SW vs 40mm Distagon

[alejandro_gulminelli]

Hello

 

I saw listed in Ebay some Zeiss Distagon 40 mm wide angle lenses.

 

Since the SW has a 38 mm I ask:

 

What is the main difference between the SW and a 503 with the 40mm?

 

Thanks!

 

Alejandro

[russ_britt3]

Super wide is more corrected....smaller, lighter. The 40 you can focuse throught the lens.

[robert x]

main two differences are that with the SWC you don't get to see through the lens and it is

much much lighter.

 

I was most worried about the non SLR set-up, but if my experience is anything to go by,

you will quickly get used to the finder, and the SWC has the huge benefit of having the

spirit level - vertical lines go crazy very quickly if a lens that wide is not level and the

square format seems much less forgiving of this than a rectangle, I think.

 

The Biogon has a deserved reputation as an incredibly sharp lens and I am pretty sure it is

better than the 40mm.

 

The weight is a huge bonus as well - after two years with a 500C/M, prism finder + 50mm

lens, the SWC feels like a toy camera to carry about. Also the lack of mirror means you can

handhold this down to pretty slow speeds [you will hear people say they do this down to

1/4 second] Personally I use a tripod as much as possible, as I figure the lens is so good,

the more help you give it, the better it is. I look back at my other blad pictures and they

look blurred in comparison to it.

 

Do some googling and you will find little written about the SWC that isn't full of praise.

 

RX

[q.g._de_bakker]

Alejandro,<br><br>The main difference is the obvious one: the 38 mm Biogon is not a retrofocus lens, and cannot be used on a SLR body (hence the SW body with peep-through viewfinder), the 40 mm Distagon is a retrofocus lens, ane can be used on SLR bodies.<br>So you get all the benefits of through the lens framing and focussing using the 40 mm lens, but there's a price to pay for that convenience. The Distagon's retrofocus design is slightly less good in terms of distortion compared to the Biogon.<br>And a retrofocus Distagon lens with SLR body is of course larger than a SWC with Biogon.<br>Apart from that, there's not much in it.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The 38 mm Biogon isn't a lot better than the 40 mm Distagon in terms of sharpness. It's just a bit better in the corners.<br>And the latest model of 40 mm Distagon, the IF lens, is even sharper than the Biogon (in the center of the field, and in the corners too). But it's distortion is a bit worse, compared to the previous model 40 mm lens.

[cameron_ertman]

One thing to keep in mind is that the SW uses regular sized B60 filters while the 40mm/IF uses the very large and expensive B93 filters. I use both systems and when I'm packing light and compact, the SW is the way to go; however, if TTL is important for flash work I use the 40mm.

[pico]

The 38mm Biogon is one heck of a lot better than the 40mm, but many people don't master

the SW in order to capitalize upon its excellence. It looks and feels like a P&S camera, but it

isn't one.

 

If one is doing critical framing, then he can pop on the accessory ground glass back and any

Hasselblad viewfinder. I prefer the 90 degree finder so that I can look straight down into the

image.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes. And many people think the Biogon's 1950s reputation, well deserved though it is, is part of its optical quality.<br>;-)<br><br>It is often heard said about this lens that it has very low, even no distortion. And for a wide angle lens it's not too bad. But not quite as low as often is said.<br>And that it is extremely sharp. Again, it is, But so are the 40 mm Distagons, the latest version even beating the Biogon.<br>And that's not a matter of learning how to master either lens.<br>;-)

[cpj]

Q.G. deB. tends to mix apples and oranges--fact and opinion--sometimes, so references

to the 1950's Biogon vs. the 1990's version are unwarranted here, in my humble opinion.

The 38mm SWC lens/body/back--ready to make photographs--weighs less than the

40mm lens alone. Plus the 40mm is very 'front heavy' which creates poor balance for

handholding.

 

Lens quality is a term subject to shooting technique and personal impression more than

something measured in lines per mm, unless you are using the lens primarily to do copy

work similar to shooting a ///mm chart.

 

99.8 percent of the people who own SWC's are thrilled with them and the other 0.2 percent

haven't really thought about it much. Look for examples of SWC work on this Forum.

 

Finally, you do NOT have to give up through-the-lens-viewing when using an SWC. Often

most of your Hasselblad work will be done on a tripod, and with a tripod you can use the

Hasselblad ground glass view screen with viewfinder attachment (or a Hasselblad prism

finder) to frame and focus. Then you snap it off and replace it with your film back and

expose your photograph.

