Hasselblad 40mm CFE vs. 903 or 905 SWC?

[chuck_thomas]

I am beginning a long-term project photographing various portraits of

people in their workplace. I currently own a 205 TCC and a 110mm f/4

CFE Planar lens, and am looking for something which will allow me to

shoot wide. I am weighing my options between an old 38mm 903 SWC, a

newer 905 SWC, or a 40mm f/4 T* Distagon. I am obviously looking for

minimal distortion and edge to edge sharpness, as well as uniform

color from edge to edge. Can someone who has experience with both of

these lenses please offer me some advice? Thank you.

[terrestrikon]

I had the 40 for a year and a half or so, then got a 905. For me the 905 was so much better that I sold the 40. Others, however, may give you the opposite opinion. Now I just wish I could get a full frame digital back at 25-35 Mp for about two grand... Maybe in several years....

 

As one friend put it, the SWC is about the best point and shoot in the world!

[brian_walton]

I'm lucky enough to own a 40mm CF Distagon. I have never tried a SWC so my impressions are a little one sided. If you intend to shoot people then they will be in the 5 feet range. For that you need to focus correctly and I would imagine the 40mm will have the edge over the fly by the seat of your pants SWC. There again as I have said...I'm a little one sided.

 

Brian

[peter_white2]

Brian is correct. At 5 feet you won't get accurate focus working quickly with the Superwide. You can focus a Superwide accurately, but it means swapping out the film back for a focusing screen and magnifying hood. So that means you're on a tripod since after focusing you then need to remove the screen and hood and replace the film back.

[thomas_breazeale1]

Chuck,I use a 40CFE with my 205 and find it to be extremely sharp edge to edge along with good color rendition of the subjects.It is a wide angle so the amount of distortion will be based on your experiance as a photographer with wide angle lenses in handling different situations.I can say that the 40 does have minimal distortion but obviously such things as converging lines are always issues.Sorry I have no experiance with the Biogon.

[olivier_koning]

I'd stick with the 40mm lens, even a 50mm, you can always back up your camera. The SWC has a fantastic lens but it's not the most versatile to work with in my opinion, you have to pre-focus it and make damned sure it is perfectly leveled (no distortion whatsoever if done properly). It depends how much you want to include in your picture and if you don't mind that "SuperWide" look in all your pictures.

 

Good luck.

[mark_ng]

well one thing for sure is that the differences in retrofocus and true wide will dictate that

the SWC will be much better and smaller.

[fino]

I traded in a 903 for a 40mm. I loved the 903 but couldnt live with the difficulty in focusing especially close up, and also using graduated filters and polarisers. I often like to use very short depth of field and the 903 just wasnt working out for me. I hadnt the control I wanted. Maybe if I was a better photographer I could have made it work. Of course if I'd lots of money I'd have both but I'm totally happy with the 40mm.

[cpj]

Some of the comments made previously regarding your question about the 40mm vs the

SWC do not point out that, while there isn't much difference between 40mm and 38mm in

coverage angle, the two lenses were designed for different purposes.

 

The SWC's are light, compact, extremely sharp and designed to be used primarily in

daylight at F-8 or less. They are superior to anything else available when used as

intended, and estimating focus isn't a problem. (If you have another camera available you

can use its focusing screen or rangefinder and transfer the readings if you are finicky.)

For nearly all daylight photography from four feet to infinity, you'll be satisfied.

 

There is no significant difference between the 903 and 905. The 905 uses an adjusted

lens formula so that the glass is made without using lead which was determined to be a

health hazard to workers in the lens factory.

 

The 40mm, on the other hand, was designed to provide extreme wide angle capability for

the 500 and 200 series cameras. It's retrofocus design makes it very heavy--front

heavy--and requires compromises that are not necessary in the 38mm lens. (The 40mm

is so heavy that you'll want tripod support; the SWC can be handheld and is often used as

a "travel camera" by those who wish to keep medium format handy on a trip.)

 

The differences in weight of camera-plus-lens using the 40 mm is really significant

compared to the SWC--perhaps 4X as heavy--but you should compare them side by side.

 

For Portraits, the person who suggested using a 50 mm, gave the best advice. Personally I

think that 40 mm or 38 mm would create a lot of problems in perspective when shooting

portraits. [i have both the 38 mm SWC and the 50 mm for my 203 and 503 cw and I would

strongly recommend the 50mm F4 as the widest "portrait" lens, but you should try them in

a camera shop.

[Aoresteen]

Chuck,

 

I think the FE 110 is an f/2 not f/4. You might find the jump from 40mm or 38mm to 110 too much. Instead of the 40 consider a 50 or 60mm wide.

 

I use a 2000FC/M and the 50, 80, 110, and 150 F lenses.

 

The FE 50mm f/2.8 is a very sharp and contrasty lens. Beware though, it weighs over 1200 grams! While I love the 50mm f/2.8, I bought a much lighter 50mm f/4 T* C lens to travel with.

 

Either the SWC or the 40mm (assume a CF not a C)are going to cost well over $2,400 used. How much would you use the lens? I have been debating the purchase of the SWC/903 for a couple of years now and have found a much more cost effective solution.

 

Mamiya makes a terrific 35mm f/3.5 lens for the M645. You could get a M645 1000S body & insert, AE prism, and the 35mm lens for $750. I've seen 50mm f/2.8 FE lenses go for $1100 to $1,500 on the bay recently. So for the cost of the 903 or 40mm you could get a 35mm and a 50mm. If you opt for the lighter 60mm or 50mmm f/4 you would save even more.

 

I'm in the process of doing that myself. The 35mm, 50, 110mm would make a great kit. I just bought an adapter to mount Hasselblad leneses on an M645 body for $75.

 

If you have to produce everything in 6x6 then the M645 won't work. But if you end up cropping anway, the M645 would be a good option.

 

If you are in the Florida area I could loan you my 50mm f/2.8 to try out.

[ilkka]

The size, weight and cost of the SWC with 38 is about the same as the 40 alone. Optically the 38 is probably a little bit better, but in reality the difference is very small. The 40 is easier to use fast, especially with 205 and built in exposure meter. It is easier to focus at close distances wide open. But to have another body with the 38 attached can be very useful as a backup. As has been said, the 905 is very handy as a travel camera and I often use it like that, but even then I much prefer to use it with a (light) tripod. Both the 38 and the 40 has to be kept exactly level to avoid distortion. With the 38 this is very easy because of the bubble level that is visible both through the viewfinder and from the top of the camera. With the 40, a separate spirit level needs to be used for same results.

[chuck_thomas]

Thank you all for contributing such useful information. I have processed this information and do believe the advice to look into a 50mm 2.8 is solid. I will check out both the 40mm and 50mm. However, I do believe for my purposes the 50mm will most likely win out. I wish I were in Florida to test Anthony's lens, but am unfortunately a little farther up the east coast (and yes, my 100mm is an f/2, not an f/4).

 

Chuck

[johnmarkpainter]

Chuck, <p>

 

I have an SWC (old one) and also a 50/4 C *T <br> If you REALLY want the Wide look, you

can easily use a Tape Measure to Focus. Not a problem at all. The built-in Level makes it

extremely easy to level the camera. <p> That said, the 50mm is certainly 'wide enough'

but of course is double the size and weight of the SWC. <p> You can see an example of

the 50 from about 4 feet away if I remember correctly <a href="http://www.photo.net/

photodb/photo?photo_id=3172854">RIGHT HERE</a>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Chuck,<br><br><i>(and yes, my 100mm is an f/2, not an f/4)</i>...<br><br>;-)

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Another option is of course to get a Rollei 6000 series camera which also sports the 110mm (it's 110mm) f/2 but in addition features a nice little 3.5/40mm Super-Angulon from Schneider. As good or better than the Zeiss, floating elements, half a stop faster, and half the size and weight. A neat little gem.

[simonpg]

Chuck, first up the direct answer to your specific question is that the 38mm Biogon is the most "minimal edege to edge distortion", outstanding sharpness and resolution of ultra-fine details you will ever find anywhere. This is a very well documented fact.

 

Additionally, it does not matter what version of the SWC you buy among the T* multicoated versions - the optical design is unchanged.

 

But, if you want to "see what you will get" that requires an SLR very wide angle lens - so the CF 40mm FLE or itterations of it are your only choice at this very wide angle. It is not as "undistorted" at the edges (see Hasselblad's web site for charts) but is a very very good lens.

 

My comments apply to the 40mm CF version and not the earlier C version which is very large and optically a bit behind the CF version. The current CFi/E version (I have not used it) is said to offer further improvements over the CF but at the expense of more optical distortion.

 

But, for me (although I am itching for a Biogon myslef) the CF 50mm FLE is a better option but is not such a very wide angle of view. For that I get better distortion control and sharpness characteristics - this is one beautiful lens.

 

All that said, while the Biogon 38mm has no optical distortion, you have to take care using it - as you move the camera angle you will create converging verticals yourself (because it is a camera/lens in one you cannot see what you will get, you can only frame the shot).

 

At least with the 40mm lens you can see that happening through the viewfinder. Athough the 40mm has some distortion it is still a very good performer as are all Hassy/Zeiss lenses. You should check the Hasselblad web site for performance details.

[chuck_thomas]

Thanks again, and yes, the lens is a 110mm f/2 (I knew I would finally get it right!)