sell me on the Hasselblad 80mm f2.8 planar

[redisburning]

I'm looking to buy another roll film camera and to be honest Hasselblad is not currently in the lead, mainly because Flickr has not done a very good job convincing me about this particular lens. However, I know this is a popular lens and is well regarded, and of course the Flickr groups for a certain other camera that is winning don't shine nearly as much as our own thread dedicated to it. I don't need any convincing regarding the merits of the system or the high resolution numbers or anything like that, but I would hate to give up a potential size savings because of poorly done scans.

I was hoping that if you liked the lens, you might show me a picture or two that really demonstrates what you like about it.

thanks.

 

[Livesteamer]

It takes more than just a lens. Many of us here would think that the basic blad outfit of the 80mm, a waist level finder and a back or two is an outstanding way to go. My Rollei 3.5F is a fine camera but I much prefer the blad, I think for ergonomics. (For me.)

Secondly, a computer monitor cannot do medium format anything, justice. You need to borrow a blad outfit for a weekend and see if it fits you. Joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

OK: It's the only lens I like on Hasselblads. Everything else balances wrong, unless you're on a tripod (and I've used at least 50, 100, 135, 150, 250; maybe one or two others but I can't remember). I've tried f/2.8 Planars on Rolleis, Hasselblads and Linhofs (100 not 80) and there's not a lot better than a good one: maybe, come to think of it, nothing better. Except perhaps the f/3.5 on a Rollei.

It would take a long time to dig out specific images, though. It's been a long time...

Cheer,

R.

 

[Nokton48]

I own two of the black 80mm F2.8 CT* Planars, if that tells you anything. I have every lens in the lineup from the time, the 80mm is very underated and great.

There are alot of nice images over at www.hasselbladinfo.com if you are interested.

 

[cjbecker]

If your using flickr to justify/compare lens your not ready. It seams that your could really care less about what the lens can do and not what you can do.

If it was used by pretty much every great photographer at some time in their career,
I think it would be good enough for you.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Great lens. But I tend to use the 60 or 100 more.

 

[Gumby]

If your using flickr to justify/compare lens your not ready. It seems that your could really care less about what the lens can do and not what you can do.

If it was used by pretty much every great photographer at some time in their career, I think it would be good enough for you.

I feel compelled to agree with this.

 

[redisburning]

Secondly, a computer monitor cannot do medium format anything, justice. You need to borrow a blad outfit for a weekend and see if it fits you. Joe

Oh, well that's my main form of viewing. My quality criteria is a 4k file.

I don't care about a few extra lp/mm for this. If that was the only thing that mattered it would be the 80/4 for the Mamiya 7, a lens whose signature I love but the combination of being wider than 50mm equivalent with a 1m MFD rules it out. I care only about signature at small magnifications. This wouldn't be the only lens, but it would have to serve as the main one.

I'll just be direct here: Im probably going to buy a Pentax 67 with the 105 and either the 55/75 (if not both). I would have preferred the smaller size of a 500cm, and I am quite disappointed in the samples I see from the 80/2.8 on flickr.

My favorite 35mm lens is the ZM50P; it has more than adequate sharpness on the plane of focus, a lovely transition from in to out of focus and well controlled OoF areas. I don't see that with the 80/2.8 but I am willing to reevaluate based on what I consider the higher concentration of talent at RFF (as I referenced to the p67 thread vs flickr)

I am drawn to the Pentax lenses' style. I could care less about how large I can print; it will be more than large enough. But when I set my frames to rotate as my background, I want the final image to have the qualities I like. again, you don't need to convince me the lens is sharp; I know that. I just want very badly to see the overall image gestalt I have so far failed to find. And maybe if it really isn't there, and it's instead something else wonderful but not exactly what I want, then it's not the system for me.

Anyway, I will call again for some shots. Please show me why you like it.

 

[redisburning]

If your using flickr to justify/compare lens your not ready. It seams that your could really care less about what the lens can do and not what you can do.

If it was used by pretty much every great photographer at some time in their career,
I think it would be good enough for you.

1. I recognize flickr is not adequate. isn't that obvious? I have come here asking for pictures to evaluate a potential purchase in the hopes that I will end up with something I like.

