Hasselblad 60/3.5 vs 80/2.8

It may be a bit of a side tangent but if you're looking for a lighter, one lens walkaround combo... I would really suggest going with the smaller rolleiflex 75 f3,5 or the bigger 80 f2,8.... have a rolleinar 1 on you + a yellow filter and you can cover most things with that camera. IMO, I think it's one stop sharper to the eye (but not a deal breaker) than the hassy 60/80 lens. I only make this suggestion because I've worked overseas the past couple of years and for traveling, I was very very happy tagging along the Rollei 2.8F with me (more so than the hasselblad..and I'm a hasselblad fanatic). Most of the necessary accessories I needed were very small and compact; made it very convenient to bring everything for the street, documentary, and portrait style of photography.

But sticking to the OP, it's really a preference (if we are only sticking to hasselblad gear). For local traveling (not going out of state or country), I was completely okay carrying the 110 lens on the hassy 203/2000 for my one lens/body combo... i would think the 100mm range is a good solid focal length.... and like others mentioned... if sharpness is a factor then the 100 is tack-sharp.

But as much of a Hasselblad fan, The Rolleiflex won on so many levels with my traveling, walking experience. Even interacting with people was easier with the Rolleiflex, than with the Hasselblad. I'm rambling again but it just made the whole picture taking experience enjoyable, and I think that's what we are striving for at the end of the day, right?
 
DKimg said:
It may be a bit of a side tangent but if you're looking for a lighter, one lens walkaround combo... I would really suggest going with the smaller rolleiflex 75 f3,5 or the bigger 80 f2,8.... have a rolleinar 1 on you + a yellow filter and you can cover most things with that camera. IMO, I think it's one stop sharper to the eye (but not a deal breaker) than the hassy 60/80 lens. I only make this suggestion because I've worked overseas the past couple of years and for traveling, I was very very happy tagging along the Rollei 2.8F with me (more so than the hasselblad..and I'm a hasselblad fanatic). Most of the necessary accessories I needed were very small and compact; made it very convenient to bring everything for the street, documentary, and portrait style of photography.

But sticking to the OP, it's really a preference (if we are only sticking to hasselblad gear). For local traveling (not going out of state or country), I was completely okay carrying the 110 lens on the hassy 203/2000 for my one lens/body combo... i would think the 100mm range is a good solid focal length.... and like others mentioned... if sharpness is a factor then the 100 is tack-sharp.

But as much of a Hasselblad fan, The Rolleiflex won on so many levels with my traveling, walking experience. Even interacting with people was easier with the Rolleiflex, than with the Hasselblad. I'm rambling again but it just made the whole picture taking experience enjoyable, and I think that's what we are striving for at the end of the day, right?
Click to expand...

I've used a Rolleiflex and a YashicaMat, and as much as I've tried to like them, I never enjoyed them like the Hasselblad. I wish I did in many ways, for the exact reasons you state + they're faster to focus too.

On the other hand, I hear the "if you're going to use a Hasselblad with an 80mm, then you'll be better off with a Rolleiflex" line all the time, but feel the comparison is like saying why use an SLR with only a 50mm when a fixed lens rangefinder is smaller, lighter, and can be handheld at lower speeds. The only thing that a Rolleiflex and Hasselblad have in common is a waist level finder. One is TTL one is not - totally different beasts. If I wanted a small, light 120 film camera for travel, I'd go for a folder like a Bessa 667 and go really portable.

As for sharpness, I've never been wanting for more with any high end gear I've owned - the quality of the gear far exceeds my ability!
 
michaelwj said:
I've used a Rolleiflex and a YashicaMat, and as much as I've tried to like them, I never enjoyed them like the Hasselblad. I wish I did in many ways, for the exact reasons you state + they're faster to focus too.

On the other hand, I hear the "if you're going to use a Hasselblad with an 80mm, then you'll be better off with a Rolleiflex" line all the time, but feel the comparison is like saying why use an SLR with only a 50mm when a fixed lens rangefinder is smaller, lighter, and can be handheld at lower speeds. The only thing that a Rolleiflex and Hasselblad have in common is a waist level finder. One is TTL one is not - totally different beasts. If I wanted a small, light 120 film camera for travel, I'd go for a folder like a Bessa 667 and go really portable.

As for sharpness, I've never been wanting for more with any high end gear I've owned - the quality of the gear far exceeds my ability!
Click to expand...

So maybe I'm a little confused. I presume you like the ergonomics of the Hassy over the Rollei?

Anyways, I'm not trying to sway anyone's camera tool(s) towards getting the shot they feel pleased mostly, but sometimes finding something in a system that's not particularly it's norm is very hard to satisfy (one's self). Initially, seeing the title, I was a bit intrigued because personally, I haven't used the 60 f3,5 as its so close to the 50-60-80 lineup; and would love to see what others would say between the two... However, after reading through your post, it makes me wonder (and I may be thinking to far into it), that your 'priority' is finding that one lens that suits most of your walkaround needs...in a medium format quality...Lighter and possibly smaller (in size) lens. Without banging my head on the table, The 500CM + 80 combo is the answer and you shouldn't look much more into it... yah or nay? Because you're not seeking more sharpness, so I guess distortion free isn't much of a factor either?

