Share your experience with HC100 lens

[maxshafiq]

Hi

I am considering purchasing a HC100 (1/800 or 1/2000) version. Not quite made my mind up yet.

Primarily for portrait and fashion type work. Can members share there thoughts on the suitability of this lens as compared to 35-90 and 80mm.

Would also appreciate sharing any pictures taken with this lens that highlight its character!

Thx
Max

 

[Speedgraphic]

Depends a bit on the format. On 44x33 it's sort of like an 85, and on 645 it's like a 58. Either way it's a far better portrait length than 80. It's a superb lens, what else can I say? Problem is, both the 80 and 100 are fantastic. If I had a 44x33 I'd go 80, 645, 100.

 

[DB5]

It is notorious for not focussing so well. When it does it's great.

 

[fotografz]

The HC-100/2.2 was my "go to" normal lens on an long list of Hasselblad H bodies spread over a decade. From a 22 meg to a 60 meg H back. Hardly ever used the 80/2.8 which lacked the character of the 100/2.2 IMO. Plus, the f/2.2 aperture makes for a very bright viewfinder compared to any other HC lens.

If you want to use this lens outdoors in ambient light, I strongly suggest getting the newer one with the 1/2000 top shutter ... that will allow you to use the f/2.2 max aperture in more situations.

Personally, I never had any issue with AF accuracy with this lens, but at f/2.2 the DOF is razor thin when shooting at closer distances ... very similar to a Leica M 75/1.4 in crop, DOF and bokeh rendering. You really have to be a steady shooter to avoid body sway that can lose the focus, same as with any fast aperture portrait lens used wide open. If your H camera features True Focus then off center focus wide open can be far more successful.

What is also great with this lens is using the HC-1.7 extender to provide a small 2 lens portrait kit by adding an equivalent to 170/3.8 while maintaining a close focusing ability. The extender IQ penalty is almost invisible.

The only con I experienced with this lens was some fringing in brightly back-lit situations ... much of which is tamed when using the specific Hasselblad lens correction software in Phocus or Adobe Lightroom.

The lens I owned lasted for nearly a decade of heavy use before the AF gearing started to get worn sounding (still worked), so I had it rebuilt for $450 which made it like new again.

IMO, this lens is a major reason to own a H kit, as is their 50/3.5-II.

- Marc

 

[DB5]

Erratic focus is well documented. It doesn't stop me using it wide open and I agree if you have an H, sure get a 100 if you have a use for it but I wouldn't personally buy the H to have the 100 in particular. But it is probably the prettiest rendering in the H range.

I would also say that for fashion and portrait you may find the 120 and 150 are more useful. The 150 is faster and more accurate to focus, has next to no CA and the bokeh is really nice. The 120 is more renowned as a fashion/beauty/portrait lens - it's a sort of industry standard for H users.

 

[maxshafiq]

The HC-100/2.2 was my "go to" normal lens on an long list of Hasselblad H bodies spread over a decade. From a 22 meg to a 60 meg H back. Hardly ever used the 80/2.8 which lacked the character of the 100/2.2 IMO. Plus, the f/2.2 aperture makes for a very bright viewfinder compared to any other HC lens.

If you want to use this lens outdoors in ambient light, I strongly suggest getting the newer one with the 1/2000 top shutter ... that will allow you to use the f/2.2 max aperture in more situations.

Personally, I never had any issue with AF accuracy with this lens, but at f/2.2 the DOF is razor thin when shooting at closer distances ... very similar to a Leica M 75/1.4 in crop, DOF and bokeh rendering. You really have to be a steady shooter to avoid body sway that can lose the focus, same as with any fast aperture portrait lens used wide open. If your H camera features True Focus then off center focus wide open can be far more successful.

What is also great with this lens is using the HC-1.7 extender to provide a small 2 lens portrait kit by adding an equivalent to 170/3.8 while maintaining a close focusing ability. The extender IQ penalty is almost invisible.

