Hasselblad 60/3.5 vs 80/2.8

[FujiLove]

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.

 

[Nokton48]

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.

 

[Richard G]

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.

 

[Rob-F]

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.

 

[Emile de Leon]

60 looks like a great all rounder to me..never used HB though..

 

[bayernfan]

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.

 

[MaxElmar]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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.

“All of these are excellent”. 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, it’s impossible to disregard any of them based on mechanical or optical qualities!

I think the 60 or 80 will be the general purpose lens.

 

[michaelwj]

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 couldn’t live with the 0.9m minimum focus distance, it’s 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.

 

[michaelwj]

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 can’t 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 it’s 60 vs 80...

I’ve always wanted an SWC for as long as I can remember, so I’d go that instead of the 40mm. The prices just aren’t coming down!

Everyone needs a bit of minimalism in their lives.

 

[michaelwj]

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.

I’ve 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!

I’ve got a day off today with my girl (school holidays in Queensland), so I’m heading out with the Hasselblad and the 60 and 80, Portra 400 and Delta 3200. Ready to rock and roll.

 

[sebastel]

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

 

[michaelwj]

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.

 

[sebastel]

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.

 

[leicapixie]

The 80mm Planar is, according to Zeiss, an 81.2mm lens with an angle of view of 38 degrees.

Incorrect understanding of angles... Look thru viewfinder, screen whatever!:bang:

 

[Rob-F]

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!

 

[Comrade Conrad]

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...

 

[Nokton48]

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.

 

[michaelwj]

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?

 

[Nokton48]

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.