raid
Dad Photographer
How does the 40mm lens look on a Hasselblad camera?
Is it really "like" using the SWC with its 38mm lens, but have better focusing?
Is it really "like" using the SWC with its 38mm lens, but have better focusing?
Hasselblad SWC is cool
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 776
- Views 132K
FrankS
Registered User
40mm is much bigger and heavier, but one can see what will end up on film. Trade-offs. I went with the 40 because it was cheaper too.
It's not about focusing for me. With wide angle and big DOF, I scale focus more than not (just as one does with a SWC.)
It's not about focusing for me. With wide angle and big DOF, I scale focus more than not (just as one does with a SWC.)
DavidKKHansen
Well-known
Isn't the 40mm a fish-eye sort of lens?
Levi Wedel
Member
The 40mm has significant distortion.
kubilai
Established
There was a time when I used the SLR 24mm so much that it became my standard lens. In such a point that I thought to get a SWC/M as my basic camera.
raid
Dad Photographer
I also expect to see distortion with the 40mm lens.
FrankS
Registered User
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The 40mm lens fitted to the Hasselblad 500CM, with lens hood, finder, and the same A12 back, looks to be about three times the volume and about double (or more) the weight. In a word, huge. It would be like carrying a blunderbuss around to go street shooting. 🙂
The 40 has a totally different look and feel to its output compared to the Biogon 38. The Biogon 38 is the magic of the SWC.
G
--
I knew I saw a photo of one somewhere:
Therobbstory
Member
Seeing some great work here, fellas! I've been on a job hunt for the last month with little time to shoot. I managed to pop into the National Building Museum for a few hours over the weekend, however. There's a fantastic photographic exhibit on Detroit right now. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.
National Building Museum by TheRobbStory, on Flickr
National Building Museum by TheRobbStory, on Flickr
FrankS
Registered User
Nokton48
Veteran
That happens to be my 500C/M and 40 Distagon. I took that photo with a wideangle lens, up very close. So it does look huge in that photo. The "Buick Tyre" dedicated rubber lenshood makes it look even more huge.
I used to use this lens alot shooting outdoor Rock Concerts. It has never let me down, although often I think results are better when it is well-stopped down. I focus using the DOF scale rather than reflex viewing.
Here is what comes up on Flikr for the 40mm Distagon. Some are actually pretty good.
http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=40mm+distagon
I have no intention of selling mine, but then, I do not use it for street photography. I need the reflex viewing for what I am doing.
I used to use this lens alot shooting outdoor Rock Concerts. It has never let me down, although often I think results are better when it is well-stopped down. I focus using the DOF scale rather than reflex viewing.
Here is what comes up on Flikr for the 40mm Distagon. Some are actually pretty good.
http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=40mm+distagon
I have no intention of selling mine, but then, I do not use it for street photography. I need the reflex viewing for what I am doing.
The 40mm lens fitted to the Hasselblad 500CM, with lens hood, finder, and the same A12 back, looks to be about three times the volume and about double (or more) the weight. In a word, huge. It would be like carrying a blunderbuss around to go street shooting. 🙂
The 40 has a totally different look and feel to its output compared to the Biogon 38. The Biogon 38 is the magic of the SWC.
G
--
I knew I had a photo of one somewhere:
bigeye
Well-known
The later CF and up 40s are 'normal' sized lenses, but take odd 93mm drop-in filters (early 40s - like the above - take similar filters, but are 104mm!). Later 40s run near to the cost of contemporary SWCs, too.
Distortion is a more on the 40 (~1.5% vs. ~.4% barrel) than the SWC, if you need numbers, but it doesn't bother me. Advantages are close focusing (<3'/1m) is quicker and digital backs will work (28mm-ish equiv. due to crop factor; about all you have for HB V digital wide).
-Charlie
Distortion is a more on the 40 (~1.5% vs. ~.4% barrel) than the SWC, if you need numbers, but it doesn't bother me. Advantages are close focusing (<3'/1m) is quicker and digital backs will work (28mm-ish equiv. due to crop factor; about all you have for HB V digital wide).
-Charlie
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yup, I thought it was a photo posted by someone on this forum. I saw it somewhere and saved a copy just to have a picture of the beastie ... I'm glad you've identified yourself!
Nice set of pix.
The later CF model Distagon 40 is so much more compact than the early model!
Ach, this equipment thing is a pain. Now I'd like another 500CM body ... never ends. ;-)
G
literiter
Well-known
Seeing some great work here, fellas! I've been on a job hunt for the last month with little time to shoot. I managed to pop into the National Building Museum for a few hours over the weekend, however. There's a fantastic photographic exhibit on Detroit right now. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.
National Building Museum by TheRobbStory, on Flickr
This is incredible. Probably what I like most about the SWC. In the right hands you get work like this.
mrak
Member
I am conflicted.
