Hasselblad SWC or 21mm Biogon ZM

[arthuryeo]

I am seriously considering the above 2 lenses and I am torn between

the 2. I do not intend to get both at this time --- just one. Both

are Biogons and the used SWC is about the same price as the new ZM

21mm. I am not using these for architectural work but more likely

humans, night citiscapes and may be landscapes. I lust for big

prints so there's my problem: the SWC gives me a 6x6cm but not as

portable and the lens is a lot slower than the ZM. Anyone know if

camera shakes is big problem for the SWC and is it, primarily, a

tripod bound camera?

[mingus1]

... this is not a serious question now is it ?

[john_morris4]

Can you really get an SWC in good shape for $1000? Now I'm tempted (but I already have the other CV 21).

[vivek iyer]

Either you have a lead on to an incredible bargain or simply hallucinating, Arthur.

 

If the SWC is about the same price as the 21 ZM, the choice is clear!

(even if it is not, the choice is clear! :-))

[lutz]

Arthur, the SWC used will cost around $1'500 and up, depending on magazine and finder y/n and types. It is not necessarily tripod bound (have a look at Friedlander's body of work) but keep in mind that it is neither a rangefinder nor reflex lens. Focus has to be either guessed or controlled with the help of a ground glass which replaces the film magazine. The latter is viable for tripod shots only, of course. Bulk and weight are much more substantial than those of the 21 ZM. Anyway, you can get a hang on walking around with the SWC. Cheers.

[eric friedemann]

Arthur, IMHO, the Biogon-design 43mm lens (21mm equiv. in 35mm) for Mamiya 7 variants is better than the two SWC variants I've used. Also, this being the Leica forum, shooting a Mamiya 7 variant is much more like shooting a Leica M camera than shooting an SWC variant. Mamiya 7 variants give a rectangular 6x7 format, have meters and, though you would probably want to use the shoe-mounted bubble finder to give you more precise framing, you can still use camera's rangefinder for focusing:

 

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/43.htm

 

 

David Hume Kennerly used the Mamiya 43mm extensively for his book "Photo Du Jour":

 

 

http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/pdj.php

[Rob F.]

I use my SWC hand-held just as often as I use it on a tripod. When I need to keep the verticals lined up, I just switch my eye, at the last moment, from the finder to the bubble level. It is a comfortable camera to use hand-held. It is neither heavy nor hard to carry.

 

I would say that a 21mm and the SWC both have about an equal need to be used on the tripod, as they are both sensitive to misalignment. BTW, the SWC covers about the same horizontally as a 24mm on the 135 format.

 

For the purpose of big enlargements, the SWC will give you a usefully larger negative.

[vivek iyer]

Arthur, If money isn't a problem, you can consider the 43mm Mamiya that Eric suggest along with a Mamiya7II or a 75mm Biogon for your 4x5 outfit.

[eric friedemann]

Also, while Photodo never tested an SWC variant 38mm lens, they did test the beastly expensive Hasselblad Distagon CF 40mm f/4.0 FLE lens. The Mamiya 43mm lens outperformed the Hasselblad lens (as you're interested in big prints, note particularly the scores at 40 lp/mm):

 

 

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/HaDistagonCF40_4FLE-214.shtml

 

 

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/Ma7N43_45L-311.shtml

 

 

The Hasselblad 40mm retails special order at B&H for $4,775. While the Mamiya 43mm is $2,600 new, you can find these used and in excellent condition for less than half that. I got my 43mm for $1,200 in like-new condition from a Hollywood chiropracter who couldn't get the hang of rangefinder cameras.

[stuart_richardson]

I am with Eric here -- I got my Mamiya 7II and 43mm lens together for less than the cost of

an SWC. I also have the Zeiss 21mm. The Zeiss 21mm is absolutely fantastic, but the Mamiya

43mm is just as good, but on 6x7. You do the math. Since it is rangefinder coupled it is very

quick and easy to use. The Mamiya 7 can be handheld to about the same speeds as the Leica.

The only difference is that it is bigger and bulkier than the Zeiss/Leica combination, and it is

a stop and a half slower. Finally, if you are going to be shooting a lot of people and so on,

you might appreciate that you get 36-38 shots a roll versus 10. But side to side, the print

from the Mamiya is going to look a lot better.

[adnan_76]

Don't worry too much about portability... you'll be surprised where you can squeeze an SWC into. I used to carry mine in one of those real small cases designed for SLR's attached to a small lens.

 

Humans, if they're close up maybe a bit harder to focus than citiscapes and landscapes, but really as everyone says, the DOF is tremendous. And yes, they can be had for quite cheap... I think I may have sold mine for around 1300 shipped last year.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://adnan76.com/atl/images/atl4.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://adnan76.com/machupicchu/images/jj.jpg">

</center>

[Rob F.]

