Recommendations on 40mm lens for Hasselblad?

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi Hasselblad users, I am considering one of the 40mm Distagons for my Hasselblad. I often photograph in and close, where I want the viewer to think they are inside the scene. I have a 50mm CF and use it often. As for the 40mm:

1. 40mm C - big and heavy. Mega piece of glass! For USA buyers, prices sold on ePrey recently ranged from approx. $400 to $800 or a bit more. The cheaper ones are non-T*.
2. 40mm CF - smaller and lighter, but more expensive. It looks like prices ranged from $1200 or $1500 and up. Someone bought a CFE from Hong Kong for $4000.

Most of these used 40s look pretty good, and I can see they they are not used nearly as much as the 50, 80, 100 or so lenses. The SWC/M is over $2000, so a bit more than I want to spend. Any suggestions or user comments? Thanks!

 

[mrosenlof]

I have the CF version with the floating elements. Very nice lens. I have not used or seen the older C version. I think I read somewhere that the cf is better in the corners, especially close up. I would expect that the C is still pretty decent.

 

[mpirie]

I have the big CT* version of the 40mm.........can't say i use it much (because of the size compared to the 50mm) so can't honestly comment on the quality.

If you can afford it, my suggestion is the CF version....or the SWC. I had an SWC/M for a while and loved it......wish i'd never sold it now!

Mike

 

[Sirius Glass]

I recommend the SWC in any form over the 40mm lens, because SWC is rectilinearly correct and much more useful.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There was never a non-T* 40mm as far as I know. Let me know if you find one, it would be chrome.

As far as the C T* version I had a beat up one briefly and it's a really cool lens but an absolute beast to handle. It's hard to adjust everything and hold the camera. Image quality is really quite good at all subject distances and most reasonable apertures. It is not as sharp as the 50FLE or the 60 Distagon but it is a very respectable performer.

For the price, I parted with mine because I didn't feel like I'd use it enough and got a 50 FLE instead which I regret. The reason I regret it is because I've found the 60mm to be my favorite lens and it doesn't make sense to carry a 50 and a 60. A 40, 60, 80, 150 kit would be perfect.

If you have a deal on one, I would urge you to get the C T* version instead of the CF FLE. That's because at the price of the FLE the SWC is a better lens/camera in every way for handling and ease of carry reasons.

 

[AndyH]

This is from a Hasselblad catalog I have. I think it’s ca 1970. I thought it might be helpful.

Andy

 

[Kodachromeguy]

There was never a non-T* 40mm as far as I know. Let me know if you find one, it would be chrome.
.

Here is an example of a black 40mm non-T* lens:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Hasselblad-C-40mm-f-4-Distagon-lens-with-caps-case-NICE-LQQK/133112764483

Several of these are listed on the infamous 'Bay.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I'd get an SWC with the 38 Biogon. None of the 40 Distagons can hold a candle against it. L

 

[Alan Gales]

I recommend the SWC in any form over the 40mm lens, because SWC is rectilinearly correct and much more useful.

You certainly made a believer out of me! The SWC's are amazing.

 

[k.hendrik]

If you have the money; go for it !
after a while I used it as a point & shoot camera....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77846450@N00/24150966815/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77846450@N00/23957867440/in/dateposted-public/

 

[etn]

Another vote for the SWC!

 

[guangong]

Not long ago I was eager to acquire a 40mm lens for my Hassy. My fiend, a recognized Hasselblad authority, convinced me that they all are heavy and unwieldy, and so I would probably not use it very often. This seems to be the general comment on this thread. If I had the money I would go with the SWC.

 

[Frank53]

One more for the swc.
Regards,
Frank

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Another vote for the SWC. The whole camera with 38mm lens is lighter and smaller than a 40, and I think the results are better with film.
If you were to put a digital back on it, the results may be better with the 40 due to its retro-focus (Distagon) design. Digital sensors may not be as good at handling lenses that are too close to the sensor due to the angle at which light has to strike the sensor toward the corners of the image. Film doesn't care as much (although there still may be a bit of falloff toward the edges).

 

[Slixtiesix]

As other´s said, the SWC might be an option too! Regarding the 40mm, the decision is easy. If you want to shoot at infinity while stopping down the lens to f8-f11, the older version is pretty much sufficient and not worse than the FLE version. If you want to shoot at close range and/or with larger apertures, better take the newer lens. There is also the very rare 404/ CFE IF, which was the latest version. This lens has extremely good resolution but also a bit more distortion. Unless you drum scan every negative, the old C-lens or FLE versions may be more than good enough.

