Hasselblad HC 150 or HC 210?

[rob3rt5]

I'm looking for the most versatile and useful addition to my lens collection.  I have the HC 50-110, HC 28 and HC 120.  I've covered wide angle, zoom and macro.  It's time for a decent telephoto that is useful for head shots at a reasonabley close distance and that can also be used with a 1.7x converter for wildlife.

PLEASE NOTE: the last time this question was broached it devolved into an argument about bit depth.  Please stay on topic when answering this post for all of our sake.  

It might be helpful to know that the front runners are the HC 150 and HC 210.

[MarkKay]

THe 210mm is a very good optic and in my opinion i see no image degradation with the 1.7x converter. I am using a leaf aptus 65mm so I cannot make a comment on edge image quality. I had the 150mm and sold mine.  The 100 + 1.7x was as good as the 150mm.  

I'm looking for the most versatile and useful addition to my lens collection.  I have the HC 50-110, HC 28 and HC 120.  I've covered wide angle, zoom and macro.  It's time for a decent telephoto that is useful for head shots at a reasonabley close distance and that can also be used with a 1.7x converter for wildlife.

PLEASE NOTE: the last time this question was broached it devolved into an argument about bit depth.  Please stay on topic when answering this post for all of our sake. 

It might be helpful to know that the front runners are the HC 150 and HC 210.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[AndreNapier]

For head shots 150mm and no tele converters. Anything longer flattens the field and does not benefit the model. Also take a look at the 100mm lens which is great for this purpose. 210mm is longer and heavier and also pushes you much further from the model thus making the bond and interaction so much more difficult to achieve. There are people that like to shoot head shots with DSLR's using 180mm lens but the 85mm is named the portrait lens not by accident.
I personally do not use anything longer than 110mm on Aptus75 and Rz and shoot tons of head shots
with lenses ranging from 50mm to 110mm. Nothing beats the expressions that you get from the model when you are just 4 feet away.
http://andrenapier.com

[rob3rt5]

For head shots 150mm and no tele converters. Anything longer flattens the field and does not benefit the model. Also take a look at the 100mm lens which is great for this purpose. 210mm is longer and heavier and also pushes you much further from the model thus making the bond and interaction so much more difficult to achieve. There are people that like to shoot head shots with DSLR's using 180mm lens but the 85mm is named the portrait lens not by accident.
I personally do not use anything longer than 110mm on Aptus75 and Rz and shoot tons of head shots
with lenses ranging from 50mm to 110mm. Nothing beats the expressions that you get from the model when you are just 4 feet away.
http://andrenapier.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WOW... Andre, your personal shots are just what I'm looking for in my work (intimate, personal, warm, arresting. engageing).  I personally think that I have to get too close to be discreet (children get too excited when they see a huge lens in their face. Shy girls can't seem to relax) with the 50-110 and yet, I don't want to be in another zip code. Thank you for the suggestions.  I assume that you're suggesting the 100mm because of the shallow DOF and speed?

[MarkKay]

I do not really disagree with anything said so far but why not get the 100mm, 210mm and 1.7x. Based on what you said you would have almost everything covered for wildlife and head shots.  The 100mm would be the short tele for headshots but easily converted to a 170mm with the 1.7x.  For shots less than 5 feet from the subject you also have the 120mm macro, which gives outstanding detail and bokeh.  THe 210 with or without the 1.7x would make an outstanding set up for wildlife.  

For head shots 150mm and no tele converters. Anything longer flattens the field and does not benefit the model. Also take a look at the 100mm lens which is great for this purpose. 210mm is longer and heavier and also pushes you much further from the model thus making the bond and interaction so much more difficult to achieve. There are people that like to shoot head shots with DSLR's using 180mm lens but the 85mm is named the portrait lens not by accident.
I personally do not use anything longer than 110mm on Aptus75 and Rz and shoot tons of head shots
with lenses ranging from 50mm to 110mm. Nothing beats the expressions that you get from the model when you are just 4 feet away.
http://andrenapier.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[rob3rt5]

I do not really disagree with anything said so far but why not get the 100mm, 210mm and 1.7x. Based on what you said you would have almost everything covered for wildlife and head shots.  The 100mm would be the short tele for headshots but easily converted to a 170mm with the 1.7x.  For shots less than 5 feet from the subject you also have the 120mm macro, which gives outstanding detail and bokeh.  THe 210 with or without the 1.7x would make an outstanding set up for wildlife.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well Mark, while you are ultimately right about the 210mm being the best choice for wildlife (especially considering that it can be used with the 1.7x) it would only get used about 2% of the time and would be useless to me in other circumstances.  The 100mm, while being superior for head shots is already covered by the zooms range.  This leaves the 150mm as the choice that is most useful but nonetheless lacking in ultimate reach- even with the 1.7x I only get 255mm which translates to roughly 159.375mm (-/+ 7mm) in 35mm focal conversion.  I'm hopeing that this will be enough to get shots of eagles, whales and bears in Alaska... $3000.00 is alot to spend for 2% use.