Wait a second, here. The 40mm Distagon is not in the same league with the 38mm Biogon. The former is a mere retrofocus wide-angle, and only a fair-to-middling lens; the latter is a true wide angle lens and one of the best ever made. It doesn't matter what photodo said about the 40. It has nothing to do with this.

 

Granted the Mamiya gear is good, but he's asking about a SWC.

[dan_fromm2]

Arthur, I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on my humble little Century Graphic. I get, if I want, the 44 mm x 66 mm images that the lens would give on an Alpa 12, also considerably more in the way of cropping opportunities. The lens covers 84 mm, I can get as much as 81 x 22 with good image in the corners, a little higher with black corners. Who needs an XPan anyway?

 

I wouldn't use my Biogon for people, it requires getting too close to them. I wouldn't use it for most landscapes; shots of, e.g., distant mountains come out a lot of dirt in the foreground and something pretty small in the background. Never tried it for night cityscapes. Where it shines for me is in shooting forest clearings and the like.

 

But if you must use a lens that wide, remember that done right (NOT in an SWC) the 38 Biogon will give you negatives that can safely be enlarged roughly twice as large as the 21 will give you.

 

If you can live with a somewhat longer lens, on 2x3 a 47 sees the same angle of view as a 20 does on 24 x 36. By an odd coincidence, I also shoot a 47/5.6 Super Angulon on my Century. Same situation as the Biogon, the bigger negative contains more detail than can be captured on 35 mm. If you want something more easily hand-held than a Century -- but remember, if you shoot hand held you lose most of the advantages of having a good lens -- consider a Brooks Veriwide.

 

Good luck, have fun,

 

Dan

[deardorff8x10]

I have not used the Biogon ZM, but have the 21 3.4 super angulon for leica and the SWC. I

think that while both are nice lenses, the SWC makes much nicer negatives due to the larger

size. With or without a tripod, you will get less grainy negatives with the SWC, which should

allow you to print larger. The SWC has a nice close focus of 12", which I use, but not

everyone will. The 21 should have marginally greater depth of field, but I do not really find

this a contstraint with the SWC.

[stuart_richardson]

Rob -- the Mamiya 43mm is a biogon clone. It is a non-retrofocus design (the rear

element sits millimeters from the film plane and is huge...it is at least 2 inches long).

Check out Ken Rockwell's review of it: http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/43.htm

<P>He says among other things: <P>"This spectacular lens is the most perfect lens I have

ever used.

<P>

It appears to be a direct copy of the Zeiss Biogon. The cross sectional diagrams are the

same. It also has the same unusual freedom from internal mechanical vignetting unique to

the Biogon, has the same speed (f/4.5) and angle of view.

<P>

Even better, the Mamiya 43mm is a copy of the better, original 10 element Biogon first

used in the 75mm f/4.5 lens for view cameras, not the simpler 8 element version used in

the far more expensive Hasselblad SWC.

<P>

This is a better design than the simplified 8 element design used in the Hasselblad SWC.

The 43mm is multicoated, the earliest SWCs are not. The Mamiya 7 has a rangefinder for

precise focusing, the SWC requires you focus by guessing or measuring the distance with a

tape measure or separate rangefinder!

<P>

This works far better than the SWC I used to own, and is sharper, too. I have compared

them directly and have the film to prove it."

 

 

<P>One man's opinion of course, but one man who is used to testing and who owns both

lenses.

[stuart_richardson]

Ok, a bit of a money where the mouth is thing here. Here are some photos from both the

21mm Biogon and the 43mm Mamiya. <P>21mm ZM: <P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/21mm-zm-clouds2.jpg"><P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/21mm-zm-clouds3.jpg"><P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/shiodome-walkways2.jpg"><P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/shiodome-media-tower.jpg"><P>And some from the Mamiya

43mm: <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/infrared-

mission-43mm.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/efke-

courthouse.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/shinto-teki-no-

sharp.jpg"><P>A crop from that one: <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/

shinto-teki-no-sharp-crop.jpg"><P>And one last one: <P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/jozankei-fall.jpg"><P>This last crop is from the lower right

corner, showing just how sharp and detailed the lens is, with zero distortion. This was

scanned at maximum resolution on an Imacon 646, and the lens is clearly outresolving the

scanner. <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/jozankei-fall-crop.jpg">

[arthuryeo]

Thanks to all who have contributed to help me decide. More than 90% of you favor the SWC over the ZM. Hmmm ... that's interesting, coming from a supposedly Leica crowd. :) Now, that's true camaraderie with no biasness!

 

As for the Mamiya, it is an alternative that has many rave reports about its ultra sharp lens, I don't think I want to start on yet another camera platform --- a MF rangefinder.

