Photos showing difference between 38 Biogon and the 40 Distagon.

[jo_dad]

Can someone show me the difference in results between the 38 biogon and the 40 Distagon please?

 

Has anyone taken pictures of the same subjects with the two lenses to show the differences in rendering and distortion~?

 

 

I’m just hoping for a visual demo of the difference rather than just a written description.

[orsetto]

You would think there'd be some examples of this comparison posted somewhere, given people have been hashing out this question on the internet for 25 years. But apparently not, perhaps because both the SWC and the 40mm were nosebleedingly, mindnumbingly expensive when new. So even most pros wouldn't think to keep both on hand for a direct comparison test: you sold one to finance the other, or you rented one or the other based on each shooting brief. It would have been unusual to take both out into the field.

 

Someone here may eventually show such a comparison, but if they do bear in mind it will only show the differences between two of the four Zeiss Hasselblad 38-40 options, and not necessarily be indicative of what you'd get from a Bronica SQ 40mm or other alternatives. The SWC Biogon has low distortion, excellent sharpness to the corners, noticeable vignetting, can be shot from the hip at lower shutter speeds. The 40mm Distagon C was a remarkable lens for its time, but huge and less capable than the later CF-FLE. The CF-FLE has less vignetting than the Biogon, but is not quite as sharp and distortion-free. The final CFI-IF is as sharp or sharper vs the SWC, with minimal vignetting, but has obnoxious mustache distortion. It was the only Hasselblad V lens primarily optimized for digital work: it answered complaints from pros that the crop sensors of the day effectively turned their 50mm into an 80mm, and they were somewhat disappointed with the performance of the existing 40mm as their only wide option. If you only use film, the differences may be more subtle.

Edited April 25, 2019 by orsetto

[jo_dad]

not necessarily be indicative of what you'd get from a Bronica SQ 40mm or other alternatives.

 

I ended up getting a Bronica 6x6 with the 40 as you guys suggested. That thing is so much fun! I never thought id enjoy wide angle and even be able to use it but, for me, the wide is amazing to use and framing seems so much easier in square than in the rectangle format that i got used to with my 35mm cams.

 

I have a Rollei 2.8f and although that's square (this is the first time i realised i preferred 6x6) as well, its the normal 80mm so...

 

I was just curious about the hassys i guess because it is the eventual option because I figure either a 500 series or swc (well, certainly an swc) will be a bit smaller and lighter than my Bronica so, knowing myself, eventually in a year or two ill try to get either of those two options. Just trying to figure out which.

 

I really like the ability to focus. I didn't realise how much i missed that until after i sarted using the bronica. For a year or so before i was shooting a tiny rollei 35SE and actually i enjoyed the freedom of not focusing (or actually zone focussing). I never really took real closeups or shallow photos because i was always at f8 and higher. with the bronica i have been playing with closeups at 40 (real fun). I reckon i might miss focusing accurately with the SWC and also the ability to frame accurately. The thing is, the fact that the 38 is rectilinear is super appealing and it would suck to pay all that for the 40 and not have that rectilinear distortion free image...

[orsetto]

The Bronica SQ 40mm PS is well regarded: I would imagine comparable to the Distagon 40mm CFE-FLE in terms of distortion and probably resolution on 6x6 film. The final Distagon Cfi-IF is ridiculously expensive for what it is: to some degree because fewer were made, and its still the holy grail wide angle for Hassy V users with digital backs. It is very sharp, but on 6x6 not the greatest choice for architecture or landscapes/seascapes with very straight horizons due to the mustache distortion (on a typical V-back digital sensor, the distortion is cropped toward simpler barrel: a little easier to correct via Phocus software).

 

A web displayed comparison might not give you an entirely accurate feel for the differences of any 6x6 SLR lens vs the SWC. There are some less obvious features that might not come clear until you actually try the SWC for yourself. It has low rectilinear distortion, yes, but that is moot if you can't get the hang of aiming and composing with it. Depending how you intend to work, one great advantage is minimal vibration and unobtrusiveness: with practice, one can pull off some amazing street and spontaneous shots, at useful slower speeds like 1/60th or even 1/30 (which you wouldn't dream of with the huge 40mm on a clanking jarring 500 body). This was a big deal for Hasselblad 500cm owners, but perhaps less so vs your Bronica: if the SQ/40 combo is hand-holdable at 1/60th, the SWC would be less compelling in that aspect.

 

The SWC Biogon has another couple tricks up its sleeve that may or may not be crucial. Some users claim it has significantly more apparent depth-of-field than any of the 40mm retrofocus reflex optics: more than you might think from just a 2mm difference in marked focal length. This again would facilitate spontaneous shooting via hyperfocal distance setting. Earlier SWCs with metal-barrel lenses (and the 903) use an exotic "toxic" glass formulation which gives it a specific rendering quality: this lead-arsenic glass was later banned, so even the final 905 SWC isn't quite the same experience as "original" SWCs (its a bit closer to the 40mm rendering). All very subtle points that many would argue can't be seen by most photographers: whether you could see it could only be revealed by shooting an SWC yourself.

 

Given you've almost instantly bonded with your SQ/40 combo, you're probably a very good candidate to exploit the SWC someday. The two most difficult adjustments most feel when moving to the SWC are coming to grips with 38mm wide angle 6x6 format, and the non-reflex imprecise focus/compose handling. Since you already love the perspective/format combo, you're two steps ahead of most other SWC aspirants: the only thing that could blow it for you is the non-reflex handling. As I've mentioned in previous discussions, this is something you'll figure out within a few weeks or months: quickly enough to resell an SWC without losing much (if any) money on the audition. Renting is an option, but the fee to rent one for a week is probably more than you'd lose from buying it outright and evaluating at your leisure for a couple months before reselling (if you don't love it).

[jo_dad]

one can pull off some amazing street and spontaneous shots, at useful slower speeds like 1/60th or even 1/30 (which you wouldn't dream of with the huge 40mm on a clanking jarring 500 body). This was a big deal for Hasselblad 500cm owners, but perhaps less so vs your Bronica: if the SQ/40 combo is hand-holdable at 1/60th, the SWC would be less compelling in that aspect..

 

Yes this is something that is very appealing about the SWC and actually a reason i didn't consider a Hasselblad 500/1000/2000 etc type camera (with the big mirror slap - like a Hassy/Bronica/Mamiya's 67/Pentax67) and instead went with the rolleiflex. It seems so far that on the Bronica that 1/60 is ok on the negs. Where it is a little difficult is having to flip up the mirror prior to triggering the shutter and risking changing the composition slightly. Also, the weight makes it a little bit difficult being super still, maybe as i train at the gym a little more, things will improve ;) but still...

This was also one thing that was a con for the 40 Distagon and a pro for the SWC.

 

 

Given you've almost instantly bonded with your SQ/40 combo, you're probably a very good candidate to exploit the SWC someday. The two most difficult adjustments most feel when moving to the SWC are coming to grips with 38mm wide angle 6x6 format, and the non-reflex imprecise focus/compose handling. Since you already love the perspective/format combo, you're two steps ahead of most other SWC aspirants: the only thing that could blow it for you is the non-reflex handling. As I've mentioned in previous discussions, this is something you'll figure out within a few weeks or months: quickly enough to resell an SWC without losing much (if any) money on the audition. Renting is an option, but the fee to rent one for a week is probably more than you'd lose from buying it outright and evaluating at your leisure for a couple months before reselling (if you don't love it).

 

Apparently the Voigtlander angle finder (as difficult as it is to source) allows slightly more accurate framing. To be honest, im not sure why since, i imagined paralax issues would be the same on any external VF. Do you know if the angle finder is indeed a bit better for framing?

 

The lack of accurate focusing i think wont bother me as much as the inaccurate framing, compliments of my time with the Rollei 35...

 

 

Still, all in all, i must say, i am very glad that i made my original post here about the SWC alternatives because, like I've said, this wide 6x6 format is super cool and very enjoyable to shoot. So, thank you Orsetto and thank you to those others that wrote to me on my other post :)

[Ed_Ingold]

The CF40 has about 1.5% distortion across the diagonal. In practice, it is invisible unless shooting a test chart or (well built) brick wall, straight on. For landscapes, portraits and even city-scapes you can use the 40 with impunity.

 

The Biogon nearly touches the film, consequently is subject to vignetting and, due to the high angle of incidence in the corners, is not recommended for digital use. It's most demanding application is aerial photogrammetry, and possibly for archiving paintings and tapestry.