I'm just rambling a bit, more so out of curiosity, but "technically" Hasselblad isn't necessarily meant to be a one lens walk-around kind of camera (even though most of us, including myself, has done it one way or another). I would almost think you're doing the camera injustice for not using the tool as a modular system; being able to change backs, lenses, WLFs, etc... It's probably why I use it this system the most during my photo sessions or travels because the flexibility of changing what I want in the moment is a blessing... and arguably (in my mind) the weight and size isn't much importance. Heck, I've walked around with bigger cameras and have no problem, just because there's another factor to the camera that I really really enjoy capturing with...

I'm wondering, what do you use the hasselblad the most during your walk-around time? Based on what I've read, the SWC is out of the question, probably because the WLF feature isn't integrated into the body... though I find using that camera fun and relaxing, yet captures everything one may ask for.. (close up portraiture is probably out of the question though).

Sorry for the long conversation... slow Friday.
 
Hass V & a 60mm is all you ever need.

bmp.4986.jpg


bmp.5031.jpg


bmp.5036.jpg


bmp.5137.jpg


bmp.5123.jpg


bmp.5611.jpg


bmp.6583.jpg
 
I owned them both, and my sample of the 60 was sharper. Was never that impressed with the 80. The Rolleiflex and Autocord I owned made much better photos.

My blad body was an early 500 C with the standard focus screen that had a circular focus "bubble" in the center. It wasn't the brightest focus screen, but I found it to be very easy to focus with. Lots of contrast, and the image would pop into focus. Loved that screen.
 
DKimg said:
So maybe I'm a little confused. I presume you like the ergonomics of the Hassy over the Rollei?

Anyways, I'm not trying to sway anyone's camera tool(s) towards getting the shot they feel pleased mostly, but sometimes finding something in a system that's not particularly it's norm is very hard to satisfy (one's self). Initially, seeing the title, I was a bit intrigued because personally, I haven't used the 60 f3,5 as its so close to the 50-60-80 lineup; and would love to see what others would say between the two... However, after reading through your post, it makes me wonder (and I may be thinking to far into it), that your 'priority' is finding that one lens that suits most of your walkaround needs...in a medium format quality...Lighter and possibly smaller (in size) lens. Without banging my head on the table, The 500CM + 80 combo is the answer and you shouldn't look much more into it... yah or nay? Because you're not seeking more sharpness, so I guess distortion free isn't much of a factor either?

I'm just rambling a bit, more so out of curiosity, but "technically" Hasselblad isn't necessarily meant to be a one lens walk-around kind of camera (even though most of us, including myself, has done it one way or another). I would almost think you're doing the camera injustice for not using the tool as a modular system; being able to change backs, lenses, WLFs, etc... It's probably why I use it this system the most during my photo sessions or travels because the flexibility of changing what I want in the moment is a blessing... and arguably (in my mind) the weight and size isn't much importance. Heck, I've walked around with bigger cameras and have no problem, just because there's another factor to the camera that I really really enjoy capturing with...

I'm wondering, what do you use the hasselblad the most during your walk-around time? Based on what I've read, the SWC is out of the question, probably because the WLF feature isn't integrated into the body... though I find using that camera fun and relaxing, yet captures everything one may ask for.. (close up portraiture is probably out of the question though).

Sorry for the long conversation... slow Friday.
Click to expand...

You're not confused, I'm confusing.

As for the Hasselblad vs Rolleiflex, what keeps me coming towards the Hasselblad is the TTL viewing and the interchangeable backs (changing from 100 to 3200 speed film mid roll is such a treat). Saying that, I love the weight of the Rolleiflex and the lack of mirror blackout, but I just can't get along with them for some reason.

"Without banging my head on the table, The 500CM + 80 combo is the answer and you shouldn't look much more into it... yah or nay? Because you're not seeking more sharpness, so I guess distortion free isn't much of a factor either?"

Initially yes, it's the logical choice. And then I find myself constantly banging into the minimum focus distance and it cramps my style and I miss the moment or the shot is too far away for what I envisioned (the same can be said about the minimum focus on the Rolleiflex - I know close up lenses are an option, but I'm not going to keep putting something on and off)

The purpose of the thread was to gather my thoughts and prompt some questions from the readers (your enquiries have helped me immensely thank you). This is and has been helpful in framing the question to myself. I suppose if I were to reword my OP to a question, I would be asking "Can the 60 can substitute for the 80, giving up aperture, and gaining some size/weight and minimum focus?"

The SWC... been a dream camera for a long time, but the cost keeps it waiting. One day...

Finding the best "one lens" option for the Hasselblad doesn't prohibit other lenses in the future, the macro is likely on the horizon with a chimney finder. But even without that, I think the modularity is being used, I have three backs and change them quite often mid roll - it's so liberating.
 
