Hasselblad SWC

[tjaded]

Hi everyone--
I am trying to buy a Hasselblad SWC from a person I know. I am having a little trouble getting him to commit to a price! He was a professional photographer for many years (decades, really) and is somewhat out of touch on the flood of items on the market. I've been trying to use eBay completed auctions as a basis for a price, but eBay being what it is...well the prices are all over the place. So I guess my question is how can I come up with some currrent, realistic prices to show him so we can start the real negotiation? Of course, it could be said that I should just buy one from eBay or whatever and be done with it...but I do know that he takes REALLY good care of all of his gear and eBay is a crap shoot in that respect. In addition to all of this, does anyone have any experience with SWCs? I've seen the 'chrome' lens, the black lens (post 1969) but then I have seen picture of a black lens from early ones...like mid-1950's I think. What is the difference, if any? I have a 40mm Distagon which I LOVE, but the odds of me getting all the filters I want (bay 104!) are slim to none, the SWC is much more forgiving in that respect. Has anyone here compared results from a 38mm Biogon vs. the 40mm Distagon? I guess that's it for now....

Thanks,
Matt

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

the 38mm biogon is a much more highly corrected lens. The 40mm is a retrofocus design, so it has distortion in it. Not that it is bad, by any means, but the Biogon is the superior lens.

There are the three varieties of this camera - the early chrome lens (uncoated, b50 filter size), the late (black) chrome lens (ie still a C style lens, but in the black body, most likely with T* multicoatings, b50 filter size), and the CF style lens with the b60 filter size, rubber focusing ring, etc. They were named, in order, the Superwide, the SWC and the SWC/M. The current model I believe is still called the 903 SWC.

For a fair valuation example, I'd use the KEH website - they sell their gear at very fair prices, and usually the actual condition is far better than the grade would suggest. Their idea of Bargain is usually most people's idea of Excellent+ . For example, they have a chrome lens Superwide in Bargain condition for $1479. A 903 SWC in EX+ is $3799. A SWC/M should fall somewhere in between those prices - my guess would be $2000-2500 depending on age, condition, etc. You can tell the age of the camera from the serial # - the first two letters give the year in which it was made. Use VHPICTURES to obtain the age (V=1, H=2 etc).

 

[photobum]

Yes e-bay is a crap shoot. The Fly gave the best possible advise with KEH. The market has fallen out from under Hasselblad and there are deals to be had. The superwide is holding it's price a bit better than other more popular 'Blad gear though.

 

[John Simmons]

I bought a SWC/M from KEH in Ex+ condition for $2,600. It looks like it was never used. The accessory view finder has that mounts on the hot shoe has a little paint chip off of it but otherwise it's mint. I had a 40mm CF distagon lens that I sold when I comparred the results of the two lenses. No contest in my opinion...the SWC/M was much better.

Regards,
John

 

[nicolai]

The current version is the 905SWC, in which the performance was actually downgraded slightly to comply with the EU's lead-free manufacturing regulations. (Previous versions had lead in the glass, which is only a hazard in the manufacture, but not use, of the lenses.)

 

[nik4s]

bought mine a black mint swc/m on the auction site for 2100 without magazine in a box. Need the rmfx viewfinder for proper viewing with the ground glass adapter, so it then begins to add up. Tried an older 40mm not the latest and preferred the swc. Like the fact that can use my 60mm filters on my superwide.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I bought a Hasselblad Super Wide, with the chrome lens mfg. 1959 according to the serial number. There are some scratches here and there on the lens barrel and body. The glass is likely uncoated but perfectly clean and scratch free.
It came with some issues but after a few hours in the hands of a excellent and very local camera Tech the shutter runs perfectly and lens flare is non existent. I may have been lucky in my purchase but I would definitely consider an older (less expensive) Super Wide, if I were to lose this one.
I have never compared the newer models of this camera, in fact I've never even held one (I think I'm afraid to) but for my purposes I'm very happy with this old critter.
I have heard some biased reports that this camera may even have some advantages over the newer SWCs but I'll let others confirm or disagree.

 

[Nokton48]

Early Superwides take Series 63 (not threaded) filters. A screw-in ring could secure the filter in the mount. Alternately, you could use the #40282 Lens Shade 38 to hold-in the filter. The 50 and 60 Distagons also take the same series 63 size.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The remarks about earlier 38/4.5 Biogons being uncoated struck a nerve. Wasn't Zeiss coating everything by 1950, i.e., before that lens was introduced?

 

[Richard Kelham]

The remarks about earlier 38/4.5 Biogons being uncoated struck a nerve. Wasn't Zeiss coating everything by 1950, i.e., before that lens was introduced?

It would indeed have been coated, but not T*.

I used a chrome Superwide in the 1970s and it was a great little camera – optically far superior to the 40mm olens, and a whole lot lighter! Used to call it "the rich man's Box Brownie".

Can't say I'd noticed the bottom falling out of the Hasselblad SWC market



Richard

 

[Paul Goutiere]

Elsewhere I have seen information that the chrome Super Wides are indeed coated, I'm pleased to report since I own one. So I take it back. But not T*.

A early chrome unit has now sold on the auction site for over $1666.99. I am rather surprised at this. Gob smacked actually. I had no idea this old critter of mine would have such a cult following since there has got to be something manufactured now, technically superior for less money. I'll keep it anyway.

But this is OK.

 

[edtbjon]

The performance difference in between e.g. a chrome SWC and a modern 903/905 SWC is minimal. In practical terms you cannot tell the difference.
The biggest difference, apart from the coating (non T* vs. T*), is that the SWC/M and later models have a Prontor shutter and uses Bay60 filters. The more modern shutter (probably) is a better shutter, which doesn't need as much attention as the older Compur shutter which sits in the older SWC's (and all other older Hasselblad lenses).
It is good practice with all mechanical shutters to exersize them once a month or so. This is particularly important with the Compur shutters of older Hasselblad lenses. I have one 80mm lens which looks like new but now serves as an expensive paperweight. This because of the longer times which doesn't work anymore. (I found a similar lens for about the same money as a CLA would cost.)
Having said that I'm very happy with my old SWC with a black T* lens. I see no reason to swap it for anything more modern, unless I win the lotteries. It was a "beater" when I bought it, so it feels OK to toss it around whereever I go.

//Björn

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Matt,

The 38/4.5 Biogon is a 'magic' lens but the SWC is a bastard to hold steady: Zeiss found much higher resolution from the same lens when used on an Alpa, simply because you can hold the Alpa steadier.

Also compare distortion figures of the 38 and 40.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Terence]

The biggest difference, apart from the coating (non T* vs. T*), is that the SWC/M and later models have a Prontor shutter and uses Bay60 filters.

//Björn

Not quite. My SWC/M takes the older series size filters. Bit of a pain. I find the Cokin system with a 67mm thread adapter works, even though they are not supposed to be compatible 67mm threads. thank god for loose threads and loose women.