Hasselblad lens adapters

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Greg Davis, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. Greg Davis

    Greg Davis Member

    Messages:
    2,055
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Nicholasvill
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Has anyone ever used one of these adapters to use the Hasselblad lenses on their 35mm camera? I have a Minolta AF camera and wondered what people's experiences were?
     
  2. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have, yes.

    They are nice, if you absolutely need to use 35 mm film (for whatever reason - i can't think of one), and only want to take along a (small) 35 mm camera body, in addition to your MF kit.

    Else, you do not need such a thing.

    If you are after the quality of MF, you need MF. Not just an MF lens.
    If you can make do with the quality of 35 mm format, the lenses you have for your 35 mm body will do. And offer more comfort to boot.

    So i think you can guess that i have had very little use for the adapters. :wink:
     
  3. naeroscatu

    naeroscatu Subscriber

    Messages:
    887
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Location:
    Newmarket On
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Greg, I tried the Hasselblad to Nikon adaptor on my F100 and don't find a real improvement. IMHO the optics are calculated for optimum performance on the format they are meant for. Zeiss makes exceptional glass for 35mm in many mounts so you don't need the Hasselblad lens to get good results.
     
  4. Greg Davis

    Greg Davis Member

    Messages:
    2,055
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Nicholasvill
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    My thinking was that since I have only one lens at the moment, I may get the Hasselblad lenses for future MF use and skip spending money on both the MF lenses and the 35mm lenses. I am looking at getting the "G" glass for Minolta, not the cheaper glass, which I don't find sharp enough for my taste. I come from a large format background, so the slower use with these adapters isn't an issue.
     
  5. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    First of all, the back focus of medium format lenses lenses far exceeds the back focus of 35 mm SLR lenses. It would be like having the lens attached to an extension tube on the smaller format camera. Infinity focus would be impossible. Second, MF lenses are designed for the format, and may very well resolve less than lenses designed for 35 mm format. The advantage in medium format comes from the fact that you have a much larger negative to work with. The need for less enlargement means that there is less degradation from enlargement, leading to more resolution in the final print or whatever. There is no advantage, and several disadvantages to cobbling MF lenses to 35 mm cameras.
     
  6. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,692
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I am still grappling with why someone would want to put a 35mm shuttlerless lens on a MF body that is shuttlerless or why some one would want to put a shuttered MF lens on a shuttered 35mm body. Do some people have more time in their hands than they can deal with?

    Please advise.

    Interested readers want to know!

    Steve
     
  7. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    You got it backwards.
    MF lenses work perfectly fine on 35 mm bodies. Infinity focus and all.
    Just because the back focus is so much larger, you can adapt MF lenses to any 35 mm camera and still have no problem at all to get infinity focus.


    That too you have backwards.
    35 mm lenses need to be better for 35 mm to begin to have a chance to equal MF in quality.
    Lore has this demand put on 35 mm lenses (rarely met, by the way) reversed, having us believe that MF lenses are in fact less good.
    Not so.

    Most MF lenses do just as well as many 35 mm lenses. In both camps there are lesser performers, and more stellar performers. On the whole, that believe that MF lenses are less good is quite simply not true.


    Which only is an advantage if it isn't let down again by using less good lenses.
    Think about it. :wink:


    Yep. Less convenient: no coupling to meters, manual diaphragm, big and heavy, and all that.
     
  8. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Well, first the shutter thing.
    The MF lens isn't linked to the 35 mm camera's mechanism in any way. So the shutter in the lens remains open, and you do not need to consider it anymore than the non-existing shutter in 35 mm format lenses.
    You just use the focal plane shutter in the camera body, just like with any other lens.
    So we can forget about shutters. No issue there.

    As for why anyone would want to adapt MF lenses to 35 mm cameras.

    - The OP has a good enough reason for thinking about it.
    - I mentioned that when you need to use 35 mm film (for instance because you need slides projectable in a 35 mm projector, or need to use an emulsion - Kodachrome 25! - that is not available in MF), you just put a small 35 mm camera, some film and the adapter in your MF kit bag, and take it on the road.
    - I used to hang a 35 mm camera behind my MF macro setup. One set up for both formats; very handy.

    (I should perhaps explain why i said earlier that i can't think of a reason why you would want to: i no longer shoot slides, or 35 mm format. There is no emulsion in 3 mm only that i need or want to use. And i found cropping the larger MF image was much easier than bringing along even a small 35 mm camera (mine were OMs, so small enough - still... ))
     
  9. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,692
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I would rather have a Hasselblad film back modified to take a 35mm roll or film.
    ... Hey wait! Wouldn't that be an XPAN?

    Steve
     
  10. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Nope.
    That would be the Hasselblad A20-35 back.
    :wink:
     
  11. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,692
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Where can I find one?

    Steve
     
  12. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If i knew, i would tell you.

    Yet, they exist. If you keep an eye out for them, you will (like me) see some. And perhaps also like me, you will have a look at what people ask for them, and let them disappear again.
     
  13. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,692
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    With Hasselblad, there is always just one more piece of equipment that I want!

    Steve
     
  14. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    What if i tell you that the 35 mm film runs vertical, not horizontal, through the A20-35?
     
  15. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,692
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That is what I assumed. I still have the capability to take photographs with the camera rotated 90 degrees.

    Steve