Hasselblad V Lens - Recommendation for Headshots

[dave lackey]

Years ago, maybe decades, I was taught that photography was similar to my career choice in that it involves a lot of problem solving. Presently, I can't be happier with the 80mm for general use. It is wonderful to use and I discovered more yesterday with the 55mm extension tube that macros are quite easy.

I would like to do tight headshots/close ups with approximately 12" coverage on the focus screen. Not sure what I need for an extension tube (with shallow dof). Nor am I sure which lens will give me a closer minimum focus length for a similar coverage (12")...
(thinking in Nikon terms it would be like using the 50mm - 1.8)

Your recommendation on both a lens and/or an extension tube would be appreciated as I continue working on a new portfolio with the Hassy.🙂

 

[Godfrey]

In general, the 'standard' Hasselblad kit for most photographers has been the Planar 80mm f/2.8 for general use and the Sonnar 150mm f/4 for portraits and headshots. The Sonnar 150mm doesn't focus particularly closely; it will get down to a 16x16 inch field of view at 1.4m closest focus. Add a +1 diopter close up lens and you can get to your 12x12 field.

I've done 90% plus of my photography with the 500CM using either the Planar 80 or Sonnar 150 lenses, and a handful of close-up lenses.

Or you can consider the superlative Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. A little shorter focal length and 1:2 magnification (that's down to a 4.5 inch square field) possible with no lens accessories. It is an incredible lens—beautiful sharpness, superb bokeh, a wonderful piece.

The remaining percentage of my 500CM photos have been made with the Makro-Planar 120mm.

(I only recently acquired a Distagon 50mm f/4, with the notion that if I stick with the Hassy V system, I'll need it if/when I buy a CFV-50c digital back. In that event, the 80-150 pairing will be replaced with the 50-120 pairing. I haven't used the 50 just yet.)

G

Years ago, maybe decades, I was taught that photography was similar to my career choice in that it involves a lot of problem solving. Presently, I can't be happier with the 80mm for general use. It is wonderful to use and I discovered more yesterday with the 55mm extension tube that macros are quite easy.

I would like to do tight headshots/close ups with approximately 12" coverage on the focus screen. Not sure what I need for an extension tube (with shallow dof). Nor am I sure which lens will give me a closer minimum focus length for a similar coverage (12")...
(thinking in Nikon terms it would be like using the 50mm - 1.8)

Your recommendation on both a lens and/or an extension tube would be appreciated as I continue working on a new portfolio with the Hassy.🙂

 

[dave lackey]

In general, the 'standard' Hasselblad kit for most photographers has been the Planar 80mm f/2.8 for general use and the Sonnar 150mm f/4 for portraits and headshots. The Sonnar 150mm doesn't focus particularly closely; it will get down to a 16x16 inch field of view at 1.4m closest focus. Add a +1 diopter close up lens and you can get to your 12x12 field.

I've done 90% plus of my photography with the 500CM using either the Planar 80 or Sonnar 150 lenses, and a handful of close-up lenses.

Or you can consider the superlative Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. A little shorter focal length and 1:2 magnification (that's down to a 4.5 inch square field) possible with no lens accessories. It is an incredible lens—beautiful sharpness, superb bokeh, a wonderful piece.

The remaining percentage of my 500CM photos have been made with the Makro-Planar 120mm.

(I only recently acquired a Distagon 50mm f/4, with the notion that if I stick with the Hassy V system, I'll need it if/when I buy a CFV-50c digital back. In that event, the 80-150 pairing will be replaced with the 50-120 pairing. I haven't used the 50 just yet.)

G

Perfect! Thanks, Godfrey!!!🙂
With the 120, I can get what I need in Macros and tight headshots/etc.

Love it!🙂

 

[oltimer]

Dave, I agree with Godfrey on everything he has said. I did go to shoots with my Wedding buddy and his Hassey; but this type of photography just was not for me, as you already know. I did see him use the 80 mm very often on the female using either a Softar I or II with very good results. Dave you can Google it's uses to see if it meets your piece of cake??

 

[Timmyjoe]

Agree with Godfrey. The 150 worked nicely for me. I did try the 250 for a while for headshot (not head and shoulder shots), but found it just didn't work as well for me as the 150.

 

[RandyB]

The 120mm is an excellent choice for head shots EXCEPT that it is too sharp for some subjects. It will show those little tiny fine hairs and any blemishes on the face no matter how attractive he/she is. I wound up using a Softar 1 on most of my female shots.

 

[oltimer]

The 120mm is an excellent choice for head shots EXCEPT that it is too sharp for some subjects. It will show those little tiny fine hairs and any blemishes on the face no matter how attractive he/she is. I wound up using a Softar 1 on most of my female shots.

