Hasselblad lens on a MkII ?
- Thread starter CharlieG
- Start date
I've thought about doing this too, but have these reservations:
-Medium format Zeiss lenses are heavy. The leaf shutter mechanism is just dead weight on a digital slr.
-Adapters are over $100.
-Most 35mm lenses will be sharper on an EOS. That's because medium format lenses dont have to resolve as many lines per mm as their 35mm counterparts cuz they have a much larger area (6cmx6cm) to cover.
I probably wont bother with 6x6 lenses, maybe the lighter 645 manual lenses might be worth a go but again they wont be as sharp as Canon or Nikon glass per mm.
-Medium format Zeiss lenses are heavy. The leaf shutter mechanism is just dead weight on a digital slr.
-Adapters are over $100.
-Most 35mm lenses will be sharper on an EOS. That's because medium format lenses dont have to resolve as many lines per mm as their 35mm counterparts cuz they have a much larger area (6cmx6cm) to cover.
I probably wont bother with 6x6 lenses, maybe the lighter 645 manual lenses might be worth a go but again they wont be as sharp as Canon or Nikon glass per mm.
You can get them on ebay like everything else. Actually they are cheaper than $100.
Cant recommend any cause I never tried this. If you have several of them, sure, give it a go!
What would be really cool if they had tilt / shift adapters for these because the coverage is way larger than 35mm, you could do all sorts of weird looks without having to resort to a lens baby. Maybe someone reading this will make one, ha.
Cant recommend any cause I never tried this. If you have several of them, sure, give it a go!
What would be really cool if they had tilt / shift adapters for these because the coverage is way larger than 35mm, you could do all sorts of weird looks without having to resort to a lens baby. Maybe someone reading this will make one, ha.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
zorkendorfer is the word to google if you are interested in T/S facilities of using MF lenses on 35mm
S
S
Morgan, great info.
Here's a pdf I found on google. Crazy possibilites, would be great for music videos, Evil Dead II type of stuff. Pricey though.
http://www.zoerk.com/Zoerk info/product_guide_current.pdf
Here's a pdf I found on google. Crazy possibilites, would be great for music videos, Evil Dead II type of stuff. Pricey though.
http://www.zoerk.com/Zoerk info/product_guide_current.pdf
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
or hotels and real estate
S
S
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
Just found this on eBay http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Hassselblad-C...sFilters_JN?hash=item45eeb595c5#ht_500wt_1182
I thought I'd give it a go.
These lenses are BIG and clunky but have a huge image circle. Therefore you are getting the centre of the image where it's at it's sharpest, with zero light fall off.
This was taken with a 5D Mark II and the Zeiss 80mm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhythm123/3693549373/in/photostream/
Adapters can now be had from Hong Kong for £20
What is 35mm crop factor over Hasselblad CF medium format? Will the Hasselblad 80mm be more like 160mm in 35mm terms?
I thought I'd give it a go.
These lenses are BIG and clunky but have a huge image circle. Therefore you are getting the centre of the image where it's at it's sharpest, with zero light fall off.
This was taken with a 5D Mark II and the Zeiss 80mm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhythm123/3693549373/in/photostream/
Adapters can now be had from Hong Kong for £20
What is 35mm crop factor over Hasselblad CF medium format? Will the Hasselblad 80mm be more like 160mm in 35mm terms?
hyalinejim
Well-known member
80mm is 80mm.
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
Medium format lenses have a larger image circle than 35mm lenses. I am trying to figure out how much larger so I can know the 35mm equivalent focal length of the Zeiss on my 5D Mark II.
I am talking about 35mm equivilence. We all know that on a smaller sensor like APS-C or 4/3rds there is a 1.6x or 2x crop factor when you use a 35mm SLR lens. Put a 50mm lens on a GH1 and it has the 35mm equivalent focal length of 100mm.
Is a similar situation true for full frame versus medium format Hasselblad lenses?
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
When you have a full sensor a 80 is a 80.
I use Zeiss medium format lenses religiously on my LEX and on the 5D.
The 40 Euro adapters from Ebay are fine, rock solid and well machined, no need to pay more than that.
Here is some grabs: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=185604
Frank
I use Zeiss medium format lenses religiously on my LEX and on the 5D.
The 40 Euro adapters from Ebay are fine, rock solid and well machined, no need to pay more than that.
Here is some grabs: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=185604
Frank
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
Hey Frank. I am confused. My GH1 upbringing, my generation X stupidy is letting me down. Doesn't a medium format camera have a much bigger imaging area (which is required to be covered by a bigger lens image circle) than 35mm film? So with a medium format lens on the 5DMII aren't you getting a crop of the centre of the lens, like you are when you put a Zeiss 35mm lens over a GH1 4/3rds sensor?