 

This works great and what you see is what you get (assuming you want to be extra

precise.) Generally, the little optical viewfinder is fast, easy and accurate so most likely (at

least for me) you'll use the shoe-mounted optical finder,

 

The SWC is a complete camera and often one you'll want to carry for handheld shooting

when traveling with a 35mm SLR because it produces maximum quality images an is very

convenient to lug over your shoulder, always at the ready. A 503 with a 40 mm would

seem very cumbersome if used for the same purpose.

 

Initially I thought I wanted a 40mm for my 503, but when I compared them side by side,

there was no contest. The SWC was a featherweight. (Any in my opinion it produces

sharper, more contrasty , images than a 40mm.

[q.g._de_bakker]

CPeter,<br><br><i>"Unwarrented"</i>? Not at all.<br><br>The 1950s Biogon has remained unchanged until 1991 (!), when it was redesigned and the ever so slightly less good (!) 905-version appeared.<br><br>The Biogon's good reputation stems from the 1950s when retrofocus lenses were quite new, and not very good. Compared to them, the non-retrofocus Biogon was a very, very good lens indeed. Time has passed since then, and retrofocus lenses have become quite good. The Biogon, as mentioned, hasn't changed. The difference in performance between the two is still kept alive in the Biogon's reputation, but has almost completely vanished in real life.<br>Almost, because the Biogon is still better as far as distortion is concerned. And the latest 40 mm retrofocus Distagon is indeed sharper than the Biogon.<br><br>Reputations apparently have a too long life. What certainly was true in the 1950s isn't anymore today, even though many may think it still is.<br><br>Lens quality is indeed more than lp/mm. But statements like <i>"Biogon has a deserved reputation as an incredibly sharp lens"</i> (which it indeed has) and <i>"i am pretty sure it is better than the 40mm"</i> (which it isn't really) are about lp/mm.<br><br>Of course many, many people are thrilled with the Biogon. And they should be, because it is indeed a great lens.<br>But how many still believe the 40 mm isn't a great lens, even though it is?

[tarashnat]

More than likely the 40 mm Distagon lenses fron the original query are regarding the C

version of the lens that usually appears more often on Ebay than the later versions. This

version uses the B104 filters and is quite front heavy. The original poster should clarify,

 

Now the SW might be refering to the whole range of the Super Wide Cameras, instead of

just one particular model.

 

The 38mm Biogon does a good job of rendering lines as very close to being lines. With the

40mm C lines near the edges have a very visible curve. I can not comment on the CF or

later versions of the 40mm lenses, as I have no experience with them. But I would assume

that they are major improvements to the original 40mm design.

 

Taras

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Now the SW might be refering to the whole range of the Super Wide Cameras, instead of just one particular model. "</i><br><br>Indeed. But the interesting bit (and a testament to Ludwig Bertele's genius) is that all of those, except the 905, have the very same lens.<br>Zeiss' brute force computer design could not improve on this slide rule design. When restrictions on what glasses Zeiss can use made a redesign absolutely unavoidable, the new lens (the one on the 905) even was a very tiny step backwards in quality.

[gary_ferguson1]

I use the 40mm IF regularly, before I got the IF I used the previous 40mm, and I've used a

38mm SWC throughout.

 

I tend to agree with QG's assesment. The only part I might qualify or emphasise is that the

distortion on the 40mm IF is the worst of any Hasselblad lens I've ever used, and by some

margin. It's astonishingly sharp, but that sharpness unfortunately comes at the price of

annoyingly intrusive distortion.

 

The 38mm is an extremely impressive lens, all the more so given its venerable history. But

if you look at the MTF charts for the new Hasselblad H 28mm, or the image quality from a

Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digtal 35mm HR, then you've got to conclude that good as the

38mm Biogon still is, it no longer occupies some completely different performance realm

amongst medium format ultra wide angle lenses.

[russ_britt3]

I love my superwide...you may not.You can give reasons why a new digital camera is the most amazing thing ever made but I would much rather have a leica m camera. I think if you use a super wide its hard not to love it....I also like film go figure.To each his own...but don`t try to say the sw is out of date.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Noting that the modern retrofocus lenses are very good has nothing to do with loving or not loving Biogons. It is not putting down Biogons, it is giving these modern lenses the credit they deserve.<br>Biogons, after 50 years, are still very good lenses. So are modern retrofocus wideangles.

[robert x]

To get back to the original question - any advances on weight and having to use a finder/

ground glass ?