The only con I experienced with this lens was some fringing in brightly back-lit situations ... much of which is tamed when using the specific Hasselblad lens correction software in Phocus or Adobe Lightroom.

The lens I owned lasted for nearly a decade of heavy use before the AF gearing started to get worn sounding (still worked), so I had it rebuilt for $450 which made it like new again.

IMO, this lens is a major reason to own a H kit, as is their 50/3.5-II.

- Marc

Thanks for your perspective Marc. I have a 35-90 and 80. Thinking of getting rid of those 2 and getting the 100 and 50. The 35-90 is also an excellent lens. I have also experienced "fringing" in a bright background with the 80...

Still would like to see some images taken with the 100 that has the "look/character"

 

[maxshafiq]

Erratic focus is well documented. It doesn't stop me using it wide open and I agree if you have an H, sure get a 100 if you have a use for it but I wouldn't personally buy the H to have the 100 in particular. But it is probably the prettiest rendering in the H range.

I would also say that for fashion and portrait you may find the 120 and 150 are more useful. The 150 is faster and more accurate to focus, has next to no CA and the bokeh is really nice. The 120 is more renowned as a fashion/beauty/portrait lens - it's a sort of industry standard for H users.

Interesting...had not thought of the 120 in this context but had heard about the 150.

Would a 150 be comparable in image quality with a 100 with an extender?

 

[maxshafiq]

Depends a bit on the format. On 44x33 it's sort of like an 85, and on 645 it's like a 58. Either way it's a far better portrait length than 80. It's a superb lens, what else can I say? Problem is, both the 80 and 100 are fantastic. If I had a 44x33 I'd go 80, 645, 100.

Will be using it on a H6D-100c

 

[bab]

The 50 is a great lens but not for portraits the 100 is great but focusing between copies is the issue I have one that behaves badly, I like the 120 superior lens maybe too sharp!
I want to buy and try the 150 it seems to be a great focal length for portraits, I do use the 100 with the 1.7x better yet is the HTS 1.5x with the 10.

Don't have the 80 so I can't comment

Bab

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Now I'm just an amateur here but since I bought the 100mm the 80mm has never been on the body, I have a 150mm as well BTW. ( CF adapter and many C/CF/Cfi/CFE lenses)
Now you ask that nebulous concept in a lens "character". Leica glass in particular attracts that term but it is never defined, and goodness knows in that world they have tried, and some cannot see it at all so when I'm asked I tend to say it is a characteristic that when you look at the shot you have taken the result somehow exceeds your expectations of how it will "look". It's that nod and wry smile that says internally "nailed it" but you know that part of that is not your skill it comes from the glass. You know that how that glass has rendered that shot exceeds the result you would see with another lens.
Now the wide aperture certainly plays a part but it is widely accepted that the lens performs less technically perfectly than others and this is what gives it "character" particularly in portraiture however the paper by Hasselblad points out the excellent corrections in this lens optimised for closer focus distances than the infinity optimised V series (Makro excepted).
Simply my advise is to hire one and try it, most hire places will allow the hire cost against a purchase if you decide to purchase and if not it is cheaply bought experience.

Just one frame of a compliant sitter, actually at f2.4 for some reason, on P45+

And some bedtime reading:
http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf


.

 

[PabloR]

hi

95% of my work is made with a technical camera in studio environment. But now I am moving to portraiture and have a little experience with HC ( around 4 years ).

If you are looking for character portraits definitely the 100mm is not the lens.

Hasselblad 100mm designs have been optimized for a non effect pictures and flat geometry with no distortion.

A 80mm will give you a closer position to your subjects, and from that distance you can focus on the character of your subject, the anatomy, a closer view basically.

I use the 80mm for men, and the 100mm for woman. Bacause with 100mm is easier to get a thiner view of a face, with a normal point of view, closer enough to deep into the personality but with a flat geometry perfect for get a thiner anatomy.