Randy, and I agree as all Macros are blazing sharp. You have to be a photographer in this field with a lot of patience in dealing with the female population. One wants her blemish to show up and the next wants it to soften or disappear. Lol
This is an area that I lack the patience.

 

[dave lackey]

Great info here, thanks!🙂

Are there different Softars to consider or just one?

 

[oltimer]

Great info here, thanks!🙂

Are there different Softars to consider or just one?

There are (3) of them Dave. Either #1 or #2 in the area your going. Personally of what I seen in use; #1 got the most use. I did watch him use these Dave, and he allowed me to look into his viewfinder to see the effect. With your new screen; you will see it immediately before you take and even develop the film.

 

[Nokton48]

tierra by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here's an 86mm Zeiss Contax Softar #2 on a 180mm F2.8 Zeiss Sonnar. Mounted on a hot-rodded Pentacon-Six. Fuji NHG400 They LOVED this one. Filter had to be special ordered from B&H and cost nearly $500!! Was worth it, though............

 

[dave lackey]

There are (3) of them Dave. Either #1 or #2 in the area your going. Personally of what I seen in use; #1 got the most use. I did watch him use these Dave, and he allowed me to look into his viewfinder to see the effect. With your new screen; you will see it immediately before you take and even develop the film.

Yeah, thanks! 🙂I found all three online at $75 each. There is also a circular polarizer at $84. Not too bad compared to Leica.😛

 

[dave lackey]

tierra by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here's an 86mm Zeiss Contax Softar #2 on a 180mm F2.8 Zeiss Sonnar. Mounted on a hot-rodded Pentacon-Six. Fuji NHG400 They LOVED this one. Filter had to be special ordered from B&H and cost nearly $500!! Was worth it, though............

Yeah, that is getting there! 😀That was not cheap! 😱 But worth it as you say. It has a nice glow.

 

[oltimer]

Yeah, thanks! 🙂I found all three online at $75 each. There is also a circular polarizer at $84. Not too bad compared to Leica.😛

Make sure you understand what B size your ordering. My 80mm takes a B60 filter size. I will admit there are adapters out there to to help you fit. My 40mm takes a B104, and now your talking big coin.

 

[aizan]

16x16 inch field of view at 1.4m closest focus. Add a +1 diopter close up lens and you can get to your 12x12 field.

ditto. the 150mm by itself will get you a head and shoulders portrait. adding a proxar 1m will let you get a headshot.

 

[Nokton48]

I've paid as little as $25 for clean unscratched Bay50 Hasselblad Softars. They are covered with acrylic with dozens of little convex bubbles imbedded, which will scratch if rubbed with lens tissue.

 

[GarageBoy]

150 and extension tube?

 

[ChrisLivsey]

The wedding photographers trick was to use a UV filter smeared with Vaseline, white soft paraffin. The effect could be localised across the frame and the effect varied, woe betide you if you smudged the favourite filter so smeared.
The Softars give that very even effect and some local softness can work better.
The rule for Softars used to be add one for every 15 years, 20 yrs old none, 35yrs Softar 1, 50yrs the 2 then 65yrs the three.

Take care with the longer lenses how much room you have to back off, sometimes a short extension tubes works better.

 

[Nokton48]

Fashion shooters used the 150 & Extension Tube 10

Nobody I know over here ever used Vaseline on filters at a wedding
Too much dust, dirt, heat, and activity to make such risks

You shot two sharp, and two Softar.
The couple would decide what they wanted to buy.

 

[x-ray]

I always liked the 120 macro planar best. The 150 is fine and quite sharp but I like the closer working distance of the 120 plus not having to deal with the extension tube. I never did soften the image very often but I shot corporate headshots, ads and model portfolios so sharp was important. Really I don't think you'll see much if any difference in sharpness between the 120 and 150. There's also a 165, I believe that's the FL, that's probably a little less sharp but probably not by much.

I really never liked softars. I used either a thin film of nose grease or petroleum jelly on a skylight filter. I feel I have more control over where and how much it's soft. You can keep eyes sharper and flesh softer this way. I did a lot of cinematography years ago and sometimes used a black mesh nylon stocking. Now companies make filters with black mesh. It's a very nice overall softness.

If you're on a budget I'd say the 150 because they're very cheap compared to the 120.

 

[x-ray]

Here's something to think about. If you're scanning use Gaussian blur in Photoshop. You can control the degree of softness quite easily and use the history brush to sharpen the eyes back to how they were on the film. It gives a great degree of flexibility.