[bdery]

That is similar to the way Raynox achromatic filters are attached. There have been a variety of attempts to make a better filter attaching mechanism than threads, or a retaining ring with unthreaded filters. Zeiss had bayonet filters for the Contarex (a failure), Hasselblad has a bayonet to almost guarantee that only its own filters could be used. I had an ancient (1930's or earlier) Kodak yellow filter that fitted onto several of its folding cameras. It had a circular spring band that was partly within the filters metal ring, and partly outside. You pressed the part outside with expanded the two sections inside, slip onto the lens and release and the filter was on. Not especially secure, but it worked. Another attempt recently introduced involves magnets, but it means leaving a metal ring permanently on each lens. And there are the various drop-in filters such as Cokin, but what a clumsy thing to have on the front of the lens unless you are doing scenics with a tripod mounted camera (similar to the filters at least once used on professional movie cameras). Filters must take second place to tripods as the accessory we love to hate and think we'll use more when purchased than in practice.

Yep. There are so many workflow possibilities regarding filters that everyone has his/her own preference.

I confess that carrying many filters (but always forgetting the diameter I actually need), screwing them on and removing them (especially for polarizers), really is a bother. Particularly because I'm always with non-photographers! So the quick RevoRing attachment is really a nice perk. Having only one filter "system" to carry also is pretty nice. So far it has been a positive addition to my kit.

Cue the thunder clap!!!

Gotcha, didn't I?

[bdery]

He's only getting it "for testing." Presumably he'll have to return it after he writes up his review

Correct. That's the case with every lens, except if I decided to keep it (then I'd pay for it of course).

That won't happen with the 85, even though it's a superb tool.

[Fluegel]

Hasselblad sold filters made by B&W in Germany. They did not produce the filters nor did Hasselblad produce the lenses. The lenses that gave the camera system its reputation were produced by Carl Zeiss in ermany.

[WPRESTO]

Hasselblad sold filters made by B&W in Germany. They did not produce the filters nor did Hasselblad produce the lenses. The lenses that gave the camera system its reputation were produced by Carl Zeiss in ermany.

I believe, however, that only Hasselblad branded filters, regardless of the maker, would fit a 'blad. There were no filters in 'blad bayonet offered by Tiffen, or Schneider, or Sing-Ray, or Heliopan, or for that matter, B&W under their own name. I suspect their contract to make filters that fit the 'blad lenses prevented them from offering that mount under their own name.

Hasselblad's reputation was partially the lenses, but there were multiple other factors that made the camera a huge success. The mechanics of body & shutter were very reliable and durable. The leaf shutters allowed strobe synchronization at any speed up to 1/500 second at the same time that SLR's and surviving high-end rangefinder cameras (mostly Leica) were still synchronizing at 1/60. Consequently 'blads became popular for some kinds of studio photography, especially fashion and some kinds of advertising. The waist-level perspective was also regarded as more flattering for pictures of people = models. Interchangeable lenses and interchangeable backs for quick film change gave significant advantages over Rolleiflex which might have competed. Editors became addicted to 21/4 chromes that could be laid by the score on a large light table and viewed easily without a magnifier for rough selection, then viewed with a magnifier for critical evaluation.

[Fluegel]

I believe, however, that only Hasselblad branded filters, regardless of the maker, would fit a 'blad. There were no filters in 'blad bayonet offered by Tiffen, or Schneider, or Sing-Ray, or Heliopan, or for that matter, B&W under their own name. I suspect their contract to make filters that fit the 'blad lenses prevented them from offering that mount under their own name.

Hasselblad's reputation was partially the lenses, but there were multiple other factors that made the camera a huge success. The mechanics of body & shutter were very reliable and durable. The leaf shutters allowed strobe synchronization at any speed up to 1/500 second at the same time that SLR's and surviving high-end rangefinder cameras (mostly Leica) were still synchronizing at 1/60. Consequently 'blads became popular for some kinds of studio photography, especially fashion and some kinds of advertising. The waist-level perspective was also regarded as more flattering for pictures of people = models. Interchangeable lenses and interchangeable backs for quick film change gave significant advantages over Rolleiflex which might have competed. Editors became addicted to 21/4 chromes that could be laid by the score on a large light table and viewed easily without a magnifier for rough selection, then viewed with a magnifier for critical evaluation.

Sorry, not correct: Heliopan still produces a large range of filters in various sizes for Carl Zeiss lenses used with Hasselblad cameras.
These filters are marketed and sold as Heliopan filters.
Zeiss also supplied some filters for the lenses they produced for Hasselblad.

PaulF.

[Lord Lucan]

There have been a variety of attempts to make a better filter attaching mechanism than threads, or a retaining ring with unthreaded filters. Zeiss had bayonet filters for the Contarex (a failure), Hasselblad has a bayonet to almost guarantee that only its own filters could be used.

Don't forget our own 6x7 system offered bayonet filters. The lenses (at least the older ones) had bayonet grooves in addition to threads . I have never used a 6x7 bayonet filter but my older lenses do have original bayonet caps. But TBH, putting them on and off needs a bit of force and is not a silky-smooth operation - to the extent that I worry about causing damage, so I have put those caps aside and use ordinary spring caps.

I have an old 6x7 catalogue and it has all the usual filters in bayonet fitting, but only in 67mm size. A newer 67 catalogue offers Pentax branded filters but does not say if they are bayonet, so I wonder if they had given up on the bayonet idea by then. I have a newer 6x7 lens (rubber tiled focus ring rather than fluted) and it came new with a spring, not bayonet, cap. I don't have that lens to hand so can't say whether it had the grooves for bayonet filters, but I suspect not.

