the Hasselblad 1000F has a screwmount. CF-lenses and all other bayonett lenses of the Hasselblad V-system will not fit. I have never heard of an adapter and this should be physically impossible. You have to search for lenses made for this camera, mainly manufactured by Kodak and Hasselblad. Lenses for the Kiev 88 (which is more or a less a copy of the Hasselblad 1600F) may fit.
Lenses made for the Kiev will not fit (not right away) either. They require some modification. Whether they are worth the trouble...?
Old Kodak Ektar and Zeiss lenses can be found about as frequent as 1000-series Hasselblad cameras. So why not build a nice set of those?
The Ektar 80 mm lens is a very good lens. Better than the 80 mm Zeiss Tessar that was also available.
The 135 mm lenses that were available for the 1000-series cameras (Kodak and Zeiss) are very, very good too.
The Zeiss Sonnar f/5.6 250 mm lens made for these oldies we still know (and love) today: it's the same lens (only some "micro-changes" since) as the one currently available in CFi mount.
The Zeiss f/4 250 mm lens and the 60 mm Distagon lens are both quite reasonable performers too. Not great, but not bad either.
please forgive me if I come up with my question rather off-topic but I could not find the way to start a new thread here.
My question simply is if any one of you experienced Hasselblad users have ever used the Hasselblad-to-Nikon lens adapter ring (which makes it possible to attach Hasselblad lenses to Nikon bodies). I own four Hasselbald lenses and an FM-2 body, hence my question. Are any of the makes of this ring better than others?
Thank you, regards from Hungary!
Using Hasselblad lenses on 35 mm format might seem like a fun idea, but it isn't. There is no reason to carry too large and too heavy lenses, when you have perfectly good 35 mm format lenses. The limiting factor is the format, not the quality of lenses. (And no: 35 mm lenses are not better than MF format lenses).
You could carry a 35 mm format body, with adapter, in your MF kit bag, but again, what's the point?
Anyway, i used a Zörkendorfer ring, which needs a generic T2-adapter to mount it on the 35 mm format camera of your choice.
The Zörkendorfer ring needed additional maching, to make the Hasselblad lenses mount smoothly. It was much too tight the way it came from Zörkendorfer.
The lens release catch of the Zörkendorfer ring is a small bent bit of metal, with sharp and rough edges. A pain to use, literally.
And i used a Novoflex ring too. It needs a fitting Novoflex adapter to mount it on the 35 mm format camera of choice. The Novoflex is much better made.
Both as i mentioned: there is no good reason to use these thingies.
Use Hasselblad lenses on Hasselblad cameras, and enjoy the benefits of the format.
Use 35 mm format lenses on 35 mm format cameras, and enjoy the benefits (size, weight) of these thingies.
The only reason I can think of to use MF lenses on a 35mm body is for shift ing. I use a Zork shift adapter to mount Hasselblad and Pentax 67 lenses on my Horseman Digiflex II (Nikon mount). This permits horizon line shifting for landscapes and perspective control for architecture. In addition, it is very convenient for stitching of digital images. By stitching together thr ee 35mm frames (12MP each), I can get a 20-24MP final image.
There are now a few specialized 4x5 cameras using LF lenses for MF shift. I am looking at the Cambo Wide DS and Horseman SW-D Pro to get more shift fo r MF digital applications. Stitching together 2 or 3 16MP or 22MP images sh ould get very nice results.
You can get the same shift (!) using the same MF lens, without adapter, on MF.
The only two differences are that you then don't shift a small format inside the image circle of the MF lens, but crop the desired smaller format from the same circle; and that you do not spend a lot of money for not needed Zork Shift adapters.
Thanks for the insight, Qnu, Larry! Actually, my reason for raising this question was purely of financial background. I figured there might be situations when I would also use the Leica format but at the moment I do not have any lenses for my FM2, nor have I the resources for buying a set of Nikkor lenses nearly as complete and perfect as is the lens set I am having with my 501 C/M.
(Kerkko, as a film cinematographer, I know quite well what a Hasselblad optics is capable of, and that in serious situations it is not to be messed up with the Leica format world. I was just curious whether I could have fun with the Hassy-Nikon combo, with results possibly superior to what I could achieve with Nikkor lenses - which I do not like. )
Q.G., I don't understand your point. In digital photography, you always operate with a small frame. The digital frame is already severely cropped. The goal of shifting within a larger format is to get a larger frame by panorama shifting. I can always crop the 37x37mm digital sensor to 35mm size to avoid shifting, but then what's the point to shooting MF?
Shifting using an MF lens on a smaller format is not an extra, compared to using the same lens on MF format.
On MF format, you get the entire image circle in one image. Using the same lens on a smaller format is just the same as cropping that same smaller format from the larger MF image. Shifting the lens is the same as shifting the boundaries of the crop inside the MF image.
So there's no point in spending money on shift adapters.
Digital format are all smaller, yes. But do not let that confuse the matter.
"The only reason" "to use MF lenses on a 35mm body" still is no real reason at all, compared to using the same MF lenses on the MF format they were intended to be used with.
Now using direct digital capture, the crop is a given. And indeed, starting with that limitation, being able to make use of the larger image circle (as you do when using the full MF format) would make sense.
So, "what's the point to shooting MF?"...