hasselblad                     Mon, 31 Dec 2001         Volume 1 : Number 1455

In this issue:

        [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW?
        Focus screen ID?
        Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100
        Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100
        Re: CB Lens Debate
        Re: [HUG] another spacing issue
        Re: [HUG] Re: CB Lens Debate
        Dancing With Tears in My Eyes
        Re: [HUG] Dancing With Tears in My Eyes
        RE: [HUG] Dancing With Tears in My Eyes
        Re: [HUG] another "spacing" issue - ie. cheap thrills
        RE: [HUG] older lens


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:12:56 -0600
From: George Huczek <ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Value of EL ELM Cameras WHY SO LOW?
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20011230121256.007ccaf0@mailhost.sk.sympatico.ca>

 "My memory, possibly unfair, is of a body that meant trouble when used
heavily."

I haven't had any trouble with mine, so as they say, your mileage may vary.  

Personally, I like the weight of these cameras when hand holding.  They
give me sharper hand-held outdoor portraits, which have a look of
spontaneity that I can't get as easily with a tripod-mounted camera and a
subject which is not as free to move about.  Also, the extra weight gives
the camera more inertial mass, which helps to minimize the effect of camera
shake and mirror slap.  With a 150 Sonnar I get slightly sharper handheld
photos with my ELM and ELX than I do with the same lens on a 500-series
body, but then again, your mileage may vary as they say  ;)  

These cameras are a great value for used-market Hasselblads.  If you get a
chance to buy one, go for it.  The price is right.



 _
[o] -GH

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:57:00 -0800
From: "Tourtelot" <tourtelot1@attbi.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Focus screen ID?
Message-ID: <000801c19174$873adc20$6401a8c0@attbi.com>

Looking for a positive ID on a screen I just bought.  It is a two-piece
screen in a "snap-apart" (i.e. not spot-welded) frame.  The top piece is
glass, matte ground-glass with a cross-hair (H and V), the bottom piece is a
thin fresnel screen with no grid or micro prism.

I am led to believe that this is an Acute-matte, and another HUGer and I
have been running a dialog on the correct orientation of the two screens in
regard to the mirror.  I have it set up now as follows:  plastic fresnel
closest to the mirror, fresnel side toward mirror.  On top of that, matte
ground-glas with the matte touching the smooth side of the plastic screen.
Anyone confirm what this screen is, and/or if I have it back together
correctly?  It IS really clean now<bg>.

Thanks,

Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
tourtelot1@attbi.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:17:59 -0800
From: Patrick Bartek <bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100
Message-ID: <01123012175908.00629@localhost.localdomain>

On Friday 28 December 2001 16:48, george day wrote:

> Loose.  For very tight, I go with a longer focal length and extension
> tubes -- but that's me.  Your point is well taken and correct,
> though.  Wouldn't it be nice to have all of these...?!

For "loose,"  that is, basically head and shoulders to head and hips, I 
prefer a 150, mainly because of the balance between working distance 
and subject perspective.  Plus, wide open to two stops down, I have 
sufficient depth of field to keep the subject sharp and throw the 
background out just enough to still be recognizeable, but separated.  
The 150 is really may favorite for full length work, too, if I have the 
room; otherwise I use a 60 about waist high, leveled or tipped slightly 
up.  (I don't own an 80.  It's a useless focal length as far as I'm 
concerned.)

If I really want to throw the background out of focus, but still 
maintain a "normal" looking subject perspective -- that is, not too 
compressed -- I'd use a 250 or 350 (or a 150 with a 2X), but most 
likely you'll need a short to moderate extension tube, depending.  I 
would also recommend these two focal length for "tight" head shots to 
maintain a comfortable working distance.  Nothing can ruin a subject's 
composure -- even a pro model -- more readily than having a lens 
looming in their face.


> On 12/28/01 4:21 PM, "Patrick Bartek" <bartek@intermind.net> wrote:
> > On Friday 28 December 2001 08:02, george day wrote:
> >> Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the 120 macro vs. the 100
> >> for close-in portraits and secondary general use for portraits? 
> >> I've used the 120 (although I don't own it) plenty of times, but
> >> haven't spent quality time with the 100.
> >
> > How "close-in" are we talking about?  Loose head shot?  Tight head
> > shot?  Count nose hairs head shot?
> >
> > I find the 120 (or the 135 w/bellows or 3rd party focusing mount)
> > more suited to really tight, bordering on macro head shots, mainly
> > because it's optimized for close-ups.  The 100 was originally
> > designed for aerial photography and is best at infinity; plus,
> > without accessories, it won't focus as close as the 120.  Also, the
> > 120, because of the longer focal length, gives you better working
> > distances than the 100 at the same repro ratios.

