Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,946   Posts: 1,585,841   Online: 1091
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,950

    Hasselblad lens adapters

    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?
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    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.

  3. #3
    naeroscatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Newmarket Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    857
    Images
    39
    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.
    Mihai Costea

    "There's more to the picture
    Than meets the eye." - Neil Young

    Galleries:My PN & My APUG

  4. #4
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,950
    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.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    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.
    Frank Schifano

  6. #6
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,966
    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
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Second, MF lenses are designed for the format, and may very well resolve less than lenses designed for 35 mm format.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    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.
    Which only is an advantage if it isn't let down again by using less good lenses.
    Think about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    There is no advantage, and several disadvantages to cobbling MF lenses to 35 mm cameras.
    Yep. Less convenient: no coupling to meters, manual diaphragm, big and heavy, and all that.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    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
    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. #9
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    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... ))
    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
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    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
    Nope.
    That would be the Hasselblad A20-35 back.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin