I've had a good dive into the Hass archives of this very helpful site (jeez it's a long page! I hope the makers free it up a little for us non broadband navvies), but have yet to see things clear. I'm looking for comments from those who have used both the 38mm SWC in later variants and the current 40mm Distagon IF, for top quality results in this MF width. Either is an impressive but expensive choice. Judging by the threads, if Biogon were a man it would have women weak at the knees. I have no experience with these lenses, and living remotely from any town excludes the rent before I buy option. I would be grateful if suggestions on other brands, formats etc, were witheld, as I don't want to start on LF, and like many here I have already teetered enough between brands and formats:- Contax and Leica, Mam6, 'Blad, MamRZ, Mam7 and finally Hassie again. After 3 MF rangefinders I realised they just don't do it for me (tele and close up limits, no TTL setup). I think my M7/ 50 /150 was probably about AGAIG in MF, to my eyes. After a considered purchase every year or two I now tote reasonably late 'Blad and Zeissware in 60, 100 and 250SA vision. Who can say better, worse or otherwise, but I prefer the more subtle overall blend of colour, tone and fine details with the Zeiss lenses I now use. I love the square, and for me it's natural, our vision having no horizontal, vertical or even diagonal bias. I also have one less choice in a world spoilt for such. My beginnings in earnest were with just a 25mm Distagon on RTSII. I love this width but have put off till now its revisit in MF. Mine is a tripod, 'catch moments in nature as God made it' style, so the portability and street shooter ease of the SWC is not a decisive issue, nor is carrying their similar weights. Do you think it would be more prudent to get a somewhat 'cheaper' SWC first, to see if it suits me, and hopefully not lose too much on resale if it doesn't? How say ye? Thanks for helpful replies.