 

It is relatively compact, for an Hasselblad, and seems to be a popular, if expensive P&S for many users. Neither would be considered "wide" by 35 mm standards. With a cropping digital back (1.5x) the FOV is that of a wide-normal 60 mm lens on film. I bought mine for that purpose alone.

[jo_dad]

(well built)

 

Lol

 

 

 

I wouldnt use the camera with a DB, just film

Not interested in it for P&S shooting either. Many have said that the rollei 35 should be used as a P&S, just setting to f8/11, setting focus to 3m or something and just shooting away. I didn't use the Rollei35 like that . I actually played around with the focus and aperture a lot. Would probably be the same way with an SWC...

[mag_miksch]

with the big mirror slap - like a Hassy/Bronica/Mamiya's 67/Pentax67

Mamiya RB67 has the best mirror damping ever^^

[dan_lindsay]

I guess one of these days I’ll have to scan some transparencies to look for the differences between them. When I was into Hassy ages ago I had a 903SWC with the focusing screen and the 40mm CFE which I fitted on my 503CW. Clearly, the 40 was quicker to shoot accurately (I even had the PME45 for metering) and focus. Stand by this channel for images some day.

[Moto-Uno]

And here we are , 4 years later and I still don't see those images 🙂 ! Peter

[Niels - NHSN]

2 hours ago, Moto-Uno said:

And here we are , 4 years later and I still don't see those images 🙂 ! Peter

Yes, curious minds want to see the results from the two lenses @dan_lindsay 😊

[rodeo_joe1]

I can show results from a 35mm Sekor on the Mamiya 645 if that helps. 

Too wide? 

Edited March 30, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[arthur_gottschalk]

I think the "clanking  jarring  500 body" and "big mirror slap" is more theoretical than actual, certainly at everything but  maybe  the slowest shutter speeds. You hear lots of talk about it but I have yet to see it demonstrated or noticed it in my pictures. If you are talking hand-held, operator induced vibration would likely cause a much larger problem, and  tripod use with the mirror-up function is easy and will eliminate  that possibility.  But yes, all that's redundant with the SWC, one of the best cameras ever designed. 

[orsetto]

5 hours ago, arthur_gottschalk said:

I think the "clanking  jarring  500 body" and "big mirror slap" is more theoretical than actual, certainly at everything but  maybe  the slowest shutter speeds. 

If you're referring to my post earlier in this thread, note I was specifically comparing 500 reflex body with reflex 40mm vs the the SWC with 38mm Biogon when used for street/PJ shooting. My point was the larger reflex body with blunderbuss reflex lens, coupled with the more noticeable firing sound, is not nearly as discreet as the smaller, tidier, near-silent SWC. Thats not to say many great street scenes haven't been made over many decades with the reflex 500 series, but if being less noticeable is the goal and the 40mm AOV is high priority, an SWC could be the more compelling system. 

In other more common use cases, the 500 series performs differently for different photographers. The vibration issue can be overblown, the noise is objectively irksome depending on environment. I find shooting the 500 reflex bodies with trigger-equipped side grip yields much better results at slower shutter speeds than the direct body release, others have no issue getting steady shots cradling the body without a grip.

Ergonomics are a factor among different users: FWIW, I have the same issue with the body release on my Mamiya TLRs, which have no moving mirror (the position of and action of the body release, compounded by an awkward weight distribution, results in more physical movement while firing vs using a side-mounted trigger grip release). OTOH, I can successfully shoot the massive Mamiya RB67 reflex camera at remarkably low shutter speeds without a grip, due to its perfect weight balance and extremely well damped mirror action.

Edited August 29, 2023 by orsetto

[arthur_gottschalk]

19 hours ago, orsetto said:

If you're referring to my post earlier in this thread, note I was specifically comparing 500 reflex body with reflex 40mm vs the the SWC with 38mm Biogon when used for street/PJ shooting.

My apologies, I misunderstood.  I thought you were speaking more generally. And for sure the SWC is vastly superior to the 500/40mm set-up in this case.  I find that in tight situations it's even possible to shoot with the SWC without raising it to your eyes. 

[Moto-Uno]

And getting back to my earlier remark concerning the pictures I was hoping to see , it appears he hasn't returned to this

forum for 3 years ! I guess it's gonna be quite some time 🙂 . Peter