IMHO the Pentax filter bayonet system was a failure, but nevertheless the filters do turn up on Ebay at daft prices.

[WPRESTO]

Sorry, not correct: Heliopan still produces a large range of filters in various sizes for Carl Zeiss lenses used with Hasselblad cameras.
These filters are marketed and sold as Heliopan filters.
Zeiss also supplied some filters for the lenses they produced for Hasselblad.

PaulF.

I stand - actually I'm sitting at the computer - corrected and humbled to admit limited knowledge on this point.

[D1N0]

My combined microwave/oven decided to finally become unusable due to a non-responsive control panel, so I ordered another one. That's a few new lenses down the drain

[WPRESTO]

My combined microwave/oven decided to finally become unusable due to a non-responsive control panel, so I ordered another one. That's a few new lenses down the drain

It's pretty much impossible to know when purchasing an appliance (or lawnmower, snowblower, automobile, etc.) exactly how long it will last. We purchased a dehumidifier from Sears for use in the basement when we first moved into out home, because I found a hammer among my tools had developed a coating of mold on the handle after only a few weeks down there. That dehumidifier functioned flawlessly for over forty years, and was only replaced because M thought it was probably not very energy efficient compared to newer units, and also because a major rebate program was on offer from the electric company for updating certain appliances to newer, more energy-efficient units.

[D1N0]

It's pretty much impossible to know when purchasing an appliance (or lawnmower, snowblower, automobile, etc.) exactly how long it will last. We purchased a dehumidifier from Sears for use in the basement when we first moved into out home, because I found a hammer among my tools had developed a coating of mold on the handle after only a few weeks down there. That dehumidifier functioned flawlessly for over forty years, and was only replaced because M thought it was probably not very energy efficient compared to newer units, and also because a major rebate program was on offer from the electric company for updating certain appliances to newer, more energy-efficient units.

Mine was a Samsung. Those have a built in self destruct function. I managed to use the troublesome control panel for years, but now it has really become unusable. I bought a different brand now hoping it will last the rest of my life even if I reach a hundred .

[Jome]

And a DA* 200 on its way (low serial number)...
$#@%! LBA

[Marcus Rowland]

Two ebay buys, one disappointing, the other very good.

The disappointing one was a Sigma DL 75-300 mm 1:4-5.6 macro with case and hood for Nikon for £14.30 including delivery. Working, but there's filminess in the rear element. I won't be returning it, it's from a charity I support and I can probably sell it on for a relatively small loss.

The good one was a job lot of five AF lenses for £24.30 inc delivery, four out of five good

Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 for Canon EF - clean and working well
Sigma UC 28-105 4.5.6 for Canon EF - gives the dreaded error 99 which means it isn't compatible with digital Canons, and has the black coating problem. I need to test it on a film camera, if it works I can probably get a few pounts for it anyway since the optics seem to be OK.
Minolta 28-80 3.5-5.6 with caps and hood - very good.
Tokina 70-210 4-5.6 for Minolta AF - very good
Pentax 35-80 4-5.6 - very good

So four good lenses, and one that is probably OK for 35mm work or adaptable to a Micro 4/3 camera. Pretty good for the money!

[Fluegel]

I stand - actually I'm sitting at the computer - corrected and humbled to admit limited knowledge on this point.

Absolutely no need to be humble.
I happen to know a couple of things about Hasselblads camera system that started in 1949 with the camera we now call 1600F.
That first commercial Hasselblad was actually called "Hasselblad". Victor Hasselblad probably did not expect that the first camera was to be followed by many more models.

We now refer to the first Hasselblad as 1600F because the camera that followed was called 1000F. The camera originally called Hasselblad now lives on as 1600F.
Victor visited the US many times. On one of these visits the customs officer recognised the name but did not know Mr. Hasselblad.
He mentioned what he thought was a coincidence to Victor Hasselblad. Victor answered "I am the camera"

[BirdDude007]

Hey folks, I just received my (new to me) 77mm limited, I got it for a killer deal at $400. When I got the box, I was thinking wow this this has a bit of weight to it. Once I opened it up I was realizing it was because of the glass and metal construction.
Now......I have never even seen a limited lens in person so I didn't know what to expect, I've even heard how legendary they are........all i can say is WOW!!!! This is the nicest lens I've seen yet, the build quality is just perfect! I am very impressed. Even at full price this lens is totally worth it.
I have collected mostly zooms and have a handful of primes, mostly vintage A lenses and i have a DA 50mm, f1.8, and a DFA 100mm macro f2.8 which i am very impressed with, but compared to this 77mm, it pales in comparison, even though the 100mm is very well built. I popped off a shot with my K1 of a tree and just looking at the image on the camera, I think I will be shooting mostly primes from here on out! Now......where to find me the rest of the 3 amigos.....

[WPRESTO]

Absolutely no need to be humble.
I happen to know a couple of things about Hasselblads camera system that started in 1949 with the camera we now call 1600F.
That first commercial Hasselblad was actually called "Hasselblad". Victor Hasselblad probably did not expect that the first camera was to be followed by many more models.

We now refer to the first Hasselblad as 1600F because the camera that followed was called 1000F. The camera originally called Hasselblad now lives on as 1600F.
Victor visited the US many times. On one of these visits the customs officer recognised the name but did not know Mr. Hasselblad.
He mentioned what he thought was a coincidence to Victor Hasselblad. Victor answered "I am the camera"

Switching from the focal plane shutter of those early models to a very reliable, flash/strobe friendly syncho compur turned out to be a stroke of genius. I think that one change is what really made Hasselblad cameras the success they were up to the digital age.