Hasselblad SWC

Im going to go against the popular opinion here.

I've used SWC's since the late 60's and owned that I sold in favor of the 40FLE.

Do not confuse the 40 Distagon FLE or FLE IF with the old original design. The original I owned for thirty years and shot it on my Rollei SL66's and it was a fine lens but it was very large. It performed very well at all distances but the FLE is much smaller and exceptionally good even at minimum focus due to the floating element design. I do not own the IF version but understand it has noticeable barrel distortion but slightly better corners but slightly softer center. Trust me here, it's splitting hairs to argue this point. Unless you're enlarging to enormous prints there's no visual difference.

My experience with the SWC/CM. It's small and compact and fairly quiet. The lens is sharp and low on distortion. In today's work though the 40 FLE performs extremely close if not equals the 38 Biogon. This is an old design that was state of the art 60 years ago but computer designed and newer glass have caught up if not surpassed it.

I honestly see little upside to the SWC/M compared to the FLE and FLE IF. The VF on the SWC is terrible at best. Barrel distortion prevents critical composition and parallax in close doesn't help either. I find it one of the worst VF's I've ever used. Sure there's a ground glass and i owned one to aid in focus when I used a digital back on my SWC/M. At best it's a pain in the a$$. Even with a magnifier it's not bright and you have to work from a tripod. Having used 4x5 and 8x10 for 50 years the tiny 6x6cm GG is a joke, a bad joke. The 40 is easily handholdable and there's no guess work about composition if your subject moves and certainly no guessing about focus. Life is so much easier with the 40.

I sold my SWC/M and have never regretted it. Optically I've seen no difference even pixel peeping raw files from my digital back. Practically the 40 smokes the SWC/M. The 40 will always remain in my kit as one of my primary lenses.

I did however buy a camera I like better than the SWC/M that is scale focus. I bought a Brooks Veriwide with a Graflex XL ground glass back and film magazine. It has the 47 Super Angolan on it and a much better and bigger finder than the SWC/M. It's not a substitute for the 40 FLE but a nice supplement. If I had to make a choice of one lens or camera it would be the 40 FLE.
 
I think the trick is to pick up the Voigtlander finder for the SWC. I was fortunate enough to come across one for sale shorty after buying an SWC/M. I can't imagine going back to the original finder - even the later model - after using it.
 
FujiLove said:
It's much more practical to carry a body + 80mm + 40mm than lugging an SWC, 503 + 80mm around, and as you say, the practicalities and ergonomics are far superior.

The final reason I chose the 40mm over the SWC is cost. I picked up my mint 40mm FLE for less than half the price of a far-from-mint SWC.

And yes, I'd still love an SWC! :D
Click to expand...

The SWC is a (relatively) small, supercharged, superwide point and shoot, at least that's how I think of mine.

I'd never dream of carrying it around with another body and lens. I just take it out with the Voigtlander finder, a meter, a few rolls and enjoy.

I've never used the 40mm but if it's anything like the 50FE lens (which I have used), it means carrying twice the weight with an expensive, large filter size, and makes for a totally different experience in practical use.

All these Zeiss lenses are awesome and I'm sure the 40mm is no exception.
For me there's something quite zen about using the SWC. Vaguely frame, vaguely focus, level and click, it works for me.
I choose not to compare, or worry about what it's not, only to enjoy it for what it is.

A couple from mine:
36242863666_711e2662c7.jpg


36915042115_d65156023d.jpg
 
coogee said:
The SWC is a (relatively) small, supercharged, superwide point and shoot, at least that's how I think of mine.

I'd never dream of carrying it around with another body and lens. I just take it out with the Voigtlander finder, a meter, a few rolls and enjoy.
Click to expand...

Same here.

The Voigtlander finder made all the difference for me. There's an old thread somewhere where I showed the difference in what you see with the later Hasselblad finder and the Voigtlander. The Voigtlander is very accurate if you compare its view with what you see using a Rfmx+screen on the back.
 
I agree with this. I have tried the SWC but went for the 40 FLE CFE for use on my 203FE. It's a truly wonderful combination which balances extremely well in the hand. For such a wide lens I, personally, need to view the image through the lens to be able to line up the horizontals. The image quality up close is extremely good. I have never felt it lacking in this respect. It is not a hassel [sic] to have to set the extra distance ring.




x-ray said:
Im going to go against the popular opinion here.

I've used SWC's since the late 60's and owned that I sold in favor of the 40FLE.

Do not confuse the 40 Distagon FLE or FLE IF with the old original design. The original I owned for thirty years and shot it on my Rollei SL66's and it was a fine lens but it was very large. It performed very well at all distances but the FLE is much smaller and exceptionally good even at minimum focus due to the floating element design. I do not own the IF version but understand it has noticeable barrel distortion but slightly better corners but slightly softer center. Trust me here, it's splitting hairs to argue this point. Unless you're enlarging to enormous prints there's no visual difference.

My experience with the SWC/CM. It's small and compact and fairly quiet. The lens is sharp and low on distortion. In today's work though the 40 FLE performs extremely close if not equals the 38 Biogon. This is an old design that was state of the art 60 years ago but computer designed and newer glass have caught up if not surpassed it.

I honestly see little upside to the SWC/M compared to the FLE and FLE IF. The VF on the SWC is terrible at best. Barrel distortion prevents critical composition and parallax in close doesn't help either. I find it one of the worst VF's I've ever used. Sure there's a ground glass and i owned one to aid in focus when I used a digital back on my SWC/M. At best it's a pain in the a$$. Even with a magnifier it's not bright and you have to work from a tripod. Having used 4x5 and 8x10 for 50 years the tiny 6x6cm GG is a joke, a bad joke. The 40 is easily handholdable and there's no guess work about composition if your subject moves and certainly no guessing about focus. Life is so much easier with the 40.

I sold my SWC/M and have never regretted it. Optically I've seen no difference even pixel peeping raw files from my digital back. Practically the 40 smokes the SWC/M. The 40 will always remain in my kit as one of my primary lenses.

I did however buy a camera I like better than the SWC/M that is scale focus. I bought a Brooks Veriwide with a Graflex XL ground glass back and film magazine. It has the 47 Super Angolan on it and a much better and bigger finder than the SWC/M. It's not a substitute for the 40 FLE but a nice supplement. If I had to make a choice of one lens or camera it would be the 40 FLE.
Click to expand...
 
Some people ask stupid questions about what camera to take on vacation but on this occasion I am having the same issue.
Going up for the first time up to Washington DC in two weeks. I just do not know if I should take my swc/m or my 503CW with a 50mm instead.
So if any of you have the experience of shooting wide in Washington DC
I would appreciate some advice.
Cheers,
James.
 
I came from Distagon 60 to 50 then go 40mm ...
and SWC.. finally settle in SWC... for the sake of the no mirror slap..
on the street, I could handhold to 1/8 second in no worry

for my preference.. I choose SWC over the 40.. (now i own 60 and 120 for the 500CM)


Uncle's Daily Routine by William Jusuf, on Flickr
SWC/M and Kodak Ektar 100

Sincerely
William Jusuf
 
The SWC is my most lusted after camera, ever! I couldn't afford one in 1980, when I encountered this brochure:

swcBrochure.gif


I still can't afford one, but when I retire (many, many years from now) I wanna find one to keep me company in my old age.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom