Should I not buy that SWC and wait for an SWC/M?

I'm buying a Hasselblad SWC a bit at a time from a local camera shop, but have begun to worry about comments I've read that the original SWC with chrome lens lacks contrast when using color film (either chrome or negative). Most posts indicate that an SWC/M will produce better color photographs due to its multicoated lens.

Of course, the key question is what does "better" mean? Is there anyone who has made comparisons between an SWC and SWC/M as regards color contrast? I'd appreciate reading your comments on this issue. (I don't have the same concerns as regards b/w film as I can adjust contrast in development.)

All of the shots here save for the motel were taken with an SWC with E100G or Ektar 100. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmatthews/sets/72157623109733620/

I never found it lacking contrast but maybe I have low standards.

One thing I would add is that I don't necessarily think SWC/M means the camera is multicoated. SWC could be converted to an M pretty easily by Hasselblad.

I have a 903 SWC which has a CF lens. CF lenses are multicoated. I think that multicoating is especially useful for a very wide angle lens to avoid flair from bright light sources in the field of view. In the end it comes to what you want, what is available and what you can afford. Good luck in your search.

Steve

bump

Go for a Mamiya 7 II with 43mm lens ! Cheaper and sharper !

Take a look:http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm

I'm pretty certain the "M" stands for modified, as in modified to accept a polaroid back. The SWC lens was and is spectacular from the start. I don't know what you are used to in terms of contrast but I rather doubt you will be disappointed. They are amazing. This isn't some triplet on an old TLR we are talking about here, this is one of the greats, legendary for good reason.