-- 
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:55:12 -0800
From: Patrick Bartek <bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] 120 vs. 100
Message-ID: <01123012551209.00629@localhost.localdomain>

On Friday 28 December 2001 17:20, Jesse Hellman wrote:

> I'm puzzled a bit about the use of the 120 for tight head shots. I
> used to have a 150 and now a 180, and for tight head shots used a 16
> extension tube. The problem was distortion. Eventually I got the 1.4
> tele-extender and the combination allows tight shots from about five
> feet - sometimes both the subject and I did not realize the extent of
> the distortion until we did a second set of pictures with the
> tele-extender.

Best guess?  Most people associate "close-ups"  with macro, that is 
close focusing, lenses.  Using a longer lens with an extension tube or 
extender is usually not thought of as a solution.

Instead of the 180 x 1.4, have you tried a regular 250 with an 
extension tube?  Should give about the same working distances.  I 
myself would use a 350.  Five feet is a little too close for me.  I 
prefer never to be closer than about 7 feet with a non-professional 
subject.  The "big eye" can be very intimidating.

> So the issue is not so much the sharpness of the lens as much as how
> a face looks from three feet away, or closer.

Yes, if you're showing the whole face, but, for example,  if you're 
only showing part of the face, the eyes or the lips or other features 
that are all in the same relative plane, the perpective distortion 
would not be discernable.

> The tele-extender allows the lens to focus at the same close-focus
> distance as without it.

Yes, but you do "soften" the image a little because of the extra 
optics.  Although, Hasselblad's extenders loose very little, a 2 or 3 
line pairs at most.  Quite a feat of optical design.  I prefer 
extension tubes with a longer lens instead of a shorter lens with an 
extender for close work, where working distance is a consideration.

> Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Friday 28 December 2001 08:02, george day wrote:
> > > Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on the 120 macro vs. the
> > > 100 for close-in portraits and secondary general use for
> > > portraits?  I've used the 120 (although I don't own it) plenty of
> > > times, but haven't spent quality time with the 100.
> >
> > How "close-in" are we talking about?  Loose head shot?  Tight head
> > shot?  Count nose hairs head shot?
> >
> > I find the 120 (or the 135 w/bellows or 3rd party focusing mount)
> > more suited to really tight, bordering on macro head shots, mainly
> > because it's optimized for close-ups.  The 100 was originally
> > designed for aerial photography and is best at infinity; plus,
> > without accessories, it won't focus as close as the 120.  Also, the
> > 120, because of the longer focal length, gives you better working
> > distances than the 100 at the same repro ratios.

-- 
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:14:23 EST
From: DBaker9128@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: CB Lens Debate
Message-ID: <177.19101bf.296123ff@aol.com>

Malcolm wrote in a test between the 80 CB & CFE:
"In blind tests we can't tell the difference -- well on one, maybe the CB 
looks better, but that must be our imagination?  Maybe for someone doing x 
zillion enlargements it might be an issue but I don't think it's ever going 
to be a problem with my modest 11x14 prints."

Well, Malcolm I think your testing is pretty close to the real deal. The 
Zeiss / Hasselblad MTF's were very close on these two lenses anyway. I have 
always been very happy with my 80 CB. I would hazard to say that 
manufacturing tolerances could tip the balance one way or another when 
comparing these lenses. A respected Zeiss employee, Dr. Kornelius J. 
Fleischer wrote in a post on Photo.net in February of 1999:
"When I compared a CB 80 to my CF 80 shooting high resolution Kodak Ektar 25 
color negative film and using a very good tripod I could not detect a 
difference in the prints 25 inch x 25 inch. This was approximately 10 times 
magnification. With the negative under a microscope at 30 x magnification I 
found, the CF 80 offered somewhat higher resolution than the CB 80. Expect to 
see differences once you enlarge to 4 ft x 4 ft and larger and look at these 
prints from with in one foot." 

Doug from Tumwater

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:14:26 +0800
From: "Stein" <stein@bekkers.com.au>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] another spacing issue
Message-ID: <000301c191a1$6d06aa00$3eb237cb@oemcomputer>

Dear Peter,

     Never mind the Hasselblad sprockets. How was the honeymoon?

     Uncle Dick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 18:31:17 -0800
From: Malcolm & Sylvia Brickwood <sylvia.brickwood@worldnet.att.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: CB Lens Debate
Message-ID: <3C2FCDF5.3000607@worldnet.att.net>

Doug

Thanks for the confirmation of my findings.  As you mentioned I am sure 
that individual results will vary and since 4 ft x 4 ft would be quite a 
challenge for my darkroom a CB lens is one thing I should not worry 
about ...