I know nothing about medium format and Hasselblad. Excuse my ignorance!
PS - those grabs are what drove me to this purchase. If it all goes wrong, I blame your talent
I know nothing about medium format and Hasselblad. Excuse my ignorance!
PS - those grabs are what drove me to this purchase. If it all goes wrong, I blame your talent
Last edited:
ustein
Well-known member
>So with a medium format lens on the 5DMII aren't you getting a crop of the centre of the lens, like you are when you put a Zeiss 35mm lens over a GH1 4/3rds sensor?
Yes. But 80mm is 80mm. The field of view you get from 80mm differs depending on the sensor size. Try to get a 14mm on the Hasselblad. If it exists it will be big and expensive. So Hasselblad lenses don't make much sense for the GH1. But on the 5D2 no problem.
Yes. But 80mm is 80mm. The field of view you get from 80mm differs depending on the sensor size. Try to get a 14mm on the Hasselblad. If it exists it will be big and expensive. So Hasselblad lenses don't make much sense for the GH1. But on the 5D2 no problem.
A cheap metal adapter will simply fit the lens onto the body correctly. The camera won't be aware that the lens exists. If it has AF confirm they've installed a small chip and the normal lens contacts onto the mount, tricking the camera into thinking it has a normal lens attached so that when you're focusing, the AF points will still light when they're in focus.
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
I see, so 80mm is 80mm in 35mm terms. And I'm guessing on a Hasselblad, 80mm is more like 40mm due to it's larger imaging area? Or am I talking bollocks?
ustein
Well-known member
> 80mm in 35mm terms
Not really. The focal length is absolute. But you also have an image circle to cover the sensor. This circle has to be larger for MF than 35mm. That is why 80mm is the "normal" focal length for MF and 50mm for 35mm.
All that changes is angle of view. Why does a 5D2 show lower DOF than a GH1? Because you use a lower focal length on the GH1 to get the same angle of view. Lower focal length results in wider DOF.
Not really. The focal length is absolute. But you also have an image circle to cover the sensor. This circle has to be larger for MF than 35mm. That is why 80mm is the "normal" focal length for MF and 50mm for 35mm.
All that changes is angle of view. Why does a 5D2 show lower DOF than a GH1? Because you use a lower focal length on the GH1 to get the same angle of view. Lower focal length results in wider DOF.
commanderspike
Carbonite Member
I see. So focal length (say, 80mm) is always written in 35mm terms even on medium format lenses. On a Hasselblad it has a 0.6x crop factor :happy:
ustein
Well-known member
>I see. So focal length (say, 80mm) is always written in 35mm terms even on medium format lenses.
No, these are absolute physical terms of the lens and has nothing(!) to do with format.
The image circle has to do with format as it has to cover the full sensor. This is why a 80mm f/4 is smaller for GH1 than 35mm FF and this is smaller than 80mm for MF.
And in turn the sensor + focal length define the angle of view. The focal length alone defines the DOF.
The confusion arises because you care about angle of view and DOF. The so called "multiplier e.g. 2x for GH1) explained:
The GH1 has a multiplier 2x compared to a 35mm FF photo camera. If you use a 35mm lens on the GH1 you have the same angle of view as a 70mm lens on a FF camera. But you still have the DOF of a 35mm lens and this will be more DOF than the 70mm will have on the FF camera.
As a movie maker you care about the angle of view and DOF. The angle of view is easily defined by the multiplier. Watch that film for movies is about 1/2 the size of 35mm FF.
The advantage of FF are the following:
- lower noise
- more shallow DOF possible
Disadvantage
- heavy, big and expensive
- more shallow DOF if you want more DOF
No, these are absolute physical terms of the lens and has nothing(!) to do with format.
The image circle has to do with format as it has to cover the full sensor. This is why a 80mm f/4 is smaller for GH1 than 35mm FF and this is smaller than 80mm for MF.
And in turn the sensor + focal length define the angle of view. The focal length alone defines the DOF.
The confusion arises because you care about angle of view and DOF. The so called "multiplier e.g. 2x for GH1) explained:
The GH1 has a multiplier 2x compared to a 35mm FF photo camera. If you use a 35mm lens on the GH1 you have the same angle of view as a 70mm lens on a FF camera. But you still have the DOF of a 35mm lens and this will be more DOF than the 70mm will have on the FF camera.
As a movie maker you care about the angle of view and DOF. The angle of view is easily defined by the multiplier. Watch that film for movies is about 1/2 the size of 35mm FF.
The advantage of FF are the following:
- lower noise
- more shallow DOF possible
Disadvantage
- heavy, big and expensive
- more shallow DOF if you want more DOF