’s enough light to handhold!