Best kit for new Hasselblad user

W,

A minimum "starter kit" would be a 500C/M body with a waist level finder, A12 magazine and an 80mm f/2.8 lens. A CF version lens would be preferable for most people, but an old C would be cheaper. The CF is easier for most people to use, and replacement parts for the old C lenses are getting scarce, if not unavailable.

If you will be shooting with flash a lot, you may consider one of the 503 bodies which have TTL OTF (thru the lens/off the film) flash metering for those flash systems using the SCA standard.

A good investment is the 4th or 5th edition of Wildi's The Hasselblad Manual.

The knock offs (Kiev?) increase the complexity due to the amount of effort required to keep them operating at a desired level of reliability.

Taras

My first kit was the 500 C/M, 80 black T*, A-12 back. Bought a non-metered Hassy finder (Kiev will be much cheaper) because I could not get used to the WL finder. I sold the kit for $600, recently.

I'd echo the recommendations above, couple of considerations: First, if you're into using many filters, the CF lenses take Bay60 size which even used are still a bit pricey...in contrast the Bay50 filters that go with the older C lenses are very cheap. Second, if you plan at some point to use extension tubes and/or lenses greater than 150mm in focal length, you may want to consider a body such as the 501CM or 503CW that has the GMS (gliding mirror system) to prevent viewfinder cutoff. I started with a 500CM and added a 501CM as back-up for just that reason. Ernst Wildi's book is a must.

May I hop in with a very naiv question...? The A24 magazines are meant exclusively for 220 films, right? Since 220 stock appears to be very difficult to find (and for rather few emulsions only) - A12 magazines appear to be the better alternative... not? Thanks beforehand for getting this straight. Oh, and another one: On a given body both types of magazines will be 100% compatible, most of all flange-to-film distance-wise, right?

220 is simply a longer length of film...the A24 is calibrated to handle the thicker roll so that you get 24 evenly spaced exposed frames. In a pinch you could indeed load 120 into the A24, but the spacing would be off and my understanding is that you'd get fewer than 12 exposures. A12, A24 and A16 backs are all interchangeable with the 500 series bodies.

I disagree with the standard approach that requires everyone to start off with the "normal" lens - in this case the 80mm Planar. If you shoot landscapes, skip it and go straight to a 50mm Distagon. If you shoot portraits, skip it, and go straight to a 150/180 Sonnar. I actually enjoy my Planar, but there's no reason everyone must have one.

Just wanted to mention that 220 is still readily available in most color emulsions (at least judging from Calumet's web site), as for B&W the only ones I know of in 220 are Tri-x 320 and Plus-X (oh, and BW400CN). I usually use 220 to avoid frequent film changes.

Plenty of B&W and color films in 220 at B&H

Stay away from the A24 magazines.
There is a very good reason they are dumped on eBay and in other places too, and fetch almost no money at all: the comments about 220 film being in plentiful supply forget to mention that the choice in emulsions always has been small, compared to what is available in 120 film, and that 220 film always has been difficult to find as well.
But the main omission is that of the word "still". There may still be some emulsions available in 220 size in one or two places, yes. But that availability is changing very fast.
So get an A24 magazine, if you want one to complete a collection. Get A12s if you plan to take pictures.

Thanks for your input! So, I'm surprised to learn that 220 means thicker rolls...?! I thought it meant thinner film to stay compatible with cameras that would allow a fixed roll diameter only... Plus, subsequently I thought it just meant a different pressure plate in the A24 mags - but apparently I was misinformed. Will check out the US mail order sources for 220 stock. Would love to find Fuji Neopan Presto...

BTW, I think the 80 Planar route is an economical as well as very satisfactory way to get used to both, MF and square format. For landscapes I'd crop anyway or rather get an Xpan... ;-) Cheers.

The great joy of the 'standard' lens is that it really is nothing special. No effects added to the image by unusual angles of view. Just plain old '40 degrees', and the 'normal' subject distances.

