Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Experience with Planar 10035

Hi I am totally new in HB world.
Till now I have about 7 years experiences as an amateur photograph with compact and last 2 or 3 years with Nikon DSLR.

I am waiting now for receiving my first HW body 501 CM. I hope I did not made a mistake with this body. I only read some articles on the internet and my reason was that this body should be not bad.
I have started this thread because I did not find here a special thread for this lens.

I would like to see some pictures with this lens - portrait, landscape, architecture, nature, etc. I can not find a good picture gallery of this lens.
I would also know if I can really use it as a standard lens. Is it a good choice?

I will start with medium format and I do not want to start with a good lens.

Thank you for your ideas, photos and recommendations.

Sorry for mistakes in my "English", I am self-taught person.

The 100 mm Carl Zeiss lens for Hasselblad is a great lens with minimal distorsion and amazing quality.

For portrait it may proof too much so the use of a Softar is recommended.

The CARL ZEISS CF PLANAR 3,5/100 is an outstanding lens . Extremely sharp and only very little distortion .
It was very much used by the NASA (modified handling version , to be used in space) .
This lens is my standard lens , when not using the CFV BACK .
For portraits , some people like it soft , some like it sharp .
A ZEISS SOFTAR I will do . Its a kind of personal preference .

Regards Jürgen
As you say you are new to the Hasselblad world, the "Softar" is a soft filter made by Zeiss. The glass holds small bubbles in it, which renders the highlight softness. It is made in three grades, I, II and III, which are gradually stronger in the softness effect.
As other already have stated, the 100 is reputedly the sharpest of them all. Ok, sharpest at infinity that is, but still one of the sharpest lenses ever made for medium format photography.

Apart from this particular lens, you will probably find both Medium Format in general and the Hasselblad system in particular quite different from the 35mm film and the digital cameras that you are used to. The key to success is to take it easy, give it some time and also to use this forum. :) Once you get the hang of it you will find the effort very rewarding. The prints and chromes from your Hassy will beat everything else. There are pages on the 'net which describes how to get the most from a Hasselblad. The same goes for pages which describes the Hasselblad system as such. (Sorry, no links comes to mind, but they are there...)

Jan: the 100 is a remarkable lens: I use it as a my 'standard': combine it with a 60 (same max. aperture, often an important consideration when pairing lenses) or 50 FLE and the 1.4XE teleconverter and you have a very versatile light kit that can handle most general photography needs.

(Do note that the 100/1.4XE combination is almost as sharp as the 150, and the teleconverter is smaller and costs far less than the 150. Just something to consider for the future).

As mentioned, the 100 is remarkably sharp at infinity. However, if you shoot primarily at close range you may want to consider the 120 instead, which isn't a dog at infinity either. If you eventually needed optimal performance at both ranges and had the budget, it would make sense to own both lenses despite their having relatively close angle-of-views as they were designed and thus optimized with different purposes in mind. However, do note that the 100 is almost as good as the 120 at close range; I use it primarily for that purpose and am more than happy with its corresponding performance (my present priorities preclude the expense of the 120, and the 100 alone is hardly a 'compromise'

The point of all that is that you cannot go wrong with either the 100 or 120. The principal reason that I mentioned the 120 is that it may be more appropriate to your needs (whatever they may be), and this may have an effect on what you eventually acquire as companion lenses. For instance, an 80 and 120 are regarded as an excellent combination by many, and the 2/3 extra stop provided by the 80 often proves desireable at times. I find that the 100 fits nicely between the two and that it fits my current needs and means -- and here I must stress that it fits MY needs: yours may be different, and for that reason do determine what your actual needs are before you make a decision (your wallet will thank you
After all this positive news abot the 100 mm Planar, a "sed contra":

I think the focal length is not very usefull.
It is far too short to be used to pick out things. The 150 mm does that much better.

Too long to allow you to get 'close', too long to get that 'inside the action' result, making you back away enough to produce stand-offish looking pictures.
The 80mm and the 60 mm do that much better.

The 100 mm is a great lens: sharp, wide open. And no distortion.
But what to use it for...? Aerial mapping is not such a bad application for it.
It is.
But then Jan has to add yet another expensive thingy to his wish list.

But i don't think the CFV will be able to capture the entire magnificence of the 100 mm Planar. Will it?
So maybe not?
for the unititiated: CFV might mean CFV DIGITAL BACK. wjich has a 1.5 crop factor.
Which could make a difference to the lens/Distance used when photographing portraits.

Could be wrong mind you.