 

RX

[harvey_edelstein1]

Zeiss announced an 18mm lens for the Leica M series RF's and its a distagon design so today even non slr cameras have distagon designs. Also, the Biogon design really uses 2 more elements than the SWC has, just look at the full implementations on the ZM and G 35mm cameras and the copies of the Biogon that since the patents have run out are on medium format cameras too of course they can't call them Biogon for trademark reasons. Just compare the cutaways of the designs and you can easily see the Biogon imprint on the designs.

[Rob F.]

Obviously, both lenses have advantages. My choice is the Biogon. Use your 40mm Distagon if you must; but rather than argue, let Biogons be Biogons.

[pico]

<i>To get back to the original question - any advances on weight and having to use a finder/

ground glass ?</i><p>

That was pretty well answered above. If you need precision alignment and are not expert with

either lens, then the 40mm is the answer. If you are expert, then the 38mm is great.<p>

Truly, most of the complaints I've seen about the 38mm come from misapplications, persons

not being carefull. Pro work means being expert. Nimrods need not comment.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Harvey,<br><br>You can't count lens elements to decide what 'family' a particular lens design belongs to.

[jean-louis llech]

My two cents : <br>

The Biogon is probably a legend. I agree. But using a 38mm Biogon means buying a SWC, and a SWC means the Hasselblad system.<br>

Problem : I am a Rollei user. And I don't intend to buy again several backs, viewfinder, screens etc... only for one single camera, and then to carry them with all my lenses and backs for my Rollei cameras.<br>

Sub-answer : I don't intend too to sell all my gear and buy Blads.<br>

The 38mm Biogon is a fine lens. OK. But nobody speaks about the viewfinder and its distorsions.<br>

Finally, I use the Distagon 40mm HFT on my Rolleis, and I am very glad with it.<br>

If I had to buy a very wide angle camera now, I would buy either a Plaubel Proshift 69W with the Super-Angulon 47mm, or with more money an Alpa, also in 6x9 and with a SA 47mm XL.<br>

[pico]

<i>The 38mm Biogon is a fine lens. OK. But nobody speaks about the viewfinder and its

distorsions.</i><p>

I cannot comment on the late-model finders but the earlier finder does, indeed, have great

distortion and part of the lens and shade obscure the bottom of the view. True enough.<p>

But if you use it, it becomes a non-factor because the mind's eye accomodates the difference:

one knows what is being framed and that the distortion is not what the film sees.<p>

However, the subject was about Hasselblads, not the Rollei. No?<p>

[alejandro_gulminelli]

Hi!

 

I cannot believe what a great controversy I created!!!

 

I am new to medium format, bought my firt hassy less than a month ago. I found the 80mm Planar incredible sharp, but I miss a wide angle lens.

 

In Argentina, where I live, are several 50mm offered for sale for about $800. I tested one and I dont like it too much, I want more dramatic perspective.

 

In Ebay there?s a bunch of 40mm, from $500 to $3000. That?s why I made the first question. Unfortunately for me I cannot buy nothing on ebay from here.

 

What I didn?t see in any answer is the cost difference. A good 40mm is about $1000 but a even old SWC cost more than 3 times than that.

 

I am not a pro, only a photo enthusiast who is returning to standard photography after 10 years of digital. I cannot pay $3000 to shoot wide angle.

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for all the answers, very helpful! It is amazing the amount of comments I received

 

Happy holidays, sorry about my english

 

Alejandro

 

www.unafotopordia.blogspot.com

 

PS: yesterday in another retro-comsumer-impulse I bought a Olympus OM1 with 50 mm 1.4 and a 28 and 135mm for $200, I AM HAPPY!

[jean-louis llech]

Pïco, you say "the subject was about Hasselblad, not Rollei". That's right. I just answered because the Zeiss Distagon 40mm is the same on both brands, Blad and Rollei. If I am not a Blad user, I use the 40mm.

[roland_cachin]

Along the years, I had some models of 40/4 Distagon and I had an SWC too. In the practice of professional or every day photographic use,

I had always had fabulous >100cm X 100cm pictures. For me, a 500CM or 501CM or 503CW with a Prismfinder PME51 and a 40/4 is my

normal equipment for many years. I don't like the finder of the SWC and I like to have ONE body with me, with the possibility to have a

120mm Makro Planar and a second back and films in my bag.

At the quality of these lenses we can't cut the hair in four. All the Zeiss lenses are fantastic and the best is to try the SWC and the 503 and

after your choice, make pictures and pictures.....

You can certainly rent every body for one week-end each and choose after. It cost less than buy and resell and buy and resell....

Good testings.