Boring? On the contrary. Using the standard lens makes you (!) put real work into creating good pictures. None of the ready-made, out-of-the-box 'sweeping views' or 'concentrated attention' wide angles of telephotos produce (and which, sadly, is the only thing many photos have going for them. Now that's boring!).

So by all means: make the standard lens your first lens. Let it force you to concentrate on creating pictures first. Then add the lenses you find you really must have to progress from there.

The traditional set, by the way, is the 80 mm standard lens, the 50 mm wide angle, and the 150 mm short telephoto. That set will allow you to do almost everything.

Nikos,

The original request for simplicity and price is why most recommended the 80mm lens. It is the cheapest lens, and usually the lens found in used kits. Also, W streesed that he wanted to minimize his initial investment.

Taras

The rolls actually are the same diameter. But the lengthof the 220 roll is twice as long. So spacing mechanisms (which work on assumptions about what length of film will wind on a roll - of a given, but changing, diameter - per revlution of that roll) have to differ.

In Hasselblad magazines, the film position is determined by the things the pressure plate press the film against. Thinner film or thicker film, backing paper or not, makes no difference. So the pressure plate is the same in Hasselblad 120 and 220 magazines.


P.S.
Where it reads "wide angles OF telephotos" in my previous post, it should read "wide angles OR telephotos".

Lutz, I think I got my facts crossed...220 film lacks the paper backing 120 has (the film itself is not thinner). So, when you run 120 through a 220 film back it's possible to jam the film gate. I'll be quite now before I pass along any more misinformation ;-)

Mark,

When running a 120 film through a Hasselblad 220 back, you will not risk a jam due to a thicker pack. Makes no difference.
The only thing that will be a problem is frame spacing.

Do your own test but I'm running 120 film thru my 220 H'bld film holders. Thus far no problems. I hate to change film after only 12 shots. Just don't forget you've got 12 shots and not 24!

Recently I've acquired several A24-6x6 LNIB (w/ dark slide holder)on the cheap. de Bakker is probably right about a reduction in film emulsions.

Be careful w/ lite traps as they usually malfunction.

Regards, Paul

Thanks for the clarification Q.G.!

So... on cross examining your answers I understand that

a) 220 film comes without the protective paper on the emulsion (or better film) back (so, more risk of scratching if the pressure plate isn't perfect...?)
b) pressure plates and film are not adjusted to that substantial difference in thickness between 120 (with) and 220 (without paper) - a very surprising point to me...
c) frame spacing is not calculated by the length of film transported but by the decrease in diameter of the remaining roll...? Jeez, how complicated. A different mag necessary just because of that design flaw?
d) 120 film is spaced okay in A24 mags, nonetheless...? How's that possible, then? According to c) frames should be overlapping quite visibly...

Hmm, inspite of the generous responses so far I think I will have to do my own testing.

Oh, and I totally agree with Q. re: standard lenses. Although I actually got myself the 50/80/150 set (35/50/90 being my preferred 35mm primes, which cover 95% of my photography), the standard lens has remained the most appealing.

b) should read "pressure plate and film _gate_"

Lutz,

re b) The film is held so that the emulsion is in the right position. That position does not change when film is thicker or thinner. So as long as the pressure plate is pushing the film in position, there's absolutely no need for an adjustment of film gate position (quite the contrary).
The pressure plate needs to push the film into position. It needs to apply enough pressure to do that. But that does not mean it needs to push so hard that using a thicker film would become a problem. So there is no need to change the pressure plate.

c) Yes, a design flaw... not really. When loaded correctly, there is no problem: 12 6x6 frames will fit with room to spare (you could easily fit 13 frames on a 120 roll), and spacing may not be strictly even, but there will be enough separation between the frames. So where's the flaw? ;-)

