Hassy's go wide?

[zthee]

Hello!

First thread for me. And I'm kicking off with a kind of a apple or oranges question.

I've lately had a feeling that I need to go wider. And I'm packing 2 systems right now. Hasselblad V and X. All film, no digital.

The V is kind of packed. A 203FE, 50mm, 80mm, 110mm, 350mm.
And the Xpan only has a 45mm.

I really like the 50mm on the V. But it's not as wide as I'd like it. The 45mm on the Xpan is about the same - It's an awesome allround lenses, and I love it! But you know. Sometimes you just feel like you need to go wider...

So coming down to the real nitty gritty - The options.
1) Get a 40mm f4 CFE for the 203FE
2) Get a SWC/M
3) Get a 30mm for the Xpan.

So my thoughts.
1) I'd like the CFE version, so I can still use the built-in meter in the 203FE with out stoping down. Which is slightly more expensive than the CF version. It's lighter (350g) than the 50mm, but slower. It has some distortion, not much, but more than the SWC. If I get this, I might sell the 50mm...
2) It's a SWC! Epic! Though it means there's a new "system". I'd need a light meter (iPhone will solve that though). And from what I've read you either hate it or love it. Afraid I might hate it... I figure it would be best using it on a tripod with the focusing screen. Slowing down the process quite a bit. But that's fine for me. I like my photos taking time.
3) It's even more $$$ Expensive and hard to get! Plus add on's on the Xpan makes it a bit clumsier. It's a lot slower the the other two options. With center filter it's practically a F8(?) lens? But I love the panoramic format! And it's the widest option.

It's really hard. Right now I'm leaning a bit more to a SWC. But the 30mm is calling my name (Or perhaps it's the GAS... Hard to tell some times...).

Anyway, just any thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Vickko]

I own all three. Here are my comments:

1. the 203FE with 40 CFE or the Xpan with 30mm will be your fastest shooting options. Both have automatic exposure - literally point, focus and shoot. You get direct viewing and composition with the 203FE, and RF Leica-like handling with the Xpan. Sure, the auxiliary finder for the 30 on the Xpan increases the bulk, but, it is still manageable. The Xpan has 3 lenses - 45, 90 and 30.

2. the SWC is a very different shooting experience. When I first bought it, I thought it was very odd that the shutter button was on top, until I put it up to my eye. Don't pretend that it is a Hasselblad any more, with waist level shooting. Shoot the SWC as an eye level camera. I thought I'd use the ground glass viewer and compose with it on a tripod, but, way too slow. I don't get into that frame of thinking unless I'm out with a true 4x5 field camera.

If you shop properly, all three should hold their resale value, which reduces the risk of trying it and disliking it.

Vick

 

[zthee]

Thanks for the input!

I'm afraid the SWC might be too slow too. Eye level sounds exciting though!

I guess eventually I will get all three. It's just a question of where to start... Thank you yet again!

 

[Vince Lupo]

Can't see how an SWC would be too slow. Scale focus, point, shoot. Nice thing is that you don't need to be tied to a tripod with that camera, and can use as a different kind of snapshot camera. I traveled throughout New Mexico with one a couple of years ago, and never used a tripod once (didn't want to carry it on the plane anyway!). Of course, it's a fixed lens, so you're restricted to the one lens, but if you don't mind that, it's quite an awesome camera.

 

[Tim Gray]

The SWC is a seriously cool camera. But I'd figure out if you want to look through the lens (get the 40) or if you want panorama (get the Xpan 30). If none of that makes a difference, then get the SWC.

 

[FrankS]

I'll be picking up my 40 C distagon in about 10 days. Can't wait. At most, 1/3 the cast of an SWC which was the biggest factor for me. It's much bigger and heavier, but faster and you can see what you'll get on the focusing screen without removing a back first.

 

[ChrisN]

Check the weight and bulk of an SWC (body/lens) against a 40mm lens. I think of the SWC as part of my V kit, because it takes the same backs and some of the same filters. However the SWC is lighter and much quicker to shoot with. And the results from that excellent 38mm Biogon lens can be glorious.

 

[x-ray]

Frank the 40 C is a fine lens. I used them for years and had the same lens for my Rollei SL66's.

I went Hasselblad about seven years ago because my Rolleis were about worn out after thirty years of hard commercial use. I have a SWC/M and a 40 CF FLE. The both have heir good and bad points. The 40 has some chromatic aberrations when looking at my digital files at 100%. They're easy to correct with a click of the button in Phocus which is the raw converter. If you're shooting film you most likely will never enlarge enough to see them. You would have to make 100 inch prints and view them at six inches to see them. It's very sharp and the FLE feature is a big help at close focus. Let's say I'm extremely pleased with it. It is a rather large and heavy lens but so are all the Hasslelbad lenses other than the 80mm.