2. This is a toy purchase. If someone got the strange notion to pay me, I have a 4x5. Where did I imply the lens was not good enough? I said I haven't been convinced about it's rendering style.

seriously, posts like this make me question whether people are here to discuss cameras or to marvel at the fact that they can see their own words on a screen. your post is beyond unhelpful so if I sound ungrateful to you specifically, it's because I am.

thanks to everyone else who contributed though.

 

[mathomas]

Anything I'd post here would be served by flickr, so I'll just hold off posting 🙂

 

[Bob Michaels]

Consider the Bronica SQA as well. The body and lenses are about half the Hassleblad price with more reliability to boot. But all I want a camera for is to take photos and could not tell the difference in prints from the Bronica and the Hassleblad. You will have to decide if the Bronica 80mm "signature" is to your liking or not.

My "people of South Apopka" series was shot almost exclusively with my Bronica SQA. I do prefer the 65mm lens over the 80mm because of its field of view.

 

[mathomas]

Just kidding around. (Well, I'm serious that the photos will be served from flickr, so ha-ha only serious).

Don't know which way these will strike you, but I've got no dog in the hunt. My Hassies are my favorite photo gear, so there you have it. Highlights can be pentagonal due to the aperture shape (see esp. second photo). Doesn't bother me much.


100 strangers: brian (22/100) by mike thomas, on Flickr



100 strangers: joseph (23/100) by mike thomas, on Flickr



cherry knolls park by mike thomas, on Flickr



cars-n-coffee, june 2011 by mike thomas, on Flickr



embarking by mike thomas, on Flickr



cherry knolls park by mike thomas, on Flickr



pickets & shadows by mike thomas, on Flickr

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, I don't like the look of a 105 on a Pentax 67 (and yes, I've tried it) -- which is mostly just personal preference. At which point, how can anyone persuade you of the merits of any lens? Maybe you can see a difference on a monitor, but quite honestly, for me the lens would be secondary to aperture, film, processing, exposure and lot more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[KoNickon]

I will tell you that after several years of neglect, I've been using my Pentax 67 a fair amount recently and have been stunned at how good the images are. While I need to give the Hassy a chance to reply, I can't believe it and the CZ lenses would be better. I have the 75/4.5, 90/2.4, 135/4, 165/2.8 and 200/4. There is of course the versatility of being able to swap backs with the Hasselblad, but you need to have another back to realize that versatility. And of course if you're going to use flash, the Hassy wins hands down. But based on recent experience, the Pentax/Takumars are the best lenses I've used -- maybe even better than the Planars and Xenotars on the Rolleis.

Oh, well that's my main form of viewing. My quality criteria is a 4k file.

I don't care about a few extra lp/mm for this. If that was the only thing that mattered it would be the 80/4 for the Mamiya 7, a lens whose signature I love but the combination of being wider than 50mm equivalent with a 1m MFD rules it out. I care only about signature at small magnifications. This wouldn't be the only lens, but it would have to serve as the main one.

I'll just be direct here: Im probably going to buy a Pentax 67 with the 105 and either the 55/75 (if not both). I would have preferred the smaller size of a 500cm, and I am quite disappointed in the samples I see from the 80/2.8 on flickr.

My favorite 35mm lens is the ZM50P; it has more than adequate sharpness on the plane of focus, a lovely transition from in to out of focus and well controlled OoF areas. I don't see that with the 80/2.8 but I am willing to reevaluate based on what I consider the higher concentration of talent at RFF (as I referenced to the p67 thread vs flickr)

I am drawn to the Pentax lenses' style. I could care less about how large I can print; it will be more than large enough. But when I set my frames to rotate as my background, I want the final image to have the qualities I like. again, you don't need to convince me the lens is sharp; I know that. I just want very badly to see the overall image gestalt I have so far failed to find. And maybe if it really isn't there, and it's instead something else wonderful but not exactly what I want, then it's not the system for me.

Anyway, I will call again for some shots. Please show me why you like it.