 

[C Jensen]

With the 40C, do not fail to figure the filters into the equation.

 

[Hekoru]

I have a 40 CF FLE (the floating element version). It its heavy, but really really nice. I use it quite a lot for landscape, where the 50mm can't quite get the same dramatic angles. As for filters, 100mm square filter systems work fine with the 40mm. I use a Nisi kit and can use both colour and ND filters with minimal vignetting.

P.S: I also have a SWC, and even with the focusing screen adapter, it's a pain to use. As someone else mentioned earlier, as a P&S though is fantastic.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi Hasselblad users, I am considering one of the 40mm Distagons for my Hasselblad. I often photograph in and close, where I want the viewer to think they are inside the scene. I have a 50mm CF and use it often. As for the 40mm:

1. 40mm C - big and heavy. Mega piece of glass! For USA buyers, prices sold on eBay recently ranged from approx. $400 to $800 or a bit more. The cheaper ones are non-T*.
2. 40mm CF - smaller and lighter, but more expensive. It looks like prices ranged from $1200 or $1500 and up. Someone bought a CFE from Hong Kong for $4000.

Most of these used 40s look pretty good, and I can see they are not used nearly as much as the 50, 80, 100 or so lenses. The SWC/M is over $2000, so a bit more than I want to spend. Any suggestions or user comments? Thanks!

I have a 40mmCF and love t. It'soo much wider than the 50mm!. I paid $1300 at ffordes in the UK a few years ago. One of the better purchases I did;highly recommended!

 

[Arthurwg]

I have the SWC as well. In many respects I think it's the best camera ever made. But I do see the attraction of composing on the ground glass with the 40mm lens, and you could also use it with the D40 ttl flash if you have one of those cameras.

 

[Ai Print]

I have a 40 CF FLE (the floating element version). It its heavy, but really really nice. I use it quite a lot for landscape, where the 50mm can't quite get the same dramatic angles. As for filters, 100mm square filter systems work fine with the 40mm. I use a Nisi kit and can use both colour and ND filters with minimal vignetting.

P.S: I also have a SWC, and even with the focusing screen adapter, it's a pain to use. As someone else mentioned earlier, as a P&S though is fantastic.

I also have the 40mm CF-FLE, plenty sharp for 99% of work done. I passed on the SWC for the same reasons, I need precise framing and the workflow of the SWC does not do that as well as a V body and lens.

 

[eli griggs]

How do the prices between a SWC and 4.cm CF lens compare, I would like to have the SWC, in the distant future, however others here might be basing their decisions on costs no mobility.

IMO.

 

[philipus]

I have the 40 CFE (non-IF) and absolutely love it. It is solid and quite heavy but balances extremely well on my camera (a 203FE). Performance is excellent. I briefly considered the much-lauded SWC but opted against because I need to be able to frame precisely and that adapter solution simply wouldn't be easy enough to use. I honestly don't think there is much difference in quality between prints shot with an SWC and the 40 CFE. Another reason that I went for the 40 CFE was in order to be able to use it with the PC Mutar. It's a great combination for a light-weight kit for architecture for instance.

Hekoru, thanks for adding the information about filters. I am eyeing NiSi at the moment and was wondering how that system works with a 40 Distagon. Do you attach the filter holder with an 86mm adapter or? Have you figured out if the vignetting is from the filter holder or from the filters themselves?

As for filters, 100mm square filter systems work fine with the 40mm. I use a Nisi kit and can use both colour and ND filters with minimal vignetting.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have the CF version with the floating elements. Very nice lens. I have not used or seen the older C version. I think I read somewhere that the cf is better in the corners, especially close up. I would expect that the C is still pretty decent.

+1

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Well, it took a few years, but I finally bought a 40mm CFE lens. This one looks really clean, and the lens mount looks like it was rarely mounted to a body. I'll head off to Tacoma (Washington) to do some industrial photography. Next search: some color 93mm filters (yellow, orange, yellow-green).

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I recommend the SWC in any form over the 40mm lens, because SWC is rectilinearly correct and much more useful.

Exactly my opinion too...