I currently shoot with a Mamiya 7 and want to go wider. The obvious choice would be getting the 50 or 43mm lens but I have a thing for exotic cameras and the SWC appeals to me with it's beautiful classic Hasselblad design and compactness.
But getting a camera just because you like the looks would be irrational wouldn't it?
What bothers me are 3 things. The Price. The SWC is surely a unique camera so it's not a surprise that it sells for quite high but at a certain price point I start to think of all the other cameras I could buy instead. The compur shutter swc models seem to sell for the most reasonabe prices for me.
How accurate is the old metal viewfinder? I only heard bad things about it so far. One reviewer even called the new plastic viewfinder almost useless to compose with. I know that cosina made a better viewfinder but it's rare and expensive.
And the biggest problem: focusing. How hard is it? The 4.5 aperture of the lens isn't a lot already so I wouldn't want to stop down to 16 to get decently sharp shots. I also don't want to carry around a rangefinder.
So just how practical is the SWC in everyday use?
I currently shoot with a Mamiya 7 and want to go wider. The obvious choice would be getting the 50 or 43mm lens but I have a thing for exotic cameras and the SWC appeals to me with it's beautiful classic Hasselblad design and compactness.
But getting a camera just because you like the looks would be irrational wouldn't it?
What bothers me are 3 things. The Price. The SWC is surely a unique camera so it's not a surprise that it sells for quite high but at a certain price point I start to think of all the other cameras I could buy instead. The compur shutter swc models seem to sell for the most reasonabe prices for me.
How accurate is the old metal viewfinder? I only heard bad things about it so far. One reviewer even called the new plastic viewfinder almost useless to compose with. I know that cosina made a better viewfinder but it's rare and expensive.
And the biggest problem: focusing. How hard is it? The 4.5 aperture of the lens isn't a lot already so I wouldn't want to stop down to 16 to get decently sharp shots. I also don't want to carry around a rangefinder.
So just how practical is the SWC in everyday use?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ridiculously easy. You need to be REALLY bad at estimating distances to get it wrong with a 38mm Biogon -- or to forget to focus altogether.
Cheers,
R.
hausen
Well-known
I went out in search of a SWC awhile back and instead come home with a Arcbody + 35mm and 45mm lens. Still have a hankering for a SWC but the Arcbody is a darling to use. And 35mm is wide.
Levi Wedel
Member
I have the 7II and 50. It's easier to use than the SWC because it's about as wide a field of view horizontally, but vertically cropped. That said, the SWC has a very unique look.
The SWC works best hyperfocal focused. F8 is about as low as I dare go without using the ground glass attachment. F8 will show some dof and it can be guessed, but at wider apertures it can be hard. I don't think 4.5 would have very much in focus anyway, and there's probably mechanical vignetting. I haven't tried it, so I can't say. Most commonly I shoot at F16.
By everyday use, it depends what you mean. If you want precise focus and selective focus, the 7II will be a better choice. I like the SWC myself and wouldn't trade it for the 43mm. As for the 50mm, they do different things. I would recommend the newer SWC viewfinder. It's accuracy is good at hyperfocal. Close framing will always be a problem because of parallax, but it can be guessed most of the time. The viewfinder only shows the top 2/3rds of the image, so you have to look down and pan up, which sounds hard but isn't. You can still see the bottom edges of the frame, just not the center bottom (lens is in the way). For critical work, the reflex viewfinder and ground glass make the SWC much better than the 7II. In terms of joy to operate, I prefer the SWC. It handles really well and is fast to use. Not many parts, no battery, nothing to think about. Point and shoot.
The SWC works best hyperfocal focused. F8 is about as low as I dare go without using the ground glass attachment. F8 will show some dof and it can be guessed, but at wider apertures it can be hard. I don't think 4.5 would have very much in focus anyway, and there's probably mechanical vignetting. I haven't tried it, so I can't say. Most commonly I shoot at F16.
By everyday use, it depends what you mean. If you want precise focus and selective focus, the 7II will be a better choice. I like the SWC myself and wouldn't trade it for the 43mm. As for the 50mm, they do different things. I would recommend the newer SWC viewfinder. It's accuracy is good at hyperfocal. Close framing will always be a problem because of parallax, but it can be guessed most of the time. The viewfinder only shows the top 2/3rds of the image, so you have to look down and pan up, which sounds hard but isn't. You can still see the bottom edges of the frame, just not the center bottom (lens is in the way). For critical work, the reflex viewfinder and ground glass make the SWC much better than the 7II. In terms of joy to operate, I prefer the SWC. It handles really well and is fast to use. Not many parts, no battery, nothing to think about. Point and shoot.
Monz
Monz
Similar threads