Meassuring the length of film transported requires either sprockets (which reduce the usuable width of the film) or a slip-free travel of the film over a meassuring wheel (difficult). But it could be done.
What also can be done, is make assumptions about how thick a roll is with a given amount of film on it. It sounds complicated, but the relation between diameter and length of film that 'winds on' with one full revolution is not complicated. Once this relation is fixed in the shape of a cam, it works, and again, and again, and... But you have to load the film correctly (set the start marks), or else the amount of film on (i.e. the diameter of) the take up spool is 'wrong' right from the start.

d) No, it follows that 120 film isn't spaced correctly when run through a 220 magazine (different assumption - different cam).
Frames will not overlap (which would be really bad), but, on the contrary, spacing is very wide (220, lacking the backing paper is thinner. So when winding an equal length of film, the spool's diameter will grow less fast with 220 film, hence the transport mechanism allows more turns. More turns will space the frames on the 'unexpected' thicker 120 film wider), and you cannot expect 12 frames to not fit on a 120 roll anymore.
So though it will work, the back will not break, and the film will be in the right position to get sharp pictures, it's only an 'emergency' thingy.

"you cannot expect 12 frames to not fit on a 120 roll"

A double negative. Shouldn't be. I apologize.
"you cannot expect 12 frames to fit on a 120 roll"

Wow, Q.G.! Thanks for your exhaustive reply. Just help me out on this one here:

So when winding an equal length of film, the spool's diameter will grow less fast with 220 film, hence the transport mechanism allows more turns.

You were saying film transport aka length-of-film-per-frame aka frame spacing is measured in the process of winding based on the diameter increase on the exposed spool side, right? I.e., the slower the increase the more turns "allowed" - the faster the increase, the less turns possible. With thicker film = faster increase = less turns = tighter spacing, if not overlapping...?!

Either the above assumption is correct - or there would have to be a fixed amount of turns per mag type - which would contradict the "diameter measurement" hypothesis... What am I missing here?

Lutz,

I should have talked about circumference instead of diameter. You start with an (almost) empty spool, and corresponding small diameter, and ditto circumference. Ignoring the increase of diameter and circumference for the moment, one full turn will wind on a length of film equal to the circumference of the spool.
But winding on film will increase the diameter/circumference, and thus have an effect on the length of film transported. And since the diameter and circumference increase, the length of film transported during one full turn increases too. So the number of turns needed to transport a given, set length of film should decrease with increasing diameter and circumference of the take up spool.

That, you all know, of course.

Now should the diameter and circumference of the spool increase more than expected, faster than allowed for in the 'regulator cam', because you are using a thicker film (film with paper, instead of just film), the increase in length of film transported by one full turn isn't compensated for by the cam (which, being set for the thinner 220, still expresses the assumption that the circumference of the spool is less than it actually is. Less than it is = it will allow more turns). So the length of film transported is more than it should be, spacing gets wider. Not tighter.

"it allows more turns" = "it allows more turns than needed to tranport the desired length of film".
;-)

When I sold my Hassies & turned to a beautiful Rollei 2.8F, Xenotar, "Whiteface" Type IV, 120/220 -- I obviated a lot of issues described above. I run both film sizes through my Rollei with impunity and (thankfully so far) no problems! B&H carries a number of Kodak and Fuji 220 slide and print emulsions.

Thanks again, Q.G. - now I've got it! Therefore it should actually be the other way 'round and frames on 220 film exposed in an A12 mag should start overlapping at a certain point (apart from the fact that winding might actually stop at half-roll...?).

Paul, I checked last night and all B&H had to offer in terms of 220 B&W was Kodak PlusX and Kodak TriX 320. Period. :-(

I was going to order some of the latter to give it a try but discovered that they would charge prohibitive UPS tarifs for abroad shipment which would more than double the cost of their smaller amount merchandise. :-(( Same applies for the Lindahl slide holders... :-((( Fifty bucks UPS for fifty bucks worth of stuff. Pity.

Lutz,

if you are looking for 220 films, Foto Brenner has some available (www.foto-brenner.de), although only Tri-X, Portra and Ektachrome 100VS. They are quite reasonable concerning shipping.