The SWC/M is a stunning little machine. You just can't say anything bad about the glass. The downside is the lousy finder. Distortion is terrible and accuracy is ???. It's just to much of a pain to use the focusing back unless you absolutely have to. If I'm going to that much trouble I'll shoot on my view camera which is easier to use.

After getting the 40 CF I rarely use the SWC/M. The 40 is that goo in my opinion. If I could only have one I would pick the 40 for general work.

 

[ChipMcD]

I don't own the 203FE or even any wide angle lenses for my old 500C/M. I do have a 903 SWC. It is my favorite camera, although I don't use it as my primary camera. I have used it for street shooting without a problem. I find the 500C/M to be a "slower" camera. The images are everything you would expect from Hasselblad and then some.

Here's a couple of samples:


Untitled by AmSteinsgraben, on Flickr


Untitled by AmSteinsgraben, on Flickr


Untitled by AmSteinsgraben, on Flickr

To be fair, I have to admit that the last shot was on a tripod.

 

[emraphoto]

My 2 cents about the SWC.

Beautiful camera. Right size, reasonably quiet.

Finder sucks... And I mean SUCKS. To the point where I find it crippled for the sort of work I do (documentary work, up close, dynamic)

If you are very meticulous about what is in the frame, beyond the ground glass, it is not te camera for you.

I do shoot a 501cm with the 50 and a leaf back, for wire gigs believe it or not, and that is a way more precise and suitable rig in my opinion. Even with the crop.

I would go the 40 route myself. Smashing bit of glass (I have heard saying that is a faux pas)

 

[zthee]

Wow! Thanks guys!

This makes everything soo much easier. Now I want the 40mm AND the SWC even more. And I think I can wait with the 30mm for the Xpan...

It's such a though choice, apple and oranges. Sweetness vs. sour! Or was it the other way around? It seems like I have to rethink the slowness part of the SWC. I figured that with guesstimating focus all the time and no built in meter - that it would be slower. But it seems like I was wrong?

ChipMcD Amazing pictures, that's really what I needed to see. The middle one sold me straight away - It has exactly that kind of "space" (I.e. you are here) that I'm looking for! The bottom one is also lovely! Thanks for sharing.

I've come to belive that the old finder of the SWC is worse than the new (903/905) finder? I.e. previous finder was just a door peephole? Newer is better? Or?

 

[didjiman]

I have both the XPan+30mm and the SWC and they are very different.

The XPan is .... panoramic. Sort of D'uh but it really is what it is. Either your scene works in panoramic or not.

The SWC is square, or 645 and that's just a very different way of seeing the world.

XPan is definitely faster. I can use it all days on the street. SWC, I have not tried it much on the street yet. You can't go wrong with either. The SWC images are just spectacular, but I suspect it may be the difference between medium format film rather than 35mm film.

 

[bigeye]

I went with the SWC, but wouldn't hesitate to get the 40mm. The predominant type of shooting matters for your choice. Close ups (1m/3') are easier with the 40; at other distances TTL matters much less.

You need to get confidence in the SWC's scale focusing and viewfinder framing. That's not hard and Polaroids, digital back or chimney finder come in handy for learning. After you see how the camera does, it quickly becomes easy to use. ("My, everything is in focus!" - you'll rarely use the chimney again.)

I went with the SWC because it is relatively handy and, since it resides in the same pelican, can be a backup to the 500 (I'll get something, even if all images are superwide.) If you like it, it's a lifer camera.

- Charlie

 

[Nokton48]

My Choices For Wide Blads.

My Choices For Wide Blads.

On the left, my 500EL/M with 30mm Fisheye Distagon-C.

On the right, my 500C/M with 40mm Distagon-C.

I've never owned an SWC/M, but I prefer reflex viewing. I have a friend who complains about parallax problems/failures with the Superwide. So I stick to the 40mm. Perhaps that's why they made the groundglass back and stovepipe for the Superwide.

 

[FrankS]

500cm with 40f4

 

[Nokton48]

Hey Frank,
How are you getting on with your new 40mm?
-Dan

 

[emraphoto]

500cm with 40f4

yeah baby!

 

[FrankS]

Hey Frank,
How are you getting on with your new 40mm?
-Dan

Very good, thanks. I shot a roll on the day I picked it up, along the Toronto waterfront, then I've used it again to take some rolls during the dress rehearsal of the community play I was in.

 

[Nokton48]

Very good, thanks. I shot a roll on the day I picked it up, along the Toronto waterfront, then I've used it again to take some rolls during the dress rehearsal of the community play I was in.

Sweet! Looks good! Tis a great lens, I often take out the 40mm/350mm Combo. Working the long and the wide.

 

[karlori]

Perhaps that's why they made the reflex viewer for the Superwide.

The SWC has a reflex viewer 😱 ? Could you please link to it or to some material concerning this ?

Thanks !