Thx
Malcolm



DBaker9128@aol.com wrote:

> Malcolm wrote in a test between the 80 CB & CFE:
> "In blind tests we can't tell the difference -- well on one, maybe the CB 
> looks better, but that must be our imagination?  Maybe for someone doing x 
> zillion enlargements it might be an issue but I don't think it's ever going 
> to be a problem with my modest 11x14 prints."
> 
> Well, Malcolm I think your testing is pretty close to the real deal. The 
> Zeiss / Hasselblad MTF's were very close on these two lenses anyway. I have 
> always been very happy with my 80 CB. I would hazard to say that 
> manufacturing tolerances could tip the balance one way or another when 
> comparing these lenses. A respected Zeiss employee, Dr. Kornelius J. 
> Fleischer wrote in a post on Photo.net in February of 1999:
> "When I compared a CB 80 to my CF 80 shooting high resolution Kodak Ektar 25 
> color negative film and using a very good tripod I could not detect a 
> difference in the prints 25 inch x 25 inch. This was approximately 10 times 
> magnification. With the negative under a microscope at 30 x magnification I 
> found, the CF 80 offered somewhat higher resolution than the CB 80. Expect to 
> see differences once you enlarge to 4 ft x 4 ft and larger and look at these 
> prints from with in one foot." 
> 
> Doug from Tumwater
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content.  This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates.
> 
> Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list.   Use text mode only.
> 
> To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad
> Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm
> 
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:02:13 +0800
From: "Stein" <stein@bekkers.com.au>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Dancing With Tears in My Eyes
Message-ID: <004501c191a7$8c23b1c0$3eb237cb@oemcomputer>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C191EA.99C0AAC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Friends,

     Quite apart from the fact that the girl in my arms isn't you ( And =
for those of you, like me, who can remember the music and lyrics - go to =
bed early tonight as you are far too old to be out on the town.) the =
real reason is because I have a dandy dermatitis going around my left =
eye.
    =20
    I managed to wipe it absentmindedly while processing some RA 4 work =
a few days ago and I suspect that something got in there. Red, itchy, =
flaking skin. Haven't looked this good for years.

     Any dermatologists or chemists out there on the list with some =
practical suggestions for the healing up? I intend to use rubber gloves =
in the future and keep my fingers out of my eyes.

    Uncle Dick

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C191EA.99C0AAC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Friends,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Quite apart =
from the fact=20
that the girl in my arms isn't you ( And for those of you, like =
me,&nbsp;who can=20
remember the music and lyrics - go to bed early tonight as you are far =
too old=20
to be out on the town.) the real reason is because I have a dandy =
dermatitis=20
going around my left eye.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I managed to wipe it =

absentmindedly while processing some RA 4 work a few days ago and I =
suspect that=20
something got in there. Red, itchy, flaking skin. Haven't looked this =
good for=20
years.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any =
dermatologists or=20
chemists out there on the list with some practical suggestions for the =
healing=20
up? I intend to use rubber gloves in the future and keep my fingers out =
of my=20
eyes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Uncle=20
Dick</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C191EA.99C0AAC0--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:13:38 -0800
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
To: "Stein" <stein@bekkers.com.au>, <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Dancing With Tears in My Eyes
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011230191221.038d0ff0@pop.alink.net>

--=====================_-2050388403==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Use  "Bag Balm."

An udderly wonderful cure all.

Jim


At 11:02 AM 12/31/2001 +0800, Stein wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>
>      Quite apart from the fact that the girl in my arms isn't you ( And 
> for those of you, like me, who can remember the music and lyrics - go to 
> bed early tonight as you are far too old to be out on the town.) the real 
> reason is because I have a dandy dermatitis going around my left eye.
>
>     I managed to wipe it absentmindedly while processing some RA 4 work a 
> few days ago and I suspect that something got in there. Red, itchy, 
> flaking skin. Haven't looked this good for years.
>
>      Any dermatologists or chemists out there on the list with some 
> practical suggestions for the healing up? I intend to use rubber gloves 
> in the future and keep my fingers out of my eyes.
>
>     Uncle Dick