Is the 150mm somehow flawed and not appropriate?

[MarkKay]

I was just answering your original post about the need of the lens for wildlife and head shots. I do not think the 150 +1.7 is tele enough for most wildlife. Also I do not think the MF camera setups are optimal either becaus they are too slow relative to the 35mm DSLRs. I still think the 100mm is a superb lens for headshots.  The bokeh from the 100  is better than what is achieved by the zoom if you are doing portraits and want a shallow DOF. There is nothing wrong with the 150, it is a good optic but the 150+1.7 was not as sharp as the 210mm alons in my experience. The differences were not extreme but noticeable

Well Mark, while you are ultimately right about the 210mm being the best choice for wildlife (especially considering that it can be used with the 1.7x) it would only get used about 2% of the time and would be useless to me in other circumstances.  The 100mm, while being superior for head shots is already covered by the zooms range.  This leaves the 150mm as the choice that is most useful but nonetheless lacking in ultimate reach- even with the 1.7x I only get 255mm which translates to roughly 159.375mm (-/+ 7mm) in 35mm focal conversion.  I'm hopeing that this will be enough to get shots of eagles, whales and bears in Alaska... $3000.00 is alot to spend for 2% use.

Is the 150mm somehow flawed and not appropriate?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[BlasR]

I got hc 150 for sale, and hc 80.

As they say in Egypt.  Good price for you my friend  

you can email me if you interested.

BlasR

[sundstei]

The HC 150mm is my bread & butter lens on the H1. I shoot almost only people and have to agree with Andre that anything longer is not good in such circumstances. The 150mm is dead sharp (maybe too sharp) even wide open on my Aptus75. Never used teleconverters with it.

If you are looking for a "cheap" way of adding some longer lenses to the H1 - how about getting the CF adapter and some Hasselblad V lenses? Most can be had cheap now a days. This is of course dependent on not needing autofocus. I use this setup for the cases when i need 350mm and 500mm on my H1.

Svein Erik

[MarkKay]

I tried the adapter/V lens route and thought it was too cumbersome to use. The adapters are not cheap either. I think it is a good route if you already own some of these lenses and/or have a V and H system. In general, I am impressed that the HC lenses are tack sharp even wide open.

The HC 150mm is my bread & butter lens on the H1. I shoot almost only people and have to agree with Andre that anything longer is not good in such circumstances. The 150mm is dead sharp (maybe too sharp) even wide open on my Aptus75. Never used teleconverters with it.

If you are looking for a "cheap" way of adding some longer lenses to the H1 - how about getting the CF adapter and some Hasselblad V lenses? Most can be had cheap now a days. This is of course dependent on not needing autofocus. I use this setup for the cases when i need 350mm and 500mm on my H1.

Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[cheetah]

I might get a little out of the discussion but since some of you use the 50-110, what do you think of it? How does it compared to the fixed lenses? I like strong sharpness and also shoot headshots.

[sundstei]

I might get a little out of the discussion but since some of you use the 50-110, what do you think of it? How does it compared to the fixed lenses? I like strong sharpness and also shoot headshots.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its an amazing lens. The best zoom i have used. But a little on the heavy side for some. 110mm is a bit short for headshots, but it focuses quite close.

[hubell]

Its an amazing lens. The best zoom i have used. But a little on the heavy side for some. 110mm is a bit short for headshots, but it focuses quite close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that it is an exceptionally sharp lens right across the zoom range, but it really is very heavy. I use it on a tripod for landscape work and would be disinclined to use it in a freewheeling photo session shooting people. The H cameras just feel much better balanced in your hands with a fixed focal length normal or short tele lens.

[sundstei]

I agree that it is an exceptionally sharp lens right across the zoom range, but it really is very heavy. I use it on a tripod for landscape work and would be disinclined to use it in a freewheeling photo session shooting people. The H cameras just feel much better balanced in your hands with a fixed focal length normal or short tele lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127860\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I only shoot people and handheld. I find it quite nicely balanced with the A75 + battery on the camera.

[damien]

I have the 100 and the 210. I use the 210 for my head shots. I have P25 sensor and if I had P30 I'd go for 150. The 210 has gorgeous Bokeh the best I've ever used. I only shoot it at f4 and it is truly amazing.

www.lovegroveportraits.com

[stewarthemley]

For me the 50-110 on the H3D-39 balances pretty well and is hand-holdable without too much fuss. In fact, I find it easier, ie less painful, than my 1Ds2 with the 70-200 zoom. But some people have said no way, so it would be best to try it yourself.