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.
So noonebs using Ancient Hasselblads then
- Thread starter qnu
- Start date
don_quisada
New Member
Hello,
it's late for a response, but never too late. So here's my raised hand ! I have an old 1955' 1000F with three lenses, a 80mm 2.8 Tessar, a 135mm 3.5 Sonnar and a 300mm 3.5 Astro-Berlin Telastan.
And now I just came across a very cheap russian 30mm lens for the 1000F...so I'm already very curious.
And: yes, I also still use this gear - but only on sundays...
saludos
it's late for a response, but never too late. So here's my raised hand ! I have an old 1955' 1000F with three lenses, a 80mm 2.8 Tessar, a 135mm 3.5 Sonnar and a 300mm 3.5 Astro-Berlin Telastan.
And now I just came across a very cheap russian 30mm lens for the 1000F...so I'm already very curious.
And: yes, I also still use this gear - but only on sundays...
saludos
Never too late!
The very cheap "Russian" (it's Ukranian actually, not Russian) 30 mm fisheye (or any other Kiev lens) will not fit the ancient Hasselblads.
They do almost, but not quite.
These lenses have a plunger pin, sticking out the back, that when pressed opens up the diaphragm to the aperture set on the ring. That pin can get in the way, but is not the reason why these lenses do not fit. Removing the pin will make the lens a non-auto aperture lens (no problem).
The lens catch pin too is not quite right. But even after removing that as well the lens will not seat properly.
The screw/bayonet-mount is simply not quite the same as that of Hasselblad lenses.
Alas!
The very cheap "Russian" (it's Ukranian actually, not Russian) 30 mm fisheye (or any other Kiev lens) will not fit the ancient Hasselblads.
They do almost, but not quite.
These lenses have a plunger pin, sticking out the back, that when pressed opens up the diaphragm to the aperture set on the ring. That pin can get in the way, but is not the reason why these lenses do not fit. Removing the pin will make the lens a non-auto aperture lens (no problem).
The lens catch pin too is not quite right. But even after removing that as well the lens will not seat properly.
The screw/bayonet-mount is simply not quite the same as that of Hasselblad lenses.
Alas!
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Yes i am going to use my 1600F and also my SW soon . These two wonderful cameras are only shortly in my hands . I am almost shure , that the lightseals of my old magazines are no good anymore . And as i do not want to waste any films , I wonder if i can use a currently produced magazine (including an E12 or even E24 , just mechanical of course) without any restrictions ? ? ? According to Rick Nordins compendium , i could not find a hit , not to do so . Has anyone experience ? ? ?
jotloob
Well-Known Member
I have found it ! ! !
Page 54 right column top of Rick Nordins Compendium says : all magazines up to current production can be used on 1600F/1000F and also SW cameras . But conversely the old magazines can not be used (or only with restrictions) on cameras 500C and all newer models. But still i think this is great combatibility .
Page 54 right column top of Rick Nordins Compendium says : all magazines up to current production can be used on 1600F/1000F and also SW cameras . But conversely the old magazines can not be used (or only with restrictions) on cameras 500C and all newer models. But still i think this is great combatibility .
don_quisada
New Member
Back to the 30mm. The lens has arrived in the meantime and I found that you were right regarding its incompatibility with an older 1000F.
My russian lens is written "CCCP" on it, and it is called 30 DIAK - 8 3,5/30. I just return from my workshop, where I adapted the lens. The main problem is not a pin, but the thread in the russian camera must be nearer the camera front. So I transformed the lens bajonet (or thread..) so that the lens fits deeper into the camera housing. After several shy trials the lens fitted in correct horizontal position. Then I just had to remove the arresting pin, which makes normally the lens stop at its correct position, as this pin is not exactly in the right place. But the lens is firm also without this pin. The last and probably unnecessary operation was the removal of the pin, which operates the diaphragm - given that the camera has such a device. This is also quite easy, and I think that it would not even be necessary.
Now I'm leaving for taking some pictures out in a beautiful harvest. I'll write more as soon as I have some results,
saludos
My russian lens is written "CCCP" on it, and it is called 30 DIAK - 8 3,5/30. I just return from my workshop, where I adapted the lens. The main problem is not a pin, but the thread in the russian camera must be nearer the camera front. So I transformed the lens bajonet (or thread..) so that the lens fits deeper into the camera housing. After several shy trials the lens fitted in correct horizontal position. Then I just had to remove the arresting pin, which makes normally the lens stop at its correct position, as this pin is not exactly in the right place. But the lens is firm also without this pin. The last and probably unnecessary operation was the removal of the pin, which operates the diaphragm - given that the camera has such a device. This is also quite easy, and I think that it would not even be necessary.
Now I'm leaving for taking some pictures out in a beautiful harvest. I'll write more as soon as I have some results,
saludos
blowupster
Member
I used a 1600F but it's broken now ! (By my fault :-( )
The lens was a "strange" Trinar 80mm 2.8 from Rodenstock good for portrait without need of softar !
Has anyone tried one with... cfv back ?
Whynot ? I tried the pola back witch apears years after my 1600F issue !
The lens was a "strange" Trinar 80mm 2.8 from Rodenstock good for portrait without need of softar !
Has anyone tried one with... cfv back ?
Whynot ? I tried the pola back witch apears years after my 1600F issue !
semmelblad
Member
I guess the CFV back will not have the litte hole for the pin that shoots out of the 1600F body during exposure.
Contact me at ulrik@gmx.de if you like to sell your 1600F wreck.
Ulrik
Contact me at ulrik@gmx.de if you like to sell your 1600F wreck.
Ulrik
semmelblad
Member
Jürgen,
and the very thought of the sensor damaging the shutter is even more disturbing ;-)
Ulrik
and the very thought of the sensor damaging the shutter is even more disturbing ;-)
Ulrik
polypal
Active Member
Ulrik,
I am glad you added: "the very thought of the sensor damaging the shutter is even more disturbing" thanks.
There are plenty of sensors but shutters for a 1600F are golddust.
I started a few weeks ago with my 1000F cameras and lenses.
Both 1000F bodies have been completely rebuilt using only Hasselblad parts.
The 1600F will follow in a little while.
My SWA is in regular use with every time again amazing results.
Paul
I am glad you added: "the very thought of the sensor damaging the shutter is even more disturbing" thanks.
There are plenty of sensors but shutters for a 1600F are golddust.
I started a few weeks ago with my 1000F cameras and lenses.
Both 1000F bodies have been completely rebuilt using only Hasselblad parts.
The 1600F will follow in a little while.
My SWA is in regular use with every time again amazing results.
Paul
semmelblad
Member
Paul,
I really consider myself lucky that up to now my 1000F bodies had usable shutter curtains despite different degrees of abuse (to put it mildly). All the best for your 1600F!
Ulrik
I really consider myself lucky that up to now my 1000F bodies had usable shutter curtains despite different degrees of abuse (to put it mildly). All the best for your 1600F!
Ulrik
semmelblad
Member
Jürgen,
I am also in the market for a 135 mm lens (Kodak or Zeiss) or a Distagon 5,6/60 and would not step away from a 80 mm Kodak or 250 mm Zeiss either.
I have two serviced/repaired 1000F cameras (added recently). A third very sorry looking 1000F that I thought might eventually be useful for parts looks like it could also be salvaged.
Ulrik
I am also in the market for a 135 mm lens (Kodak or Zeiss) or a Distagon 5,6/60 and would not step away from a 80 mm Kodak or 250 mm Zeiss either.
I have two serviced/repaired 1000F cameras (added recently). A third very sorry looking 1000F that I thought might eventually be useful for parts looks like it could also be salvaged.
Ulrik
polypal
Active Member
What is most remarkable about the 1000F cameras is their engineering quality.
Most of the time these beautifull cameras are offered for sale now without the shutter being in a good working condition.
With a lot of TLC and highly appreciated effort from one of the few remaining repairmen who has the expertise and experience to bring these masterpieces of engineering back to life almost all of these over 50 year old bodies can be restored.
Shutterspeeds deviate max 15% from the nominal value.
That is very good for a new body let alone a fifty year old one that has seen quite some abuse from owners and incompetent repairmen through the years.
Most of the time these beautifull cameras are offered for sale now without the shutter being in a good working condition.
With a lot of TLC and highly appreciated effort from one of the few remaining repairmen who has the expertise and experience to bring these masterpieces of engineering back to life almost all of these over 50 year old bodies can be restored.
Shutterspeeds deviate max 15% from the nominal value.
That is very good for a new body let alone a fifty year old one that has seen quite some abuse from owners and incompetent repairmen through the years.
polypal
Active Member
Thanks Jürgen it was my pleasure to help you.
I did it because I do not like to see a beautiful piece of Hasselblad history butchered by ignorant people who will ruin an original back by fitting modern parts in it.
In most cases, like with your back, it can be serviced without replacing the original light seal.
I invite everybody to send me all old non function backs.
They will be serviced free of charge.
There is only one condition:
You must be the lucky owner of a new CFV back that fails within three weeks and is returned after two months and "repair".
After that you receive a new back because it takes a while now at Hasselblad to realise that a company needs satisfied customers to stay in business.
I have made arrangements for free shipments to me with DHL.
Return shipping is on my account.
Paul
I did it because I do not like to see a beautiful piece of Hasselblad history butchered by ignorant people who will ruin an original back by fitting modern parts in it.
In most cases, like with your back, it can be serviced without replacing the original light seal.
I invite everybody to send me all old non function backs.
They will be serviced free of charge.
There is only one condition:
You must be the lucky owner of a new CFV back that fails within three weeks and is returned after two months and "repair".
After that you receive a new back because it takes a while now at Hasselblad to realise that a company needs satisfied customers to stay in business.
I have made arrangements for free shipments to me with DHL.
Return shipping is on my account.
Paul
semmelblad
Member
Thanks Paul for your generous offer. Had I known that before... Given the number of 1950s magazines here this might have made the CFV financially attractive.
I will be leaving now for an extended weekend to the Black Forest (Schwarzwald). This time my ancient Hasselblads will be left at home because I need a wide angle which I haven't (yet) for the 1000F. So I will use the modern stuff and go out with my 500C (1958), Distagon 5,6/60 (1959) and magazine 12 (1957).
Ulrik
I will be leaving now for an extended weekend to the Black Forest (Schwarzwald). This time my ancient Hasselblads will be left at home because I need a wide angle which I haven't (yet) for the 1000F. So I will use the modern stuff and go out with my 500C (1958), Distagon 5,6/60 (1959) and magazine 12 (1957).
Ulrik