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.