--=====================_-2050388403==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Use&nbsp; &quot;Bag Balm.&quot;<br><br>
An udderly wonderful cure all.<br><br>
Jim<br><br>
<br>
At 11:02 AM 12/31/2001 +0800, Stein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>Dear
Friends,</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Quite apart from the
fact that the girl in my arms isn't you ( And for those of you, like me,
who can remember the music and lyrics - go to bed early tonight as you
are far too old to be out on the town.) the real reason is because I have
a dandy dermatitis going around my left eye.</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I managed to wipe it
absentmindedly while processing some RA 4 work a few days ago and I
suspect that something got in there. Red, itchy, flaking skin. Haven't
looked this good for years.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any dermatologists or
chemists out there on the list with some practical suggestions for the
healing up? I intend to use rubber gloves in the future and keep my
fingers out of my eyes.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Uncle
Dick</font></blockquote></html>

--=====================_-2050388403==_.ALT--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:19:51 -0800
From: Mike Kirwan <mkirwan@pacbell.net>
To: Stein <stein@bekkers.com.au>, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Dancing With Tears in My Eyes
Message-ID: <NDBBIKMLKKDFJAFAJNOLIEOBDLAA.mkirwan@pacbell.net>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_xTpGxwQ3iz0+Vyqe/K+9QA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

You probably will do best by seeking medical attention asap. The eye has a
wonderful mechanism called tears for keeping it clean and flushing muck out.
So maybe a regular flushing with eye drops (saline) would help until you get
advice from a real Doctor.

Mike

PS. The eyes are serious stuff you gotta look after them


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Stein [mailto:stein@bekkers.com.au]
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 7:02 PM
  To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
  Subject: [HUG] Dancing With Tears in My Eyes


  Dear Friends,

       Quite apart from the fact that the girl in my arms isn't you ( And
for those of you, like me, who can remember the music and lyrics - go to bed
early tonight as you are far too old to be out on the town.) the real reason
is because I have a dandy dermatitis going around my left eye.

      I managed to wipe it absentmindedly while processing some RA 4 work a
few days ago and I suspect that something got in there. Red, itchy, flaking
skin. Haven't looked this good for years.

       Any dermatologists or chemists out there on the list with some
practical suggestions for the healing up? I intend to use rubber gloves in
the future and keep my fingers out of my eyes.

      Uncle Dick

--Boundary_(ID_xTpGxwQ3iz0+Vyqe/K+9QA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You 
probably will do best by seeking medical attention asap. The eye has a wonderful 
mechanism called tears for keeping it clean and flushing muck out. So maybe a 
regular&nbsp;flushing with eye drops (saline) would help until you get advice 
from a real Doctor.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Mike</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>PS. 
The eyes are serious stuff you gotta look after them</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=516031703-31122001></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Stein 
  [mailto:stein@bekkers.com.au]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 30, 2001 7:02 
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> hasselblad@kelvin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> [HUG] Dancing With 
  Tears in My Eyes<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Friends,</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Quite apart from the 
  fact that the girl in my arms isn't you ( And for those of you, like 
  me,&nbsp;who can remember the music and lyrics - go to bed early tonight as 
  you are far too old to be out on the town.) the real reason is because I have 
  a dandy dermatitis going around my left eye.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I managed to wipe it 
  absentmindedly while processing some RA 4 work a few days ago and I suspect 
  that something got in there. Red, itchy, flaking skin. Haven't looked this 
  good for years.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any dermatologists or 
  chemists out there on the list with some practical suggestions for the healing 
  up? I intend to use rubber gloves in the future and keep my fingers out of my 
  eyes.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Uncle 
Dick</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_xTpGxwQ3iz0+Vyqe/K+9QA)--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:02:38 -0700
From: Peter Rosenthal <petroffski@mac.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] another "spacing" issue - ie. cheap thrills
Message-ID: <B855316E.FD6%petroffski@mac.com>

-- 
> Dear Peter,
> Never mind the Hasselblad sprockets. How was the honeymoon?
> Uncle Dick

Unca Dick,

I don't "kiss" and tell! Are you as "lonely" as you seem? I am told tho, no
first-hand knowledge you understand, that you can read about and see all
sorts of pictures on many websites that specialize in such things as
"honeymoon" activity. Technically speakingwise, is this considered "off
topic?" If so...blame Dick.

Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:45:58 -0800
From: "Dale Jehning" <bamjdsj@ix.netcom.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] older lens
Message-ID: <NCBBKJOACLFICLKCJJDKOEMADHAA.bamjdsj@ix.netcom.com>

I'm thinking of buy a lens off eBay. They have some of the older "C" series lenses. I have a 500C/M body. How are the older units?
Are they OK or prone to problems? I shoot just for fun.
DJ

------------------------------

End of hasselblad V1 #1455
**************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content.  This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates.

Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list.   Use text mode only.

To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad
Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm