Hasselblad glass on a sony a6000
Sep 12, 2018 09:51:44 #
I have an old manual Hasselblad prime lens with Zeiss glass that i would like to try on an A6000 for portraits. Any benefits or losses?
Sep 12, 2018 10:00:58 #
I can't speak to the A6000, but the Nikon D700 and D800e teamed with Zeiss lenses used on my 500C worked really well. Here's one with the 80mm f/2.8.
--Bob
--Bob
makurow wrote:
I have an old manual Hasselblad prime lens with Zeiss glass that i would like to try on an A6000 for portraits. Any benefits or losses?
Sep 12, 2018 12:11:47 #
rmalarz wrote:
I can't speak to the A6000, but the Nikon D700 and D800e teamed with Zeiss lenses used on my 500C worked really well. Here's one with the 80mm f/2.8.
--Bob
--Bob
I love this portrait. I’m curious, Bob, whether you spoke to him or simply took the shot?
Sep 12, 2018 12:55:15 #
Hasselblad lenses doesn't have good resolution for the A6000. Lenses for the A6000 has to be significantly sharper than lenses for the Hasselblad.
Sep 12, 2018 12:59:03 #
Ben, being the official photographer for the bar, I just took photographs. I rarely spoke to a good many of the subjects I photographed. The owner of the pub spoke to this person and invited him to sit and have a glass of cold water though.
--Bob
--Bob
Rab-Eye wrote:
I love this portrait. I’m curious, Bob, whether you spoke to him or simply took the shot?
Sep 12, 2018 13:50:45 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Hasselblad lenses doesn't have good resolution for the A6000. Lenses for the A6000 has to be significantly sharper than lenses for the Hasselblad.
That is correct.
It's not the lens's fault. It is simply that they are designed to produce as much sharpness as you would need for a 57x57mm image. That's a much larger image circle than necessary for a 24x36mm sensor.
Sep 12, 2018 13:55:41 #
Sep 12, 2018 15:43:41 #
selmslie wrote:
That is correct.
It's not the lens's fault. It is simply that they are designed to produce as much sharpness as you would need for a 57x57mm image. That's a much larger image circle than necessary for a 24x36mm sensor.
It's not the lens's fault. It is simply that they are designed to produce as much sharpness as you would need for a 57x57mm image. That's a much larger image circle than necessary for a 24x36mm sensor.
The A6000 only has 15.6x23.5mm sensor and that's a lot smaller than a 57x57 6x6 image.
Sep 12, 2018 16:11:39 #
BebuLamar wrote:
The A6000 only has 15.6x23.5mm sensor and that's a lot smaller than a 57x57 6x6 image.
The crop sensor is using only 384/3249=less than 12% of the Hasselblad's image area - 88% of the image is discarded.
It would not be as difficult to design a decent lens for the much smaller format.
The Hasselblad-Nikon FX adapter alone is pretty bulky. A Hasselblad-Sony adapter would be bigger and heavier. So would the a combined Hasselblad-Nikon-Sony adapter. Hardly worth the effort since the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 is already pretty big and heavy.
Sep 12, 2018 16:29:39 #
selmslie wrote:
The crop sensor is using only 384/3249=less than 12% of the Hasselblad's image area - 88% of the image is discarded.
It would not be as difficult to design a decent lens for the much smaller format.
The Hasselblad-Nikon FX adapter alone is pretty bulky. A Hasselblad-Sony adapter would be bigger and heavier. So would the a combined Hasselblad-Nikon-Sony adapter. Hardly worth the effort since the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 is already pretty big and heavy.
It would not be as difficult to design a decent lens for the much smaller format.
The Hasselblad-Nikon FX adapter alone is pretty bulky. A Hasselblad-Sony adapter would be bigger and heavier. So would the a combined Hasselblad-Nikon-Sony adapter. Hardly worth the effort since the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 is already pretty big and heavy.
Even back in the film days people use Hasselblad lenses on the Nikon and found for example the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 isn't as sharp as the smaller, cheaper, faster and easier to use Nikkor 85mm f/2 lens.
Sep 12, 2018 17:56:15 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Even back in the film days people use Hasselblad lenses on the Nikon and found for example the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 isn't as sharp as the smaller, cheaper, faster and easier to use Nikkor 85mm f/2 lens.
The reason is very simple - the Hasselblad lenses did not need to be as sharp because they are covering 3,249 square millimeters rather than only 864 square millimeters on a full frame sensor. The extra area more than compensates for the loss of sharpness.
There is also a slight loss of sharpness with lenses intended for 4x5 inch film (about 96x120mm). They produce just over half of the lp/mm of a good full frame lens but they cover 11,520 square millimeters.
And if you consider that most lenses designed for 4x5 film are actually intended to cover a 5x7 inch image to account for shifts and tilts, those lenses are designed to cover more than 20,000 square millimeters.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.