What's new
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.

Polarizer for 40mm CFE

Michael,

Time is a good friend when you are interested to buy something.
The last 93 mm polarizer I saw auctioned at eBay went just over 200 USD.

A handheld one seems not such a good idea as the adjustment and position of the filter is critical.
A new filter from filter makers like Helios or B+W with an adapter may be less expensive than a used 93 mm from Hasselblad.
I would opt for the original filter even when it means more money.
As far as I know B+W was the original supplier of filters for Hasselblad.
 
Hi guys.
Actually, KEH had two Hassy 93 polarizers until a few days ago, when I bought the other one. It was listed as EX rather than LN-, with a price of $325 rather than $379. It came today, and it looks like new, so I think I came out OK here. Now...I have an interesting observation, which I could find no reference to online. Maybe someone here can shed some light.
First, the unit that Paul Hu mentions above is listed as model # 41646 (which I figure is Hasselblad's model number for this 93mm polarizer, as I can find reference to it online.
The one I bought, on the other hand, was listed as model # 51422. Ken, at KEH couldn't say why, other than he thought the 51422 was a later model due to the larger model #. Well, when I got it today, the first thing I noted was that the rear threads did not look anywhere near 93mm. Panic set in. And sure enough, when I set it against the ring threads, it was way too small. I thought, oh no! I've got the wrong thing. But I noted that the polarizer threads did look very close to the 86mm threads on the lens front. So, what did I have to lose by seeing if it would thread into these 86mm threads, and not touch the four built-in extending leafs on the lens?
Whadaya know! It worked. It threads directly into the 86mm threads on the lens without touching the leafs, and furthermore, the 93mm slip-on lens cap fits right over the outside of the filter. So, in the field, I can keep this polarizer on the lens as long as I want, and still have the protection of the lens cap.
BTW - the polarizer's inscriptions do say Hasselblad 93.
Also inscribed is 3x PL -1.5 (Lin), so it's the right thing.
Question though - what does the -1.5 refer to? I know the "3X" refers to the amount of light loss (3 stops), which corresponded perfectly with my PME51 prism meter.
Michael H. Cothran
 
PS - I also have, coincidentally, a Contax step-up ring in my drawer which is 67-86mm (from the days when I owned Contax 35mm equipment). With this step-up ring, I can also use my new Hassy 93 polarizer in conjunction with all my other B60 CF lenses, since I have a B60-67 adapter ring also. Man, I feel like something happened better than I thought it would for a change.
Michael H. Cothran
 
Ok, one more rhetorical quirk. Why would Hasselblad label this filter as 93mm, when the threads are actually 86mm??? That makes no sense, since the filter does not require the 93mm ring adapter, and the threads are 86mm. There is nothing about this filter that correlates with 93mm, other than the outside dimension, for which the lens cap will fit. There is not another filter I am aware of that does not label their given filter by the size of the male threads in the rear. Sometimes I think Hasselblad/Zeiss just do things like this to annoy their customers. And speaking of which -
I have great admiration for Zeiss, but the engineering design of the outer shell for the 40mm is the most stupid, ill-conceived, user-unfriendly piece of work I have ever seen. What were they thinking? - "Gee, let's put 86mm threads on the lens, but then let's add a useless built-in hood whose leaves will get in the way of the 86mm threads, and then we can add an optional adapter ring to overcome this, and make it an odd 93mm size just to screw around with our customers." Give me a break!
(But I do love the lens and my new polarizer, even so)
Michael H. Cothran
 
The amount of light loss is 1,5 stops that is 3X less.
The reading from a PME is no longer reliable when using a polarizer.
 
Hi Paul,

I never encountered any metering issues with the PME while using a polariser. I've used one extensively for landscape work.

But then again: a meter is there to give you a good indication of exposure, the actual processing power to judge the meter's reading is located between people's ears..

Wilko

NB: before Down Under chimes in, I know that the only perfect vacuum sofar observed in the Universe has been found between the ears of some members of Homo Sapiens. Biologists are still arguiing if we should name a new species called Homo Nonsapiens. :cool:
 
Hi Wilko,

Not all situations have the same effect on the reading of a PME when a polarizer is used.

Chances are the correct reading is influenced and judging by the first results from Michael who found the polarizer took 3 stops of measured light indicates it is sensible not to trust the reading as a given fact.
A reading through the pola filter tends to over expose the image.

I agree any reading needs to be interpreted by the photographer.
Regardless whether a polarizer is used or not.
 
"The reading from a PME is no longer reliable when using a polarizer."

Paul, I've used other polarizers on all my CF lenses for years metering through the PME51 with no problems. I'll certainly test this new Hasselblad polarizer before committing it to the field, but can't imagine that it would function less well than a 3rd party filter.

"The amount of light loss is 1,5 stops that is 3X less."

