I know the formats are different, what I'm wondering is how to get the focal perspective close to that of Marco Grob who uses a Hasseblad 120mm lens a lot for portraits but I want to figure the same visual distortion or lack of with a Cannon FF camera/lens or Leica FF camera/lens. Someone better at math must have an answer that's close. I have no access to a Hasseblad although I had one (500C) in the film days but I only had the 80 normal and 50 wide angle.
I believe the most used Hasseblad lens used for portraits is the 150mm which is almost double the normal 80mm lens. On a Cannon FF or should I say in the old 35mm film format, the 50mm was considered normal or overall medium focal length.
I'm sure there is a chart somewhere. I'm interested in two ways of putting a new package together if and when I can get the money. With what I'm used to right now, I'd probably go with the Leica Mono with a 90mm (maybe even the shorter 75mm summicron because it focuses closer and is easier to view the slightly larger frame line in the rangefinder or possibly the Cannon DX with the Zeiss 100, but I"m hoping to go to a small camera with a lot of clout, but I was just curious about the Hasseblad 120
Where I'm coming from is I shoot a lot of portraits with a 1.3 crop MKIII and use an 85 1.2 and a 24-70, mostly at the 70mm focal length but like it because of the close focus. That said, when I do that close focus, it can distort the nose a bit but it only shows on noses that are already larger than some.