The next lens will be the 120mm. Too sharp, too clean for portrait. But very intense used on studio professional work.

I dont shot portraits at f11, I like to shot between wide open and 5,6. Because I love the bokeh on a portrait with this lenses. Is a great cinema look, just search for Arri Prime 65.

In the tele range my favorite lens is the 150n. Simply stunning for head and shoulders.

so,

for character portraits go to 80mm

for a "normal" lens but with flat geometry and anatomy respectfull go to 100mm

for clinic portraits go to 120mm at f11

for head and shoulders go to 150n

for really close portrait, just a face go to 210mm

full body 100 is amazing.

--

the 100 have some disadvantages. You will need to close diaphragm at least one or two thirds to get quality. Some people says that it is a 2.8 lens. 2.2 have some CA really ugly if you print big.

--

Another consideration is your sensor size and focal distance conversion. The look of this lenses comes on a full Fram body.

--

If you want to see fashion with HC lenses go to Steven Meisel, or Mario Testino works.

For portrait with an full frame and a 80mm go to Marco Grob close portraits.

if you want to see some of my pictures go to Pablo Rodrigo

--

For me the most interesting kit of HC lenses is 50 II, 80, 100, 150n, 210

If you work with tripod and closing diaphragm is a really contrasty lens the 50-110

regards and excuse my English
Pablo

 

[thebroketographer]

Just picked up an Orange dot HC100 recently for my H6D; and it's been amazing. I have not experienced the focusing issues that some have reported, and my copy focuses quickly and accurately.

I have experienced the GNARLY CA in strongly backlit or contrasty areas, when wide open, though. Here's a crop:

at 2.2 it's actually sharper than I imagined, and much sharper than I've heard it being (i've heard it's very soft wide open, but for me, it's perfectly acceptable) — at MFD and 2.2, the dof is almost nonexistant.

by 2.8 it's very good, and at f/4 and beyond, it's blazingly sharp.

Like many others, I almost never use the 80mm anymore, unless I don't have the extra space to work with, but I still keep the 80 around "just in case" — If I got rid of it, I don't think I'd miss it, though.

 

[maxshafiq]

Wow the CA is looking pretty rough! I experienced the same with the 80mm lens too but not as bad.

You say its been "Amazing". Can you further qualify that statement please?

Thx

Just picked up an Orange dot HC100 recently for my H6D; and it's been amazing. I have not experienced the focusing issues that some have reported, and my copy focuses quickly and accurately.

I have experienced the GNARLY CA in strongly backlit or contrasty areas, when wide open, though.

at 2.2 it's actually sharper than I imagined, and much sharper than I've heard it being (i've heard it's very soft wide open, but for me, it's perfectly acceptable) — at MFD and 2.2, the dof is almost nonexistant.

by 2.8 it's very good, and at f/4 and beyond, it's blazingly sharp.

Like many others, I almost never use the 80mm anymore, unless I don't have the extra space to work with, but I still keep the 80 around "just in case" — If I got rid of it, I don't think I'd miss it, though.

 

[thebroketographer]

Wow the CA is looking pretty rough! I experienced the same with the 80mm lens too but not as bad.

You say its been "Amazing". Can you further qualify that statement please?

Thx

Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but it has been better than I'd been reading about before I got it — It's tough to find info on this lens (the only useful info I found was from Ryan Brenizer's blog post about it).

In short, it's better than I expected. I was expecting it to be unusably soft @ 2.2, but it's acceptable for me; at 2.8 it's sharp, and f/4 and beyond, it's very, very good. Focus is quick, but the issue at wider than say, f/3.5, it's not consistent; likely because the focusing area covers a bigger area than the actual focal plane at close distances [as you'd normally work in tight portraits]. If you're further away, it's fine, and acceptably fast.

When researching the lens, many people said that they no longer needed the 80, and I can see that being the case for me, too.