 

Coming back to the Hassy, considering the fact that I already have the 40mm Distagon FLE and the super expensive 93 series Zeiss Polarizer, I can't help but to peep into its MTF and compare it with the SWC. The latter seems to have a slight edge in terms of contrast at the low end of the resolution test but as the resolution requirement increases, they're more or less the same. I am sure the distortion on SWC is a lot less. Note that I am looking at the mtf of the 40mm Distagon FLE CF and the 903 SWC.

 

Now, about usability: Pulling out a 40mm Distagon on a 501CM is a little scary looking on the street. You immediately see passersby tripping and quickly avoiding the camera. :) What's your experiences with the SWC on the street, like in the downtown of a midsize/large city?

 

There's another matter which I am still unclear about: how do you focus with the SWC? Yes, the DoF is super deep but are we saying we have to slap a ground glass on it and then remove the glass and put the A12 back on to shoot? Or you just guess the distance --- the HC-B style?

[arthuryeo]

Thanks, Stuart, for sharing with us your images. Very crisp images and the Mamiya ones certainly have an edge due to a larger neg/slide.

 

I also want you guys to know that I have the Leica Viewfinder (21-24-28). I assume it can take care of the 21mm Biogon, if ever I slap it on my Leica-M.

[adnan_76]

No probs in the city or anywhere. Its an odd looking camera to most people, but it really is quite small. I've had a lot of people ask what it was, just out of curiosity.

 

There's no need for groud glass unless you're doing very close up work, and there are much more practical solutions for that anyway. You use the hyperfocal distance principal to focus, and the huge DOF makes this super easy. Trust me, focus won't be a problem... interpreting the viewfinder to figure out what will and won't end up on your negative is a different story :)

[arthuryeo]

Thanks, Adnan.

 

>interpreting the viewfinder to figure out what will and won't end up on your negative is a different story :)

 

Now, that's scarying me. Are u saying the viewfinder is highly inaccurate in terms of the bright-lines? Any bright-lines (sorry, I'm spoiled by Leica's) ?

[adnan_76]

After a couple of rolls, you figure out what's going on. Mine's was real old, with a chrome lens and "megaphone" style finder. If you could somehow get your eye up to the finder (not easy to begin with), you'd have to "unimagine" the massive barrel distortion the finder shows (that doesn't show up on the negative ofcourse), and then "imagine" what the actual frame is (not... exactly... spelled out for you). Oh, then there's the cool trick you have to do at the same time where you look at the prism on the side of the finder which shows a reflection of the bubble level finder, and then level the camera in a direction reverse of what the bubble shows :)

I don't remember bright lines, but there was some sort of dot in the middle of the finder. Not sure what it was for.

<p>

I hope I'm not discouraging you, its really got a charm, and you'll find you reach for it over and over again. You can really use it in all sorts of places. My sis turned her pad into an art gallery one day for some local artists, and I used the SWC document the show.<p>

<center><img src="http://adnan76.com/strip.jpg"></center>

[stuart_richardson]

Well, I wouldn't say the depth of field is huge by any means. Huge compared to other MF

cameras, but the depth of field of a 38mm or 43mm lens is the same, regardless of format.

That means that you are scale focusing a 38mm or 43mm lens -- not the ideal option for

critical applications. The rangefinder in the M7II will give you spot on focus every time, to get

the same results, you need to use the groundglass on the SWC, or guess.

[fotografz]

The differences in quality between the various MF lenses under discussion are minute. All

of them will be better than a 35mm version if you're making larger prints.

 

I'd have to agree that the Mamiya is absolutely wonderful in terms of use for more street

and impromptu applications because of the coupled focusing. The only reason I sold my

Mamiya 7II and all the lenses including the 43 is because it couldn't take a digital back.

The SWC can. The 503CW can. It was strictly a business decision because MF does double

duty for me ... both personal and commercial. But you can't go wrong with any of it IMO.

The SWC is so small as to not be an issue. Focusing isn't much of an issue either unless

you are extremely poor at estimating distances. The framing issue is not as big a issue

since I secured the newer SWC viewfinder made by V/C. Plus it has a diopter correction

which the stock finder doesn't offer.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Save your money, buy 21 ZM!

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli Bari Italy

[eric friedemann]

Marc Williams, I had some angst in buying M7IIs for the reason you mention. I doubt if the cameras/lenses will ever be able to be retrofitted for digital. I'm not worried now because of the availability of film, processing and film scanners. But availability will become an issue for 120 film shooters as the years pass.

 

 

Questions for you, Marc: Have you actually used an SWC with digital back? If so, how large was the sensor and- understanding that Biogon wides have rear elements that butt up against the film plane and display some light falloff- did you experience any exagerated falloff using a digital sensor, as opposed to film?