Makro with a chimney finder....DKimg has those in the classifieds I think.

The Rolleiflex ought to be great but I have trouble holding mine still. Somehow the Hasselblad feels right in my hands. I agree the 80 Planar is great weight, size, balance and versatility. I just like the photographic effect of the 60 and that close focus. I have both and a 150. Doubt I’ll get more. Except that 100....
 
Richard G said:
Makro with a chimney finder....DKimg has those in the classifieds I think.

The Rolleiflex ought to be great but I have trouble holding mine still. Somehow the Hasselblad feels right in my hands.
Click to expand...

Same here. I find it hard not to jerk the Rollei, causing camera shake. It is much better with the Rollei T, however. The sidewise movement of the release is smoother than the back and forth action of the rest of them.
 
Few mentioned difficulty of actual focusing the Hasselblad!
The Acu-Mate screens way brighter but no clearer.
Rolleis are easier to focus.
The best is Mamiya C-3, 33 and 330.
I am amzed that no love for 100mm Zeiss.
It is one of Hasselblads best lenses.
It gives a good perspective compared to the 80mm.
 
leicapixie said:
Few mentioned difficulty of actual focusing the Hasselblad!
The Acu-Mate screens way brighter but no clearer.
Rolleis are easier to focus.
The best is Mamiya C-3, 33 and 330.
I am amzed that no love for 100mm Zeiss.
It is one of Hasselblads best lenses.
It gives a good perspective compared to the 80mm.
Click to expand...

Having used both, I don’t find the Rolleiflex easier to confirm focus, the viewing lens is no faster, the screen is no brighter, the view is the same. It is faster to change focus on a Rolleiflex, but not easier.
On either camera, I frame initially in the finder, focus and refine framing with the magnifier, and shoot.
 
leicapixie said:
I am amzed that no love for 100mm Zeiss.
It is one of Hasselblads best lenses.
It gives a good perspective compared to the 80mm.
Click to expand...

Not really. I forgot who said this:

"Perspective is governed by where you stand. Focal length determines cropping."

That's not a n exact quote, it's from memory, but I think I have it about right.
 
Rob-F said:
Not really. I forgot who said this:

"Perspective is governed by where you stand. Focal length determines cropping."

That's not a n exact quote, it's from memory, but I think I have it about right.
Click to expand...


That is absolutely correct. 🙂
 
michaelwj said:
Can the 60 can substitute for the 80, giving up aperture, and gaining some size/weight and minimum focus?

The SWC... been a dream camera for a long time, but the cost keeps it waiting. One day...
Click to expand...

Cool! This is the process I like figuring out with others. This would probably give you better answers. And I would almost want to say yes. An almost yes answer because I'm missing out what you photograph mostly when you walk around with either your 60/80 lens. I don't think you're losing out much with 3.5 vs 2.8 (similar to rollei situation)... and I always favor a closer focus lens than farther (only because I do enjoy close portraits + some semi-close/macro still objects).

If your ultimate goal is a SWC, then I would practice shooting wider... and perhaps not get too hung up over the whole 80/60 debate.... just find what is cheaper and save the rest for the SWC purchase. Gut feeling though I think the 60mm lens would be the way to go. Something different than the 80.
 
michaelwj said:
Having used both, I don’t find the Rolleiflex easier to confirm focus, the viewing lens is no faster, the screen is no brighter, the view is the same. It is faster to change focus on a Rolleiflex, but not easier.
On either camera, I frame initially in the finder, focus and refine framing with the magnifier, and shoot.
Click to expand...

+1 faster but not easier. I almost want to say that for portraiture work, I like the slower focus, feels like I'm sniping...dialing in the focus (especially with the hasselblad acute split screen. It's a huge difference). For Rolleis, if the screen isn't calibrated to the viewing lens, you'll be guessing focus all your life.The other thing to consider is the viewing + taking lens and the change of perspective + focus. Harder to dial in focus when you're shooting F4 and wider.
 
The screen and mirror also needs to be calibrated on the hassy. 🙂

I much prefer SLR viewing although I have heard the siren call of the Rolleiflex. I'm thinking "Irving Penn" and a Hasselblad Magnifying Hood adapted to the Rollei. Hmmm I prefer the Magnifying Hood and it can be crazy cheap but always worth every Penny.

But I am good with Hasselblad (Boy am I ever; don't ask!) 80mm Planar F2.8 same as Rollei...............

Hasselblad -- "The Erector Set of Photography"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
How best to sell AE-1 + off-brand zooms?
Replies
14
Views
982
OmegaB600
O
B
Yashica Sequelle Rarest Half-frame camera
Replies
0
Views
413
biggles3
B
W
Interesting/fun comparison shot
Replies
17
Views
945
rodgersfoto
R
M
Nikon 85 f1.4 AiS Sonnar Double Gauss hybrid
Replies
2
Views
369
Freakscene
Freakscene
E
Operational impact of “traces of oil on blades”
Replies
6
Views
831
Coldkennels
Coldkennels
Back
Top Bottom