This does sound accurate, and makes sense, and if so, the 3 EV difference that my PME51 was reading yesterday will indeed be off by an additional 1.5 stops. I do own 3 other competent and calibrated light meters - a Minolta Flash Meter IV, a Pentax Digital Spot (including Zone VI modifications), and a slew of Nikon bodies. I'll run the new polarizer through all these meters, and compare the readings. If there is a discrepancy with the PME51, I'll take note of it. In which case it may be correctible with an adjustment in the EI setting. I'll post the results, once finished.
 
Michael,

First of all congratulations with the polarizer you got from KEH.

The effect a polarizer gives on a light meter measuring through the filter is not easy to predict.
That is why it is saver to go by the fixed value given for the filter
and not taking a measurement through the filter.
A reading through a polarizer can result in over exposure.
A handheld meter may be more convenient than using a PME.

Negative film is more forgiving these days to overexposure.
Trannies are a different matter and require more acurate exposure for best results.
 
Good advice Paul. I've owned a Hasselblad since 1972, but have only owned a PME51 for maybe 10 years or so. Prior to the purchase of my PME51, I did exactly what you prescribe - I used a handheld meter, and compensated -2 stops, which always worked. Still, I would much prefer using a built-in camera meter any day outside. In fact, during times when the light is changing quickly, I often wish I had aperture priority to keep up with it. But I do have options, and I will run the course on all of them. Thanks.
 
Michael,

I do not know the 51422 filter.
It must be different from the 41646 because the 41646 does not take the original lenscap.
The 41646 is quite a lot larger about 115 mm outside diameter.
It has the same 86 mm thread to fit the 40CF without shade.
The 41646 also serves the 350 and the 500 lenses from the C series.
 
Michael,

Do you have a pointer to a picture of a 51422 filter somewhere? How a 41646 looks and feels I know.

Wilko
 
"Do you have a pointer to a picture of a 51422 filter somewhere? How a 41646 looks and feels I know."
Wilko

No I don't, but if I get time, I will take a picture of it, and post it. If you do a google, you can find only a couple of references to the 51422, but no pictures.
However, I can describe the differences between the two, based on pictures I've seen of the 41646.
The rotating metal ring around the 51422 is much thicker than the ring around the 41646, and not nearly as wide. The 51422 measures about 1/4" (8 mm) thick, while the glass diameter measures about 93 mm, and the total outside width only about 100 mm. Due to the thickness and diameter size, the 40 mm slip-on lens cap fits perfectly over the filter.

I also belong to a Yahoo group specializing in Hasselblad. I'll post there, and see if anyone knows anything. While KEH believes this to be a "newer" model, my hunch is that it is an older model instead. Hope you're all having a great holiday.
Michael
 
Michael you are right: the 51422 filter is an older version of the polarizer than the 41646 filter.

Polarizers for larger lens diameters were not available from Hasselblad untill 1985.
In 1985 filter 51422 was released for 93 mm filter size lenses.
This filter was to be used without the shade with the 50/2.8 F lens and the 350 and 500 lenses from the C series.

In 1991 the part number for the polarizer was changed to 41645.
Whether any other changes than just the part number were made I cannot say.

In 1997 the partnumber for the 93 mm polarizer changes again to 41646.
The 41646 is different from the early 51422 filter because its diameter is larger; it does not take the original lenscap any more.

New polarizers are still available from Helios and B+W.
They do not come cheap.
A used one from Hasselblad may be a better option.
 
Thanks Paul for the data. It's nice to know these things about one's equipment. I am glad, though, that I got the 51422 instead of the 41646, and given the same option again, I'd still make the same choice, specifically because of the lens cap issue. I like being able to cover the filter with the lens cap when moving about in the field. With the newer version I would have had to remove the filter, and place it in a protective case before attaching the lens cap, all just to safely move to a different location.
I'll be photographing in the Florida pan handle in the St Marks NWR this coming weekend. It'll be my first real chance to use the filter.
To play it safe, and since I'm committing the "cardinal" sin here of not testing this filter with my PME 51 first (no time), I'll take your advice, and meter via the PME 51 without the filter, then make one shot with a manual increase of +1.5 stops. Then, I'll meter again while the filter is still attached, and shoot at that reading, IF it is different from the manual +1.5 compensation. Once the film is processed, I'll know what to do in the future. I'm not too concerned about total accuracy at this point, as I plan to bracket +/- 2 stops anyway with each image. With these different exposures, I'll have the option, if necessary, of applying the HDR process once scanned.
Michael H. Cothran
 
Michael,

I am glad you made the right choice for the 51422 filter.
I have the later 41646 and found a large cap that protects the filter thanks to Schneider Kreuznach who make excellent lenscaps and lenses.

With +1,5 stop you cannot go wrong it is quite safe that way.
I do not think you will find more than 1 to 1.5 stop difference metering with or without the polarizer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top