Replacing 40mm/4 Distagon with a SWC --- worth it?

[arthuryeo]

I'm thinking about replacing my 40mm/4 FLE Distagon CF with a newer

SWC (perhaps, 903). Is it worth the effort? The MTF showed a

difference of, perhaps, a 10-15%.

<p><p>

<li>How does it actually perform in real life compared to the Distagon

CF?

<li>Is it a better all rounder? I shoot landscape (i.e. really need

the DoF) and also street & informal human images

<li>Would you make the replacement? Why?

<li>Close up performance matches the Distagon? With the FLE, I can

focus pretty close and the performance of the Distagon is pretty good

across the frame.

<li>Feel free to add more.

[aaron_lind]

The SWC doesnt have anywhere near the distortion the 40mm does.

 

Ive seen the SWC used for everything.

 

I would never mess around with the 40 FLE. Doesnt interest me and doesnt have anywhere

near the cool factor of the SWC.

 

Plus, its like getting another camera.

[cpj]

The 40 mm is a retrofocus wide angle which by the nature of its design makes a lot of

compromises. The SWC not only gives you a better lens, but another camera body for less

weight than the 40 mm. I doubt you'll find anybody who has owned both a 40 mm on a 'blad

and an SWC who actually prefers the 40 mm. Some people have just ONE 'blad and it is the

SWC.

[jeff.grant]

I have both. When I bought the V96C, the 40 became my standard lense. If you are contemplating a digital back, it might be a better option. Having said that, I can't bring myself to even think about selling my SWC.

[brian_walton]

I have gone down this track myself. Finally I stuck with the 40mm. It is a very very fine lens. The reason was that I can run it with the motorised 553 without having to stop and wind on. You can't do that with the SWC.

 

However as a snap shot camera the SWC is hard to beat.

 

Brian

[wayne_haas]

Arthur: Have you considered the possibility of owning both? I cannot comment on the 40 since I have never owned it; but I have been using a SWC/M over the past eight months pretty much for the same uses that you summarized. It excels as a light scouting camera when exploring trails, and makes for a reasonable second body when carrying a fuller kit.

 

The principle disadvantage to the SWC for landscape work is if you intend to use polarizing and/or graduated filters, or have a need for precise in-camera composition at times, then using the focusing adapter is pretty much a necessity. For such applications the 40 would be quicker (particularly when the light is quickly diminishing) and less prone to 'missed steps'. There are times when using the focusing adapter I ask myself why not use a 4x5 field camera instead ;-)

 

Question: do you also own a 50? If not, the SWC and 50 complement each other very well for landscape work -- the differences in angle of view between the two is more than sufficient to warrant carrying both in many instances.

[charles_mason]

The 40mm is a great lens. So is the Biogon. Very different usage potential here, since the

Biogon is in the end an imprecise viewfinder camera, unless you use the ground glass, and

the 40mm is TTL viewing/shooting. I own both. Really in day to day shooting see little

difference in the quality of the two. But huge difference in how I shoot with each and the size

and weight commitment of the 40mm, especially with a prism. Get both, you won't regret

it...

[ulrik]

You mention close-up performance of the SWC. Close-ups are only possible with the ground glass adapter for accurate focussing. You cannot mount extension tubes on the SWC to extend the focusing range. You would need a distance plate between magazine and camera to do that. The Biogon is better but less versatile.

 

Ulrik

[paul_neuthaler]

IU had an SWC/M last summer & enjoyed it -- but tired of it after a few months & sold it. I use a 50 & really enjoy it! Does this make sense as written?

[simon_park3]

I own both as well (76 manufacture SWC and a CFE 40) , and

have tested the two lenses side by side on the same subject

with 25 ISO film on a tripod, printed to 12x12"... and the

difference?

The centres are indistinguishable at that size and the SWC is

sharp right into the corners, whereas (if you look very closely) the

40mm corners show a little loss of sharpness especially on

closer subjects.

 

Personally, if I had to let one go it would be the SWC - issues of

corner shading with digital backs (for the future when I can afford

one!) and I just seem to spend more time setting up a shot

because of the SWCs somewhat inaccurate viewfinder. But it is

the ultimate connoisseurs Hasselblad if ultimate sharpness is

that important to you, and if it is, you might consider an Arcbody

and get ultimate DoF (tilt and shift) as well.

[cameron_ertman]

For the street or informal images, the SWC is great (I often use the 903 as a kind of grab-shot camera). When using it with the viewfinder though, you need to make sure it's relatively level or you will need to crop later. I also use it for landscapes when I need outstanding DoF. As an added bonus, the SWC uses regular sized B60 filters.

I use the 40mm when I want to use wide angle distortion to my advantage (the exagerated wide-angle look). I also use it when I want in-camera meter capabilities or a dedicated flash (TTL). On the down side, the 40mm set up is much larger than the SWC once you put a lens shade on etc.

If I had to get rid of one, it would probably be the 40mm. I just can't ever see selling the very versitile 903.

[todd_phillips1]

I have a 40 CF and simply couldn't do without it in my photography business. Great lens.

 

That said, I'm sure the SWC might be a bit better....however, if I have to put the SWC on a tripod (always would), level it, check focus with a GG back then put on the film back...I might as well use a 4x5 where I have to do all this anyway. Plus I get a bigger neg/chrome.

 

It probably depends on what kind of photography you do.

 

I'd keep the 40.

[christian_kloumann]

Hello Arthur.

 

The CF/CFE 40 is the perfect lens in combination with the unique Hasselblad 1.4x PC-Mutar. It makes +/- 16mm shift possible.

[arthuryeo]

Sounds like I should keep my 40mm and get the 38mm Biogon when I get a chance. I guess the SWC can be used like a rangefinder with a large neg while the 40mm is more suitable for precise focusing in low light situations.

 

Thanks. It was very interesting, reading all of your experiences: truly educational, indeed.

[simonpg]

Arthur,

 

I have the 50mm CF FLE Distagon. My personal position is: I f I were to want wider than my 50mm, I would 100% buy an SWC - any vintage that I could afford.

 

I ahve used the 40mm and IMHO it has too much distortion and is very hard to hold at an angle that does not add more distortion.

 

The 38mm Biogon is remarkably distortion free - read very very low distortion. It remains one of the most remarkable super-wide MF lenses and the optical formula is unchanged from the very first itteration.

 

Edge to edge sharpness is just superb. Easy to use in the field (yes, maust be held well to avoid creating distortion).

 

That's how I see it. But the 40mm has an important place in the line up where super-wide users need to "see what they are getting" before releasing the shutter - not possible with the SWC.

[q.g._de_bakker]

But, Simon, being a little bit wider, the Biogon would be even more difficult to hold "at an angle that does not add more distortion".<br>;-)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Oops! There's more.<br><br>There's distortion, and there's "distortion". The thing you see when you tip a wide angle lens is perspective, not distortion. It doesn't matter how much, or little, real distortion a lens has, it is always the same, not a deciding factor.<br>;-)<br><br>The Biogon's design was changed going from 903 to 905 model. Still good though.

[ilkka]

QG,

 

"Biogon would be even more difficult to hold at an angle that does not add more distortion".

 

Not quite since the Biogon comes with a built in level that can be seen through the viewfinder. But I am sure you know that.

[john_layton]

Perhaps the best "walking around" combo I've ever owned was an SWC plus a Rolleiflex

3.5F. Just have a 3.5F at this point, but will aquire another SWC when funds permit.