 

[redisburning]

Consider the Bronica SQA as well. The body and lenses are about half the Hassleblad price with more reliability to boot. But all I want a camera for is to take photos and could not tell the difference in prints from the Bronica and the Hassleblad. You will have to decide if the Bronica 80mm "signature" is to your liking or not.

My "people of South Apopka" series was shot almost exclusively with my Bronica SQA. I do prefer the 65mm lens over the 80mm because of its field of view.

I've had the Bronica 80 P and an SQ-a actually. My experiences with it were negative and I am not interested in trying it again, sorry.

It may be that the camera/lens combo I had just weren't right but it wouldn't be worth my time to get that level of performance. My experience with other 120 cameras (Autocord, Mamiya 7) are considerably more positive but I've moved on from both of them for various reasons.

Anything I'd post here would be served by flickr, so I'll just hold off posting 🙂

haha that's true but it's mainly the groups and tagging. I did some searches but it's tough. thanks for posting pictures though, I appreciate that.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Understand your rationale completely.

I've had the Bronica 80 P and an SQ-a actually. My experiences with it were negative and I am not interested in trying it again, sorry.

It may be that the camera/lens combo I had just weren't right but it wouldn't be worth my time to get that level of performance.

.........................

 

[redisburning]

Well, I don't like the look of a 105 on a Pentax 67 (and yes, I've tried it) -- which is mostly just personal preference. At which point, how can anyone persuade you of the merits of any lens? Maybe you can see a difference on a monitor, but quite honestly, for me the lens would be secondary to aperture, film, processing, exposure and lot more.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I look at shots like Matt's last one. It gives me a good idea of what to expect from the lens actually, as I can reference it against the other lenses I've used and extrapolate from there.

unfortunately that shot confirms my thinking. while it does what it does very well I will probably end up buying the Pentax, afterall.

still open to more shots. I've got some time to think on this as I've not got to have this for any trip or work or whatever.

 

[Jamie123]

unfortunately that shot confirms my thinking. while it does what it does very well I will probably end up buying the Pentax, afterall.

What is your thinking exactly? If you tell us what it is you don't like we might be able to say whether we see this in our own pictures.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I look at shots like Matt's last one. It gives me a good idea of what to expect from the lens actually, as I can reference it against the other lenses I've used and extrapolate from there.

unfortunately that shot confirms my thinking. while it does what it does very well I will probably end up buying the Pentax, afterall.

still open to more shots. I've got some time to think on this as I've not got to have this for any trip or work or whatever.

Fair enough. Quite honestly, just for 'look', I'm very fond of the 80/2,8 Biometar -- http://www.rogerandfrances.com/sgallery/g france moncontour b.html -- and I'd probably prefer that for the kind of pics I'm likely to shoot of that kind of subject to a Planar. But then, there are pics I like with my Lyubitel, too, and my Kowa.

For me, the handling of the camera probably takes precedence over the exact 'look' of the lens. Sometimes you get great-handling cameras with great lenses -- Alpa 44x66 and 38 Biogon spring to mind -- but choosing different cameras is, to a very large extent, self-indulgent luxury.

Don't get me wrong. I'm as fond of self-indulgent luxury as anyone, except perhaps the Buddha. It's just that the marginal value of self-indulgent luxury is often modest as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers,

R.

 

[redisburning]

What is your thinking exactly? If you tell us what it is you don't like we might be able to say whether we see this in our own pictures.

well, I am no lens engineer so I will have to use an analogy to get this across since it's more of an instinctual thing.

if I were to cook two hamburgers on a grill and one was a light color on the outside but cooked perfectly throughout, and I had one that was maybe just a touch too rare or too done but had a nice char on the outside, I would prefer the latter.

I guess, and I will probably make an idiot out of myself for saying this since it's pure conjecture, but I suspect the Pentax 105 has a shorter and coarser transition to OoF. Certainly, to me, I have so far liked the shots displaying that transition from the Pentax better than that's one of my favorite things in a shot.

But, I'm crazy and like the 50/3.5 Zuiko macro for exactly that reason and most people think it's bokeh is terrible.

If I were going to shoot against backdrops or very, very shallow DoF where everything behind the subject is blown I probably wouldn't care and would get the smaller camera.

Still interested in seeing more shots.