SWC T* or 40mm CF for wide?

[peter_gilbert4]

<p>I currently have a 500 C/M body, 3 x 120 backs and my widest lens is the CF 50/f4. To go wider, choices seem to be either a 40 CF or FLE or a SWC T* with the 38 Biogon. Any preferences or are there any factors (unknown to me) I need to consider, besides price obviously. I plan mostly if not exclusively for landscape work.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance, Peter</p>

[leighb]

<p>I have used the SWC T* 38mm Biogon, although I don't currently have one. It's a fabulous lens. I used this camera extensively for industrial and architectural subjects.</p>

<p>I have the 40mm Distagon CF FLE and am quite pleased with its performance. It may exhibit very slightly more distortion on architectural subjects than the 38mm Biogon, but you'll only notice that on very detailed images.</p>

<p>The obvious disadvantage of the SWC is that it's a separate entity, an additional camera to put in your bag.</p>

<p>If you're doing a job that can be done entirely with this camera, it would be a nice choice. However, if you decide you need a bit longer FL to get the desired detail, you're SOL.</p>

<p>Also, the SWC won't work with Hasselblad digital backs due to optical issues.</p>

<p>I added the 40 CF FLE to my kit as the short end of a range of lenses that go all the way out to 500mm. It's great to have the option of choosing the right lens for the job, without changing camera bodies.</p>

<p>Just one man's opinion. Worth every cent you paid for it. ;-D</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Both are very good lenses.</p>

<p>I attach 40mm to Flexbody with Leaf digital back. It offerd some room for movement. <br>

I also put Leaf to my SWC whenever I do need movement. Personally, I like SWC.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have never owned any of these but have often researched them. Since you already have a 500 CM the logical solution is to get the 40mm. I know my heart would lie with the SWC because of it's reputation, but it is redundant.</p>

<p>If a true 6x6 digital back ever becomes available I'd be looking at these again.</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>The superwide is optically better, It is smaller and much lighter than using the 40mm.<br>

If you need to look through the lens then the 40 is the way to go.<br>

I do not own the 40mm but do have a 50mm and a superwide.<br>

But the superwide is a real ball to use. Another thing is I see a separate camera body as an advantage as it frees up your other body for other uses. Again this to is worth what you paid for it.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I loved my SWC/M, but ended up selling it when I moved on from my architectural practice. Later, I sheepishly bought the 40mm, after being told for so many years, how inferior it is to the SWC/M. I wish I had not listened to that advice, as I have been very impressed with the 40mm.</p>

[peter_gilbert4]

<p>Thanks everyone for the helpful comments and suggestions. I'm leaning towards the 40 which I think will be better for my purposes.</p>

<p>Peter</p>