Thanks for the hint, Kai. Actually, their catalogue is my preferred bedside reading...;-) But I was looking for the Lindahl slide holders in the first place, that's what made me stopn by at b&H in the first place, then I doublechecked on their 220 offerings... BTW, I had never come across those Lindahls before - do you know of any European/German outlet for them? They're a just brilliant add-on.

My Hasselblads are just used for B&W film.

I started with the "normal" 80mm, and later on I added the 50 FLE. The 150 CF my daughter gave me is seldom used. But that's me!

As I said before, I "cut my teeth" with a 2.8-3.5 Rolleiflexes, and the composition for the 6x6 format using a "normal" lens was already known due to practice. I used the Hasselblad 80 Planar for years and even though I have the 80 CF, I love my chrome C --which is less "clinical" and excellent for portraiture-- better than its multicoated sister. But again, it's just me.

Concerning 220 film... since I'm not a "paparazzo" or a studio guy, 24 exposures are too much as I'm used to 8 exposures for my 6x9 cameras as well as for my large format cameras. Due to weight, I've always carried 4 film holders...4x5 and or 8x10.

Years ago, I bought the plug (Hasselblad 220) in order to use a 220 film on my 12 back. I did expose successfully 24 pictures. I did it just as an experimentation as I don't like 24 exposures! I'll bet that the "plug" ended up in the garbage several times as many maids and wives thought of as used small medicine bottle stoppers!

Cheers, Tito.

Thanks for sharing, Tito. The 220 "plug"...? Now, that sounds interesting. Any links, pics of it?

I'm sorry as I don't know how to post a picture.

I bought the Hasselblad 220 plug 10 years ago, after reading H. Freitag- THE HASSELBLAD WAY. Sixth edition - 1974. "Hasselblad 220" is written on the plug and it's made of a flexible plastic.

However, you have to have the 12 film magazine with its "peeping hole".

I saw 2 "plugs" for sale, in the last KEH's catalog. They both escaped the garbage can :~)

Cheers, Tito.

Lutz, I found this, after a quick google check.

http://mypage.siu.edu/eo11/MF/220in12.htm

Cheers, Tito.

Thanks, Tito. Never heard of it before. With the caveats expressed (and demonstarted) it doesn't look too convincing, though. Rather like an emergency solution if 120 stock is not at hand but 220 is - a rather unlikely situation... Thanks again, anyway!

The "220" plug dates from the period when 220 film was introduced, but 220 film magazines were not yet available (mid 1960s).
You needed to follow specific instructions, but using 220 film in non-automatic (!) 120 Hasselblad magazines works quite well. So well that it perhaps would be unfair to dub it an emergency solution. The arrival of 220 magazines made life a lot easier for users of 220 film though.
The beauty, even, of this solution is that you could run 220 film through either 6x6 or 6x4.5 magazines and simply double the number of frames you got. A thing no longer possible with the A(utomatic)-magazines.

The plug is not a necessary part; you could also put some opaque tape over the peep-hole, either on the outside or inside of the magazine.

Hi Q.G., so your experiences with the plug have been more encouraging than the ones reported by Charles Clemens (Tito's link above)? The drill necessary to prevent frames from overlapping or hitting the end of the roll which he describes at the bottom of his article to me appears so cumbersome that I can't help but call it an emergency solution...

Lutz,

My exprience with this procedure is limited. I think 12 frame 120 rolls are too long already. ;-)

Yes, it is indeed tricky, and images may touch, or even slightly overlap. But though the later solution (a 220 magazine) is indeed much better, it works.

I was trying to point out, however, that when there is no other solution, this only solution is not really an "emergency solution" one resorts to when a proper solution happens to be unavailable.
In other words, the plug was not made available to provide some way of using 220 film when there's no 120 film around. It was made available to provide some way of using 220 film, period. ;-)

This post reads like the leica forum, yada, yada, yada, yawn.

Bill, I wholeheartedly agree with "this post" - of yours. As for the thread, I found it quite informative so far. Cheers.