Talk me out of buying an SWC

[Huss]

The WideLux takes wide photographs but it is not the same or similar to the SWC. Just a different animal.

Widelux? The 35mm pano camera?

 

[Huss]

Some good stuff/info here. Seriously.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm

 

[Sirius Glass]

Widelux? The 35mm pano camera?

Uh, yeh, that would be the one.

 

[SrMi]

Some good stuff/info here. Seriously.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm

I generally avoid KR's website when it concerns digital photography, but I am a newbie when it comes to film cameras. So I visited his site, after many years of restraint .
KR claims that 905SWC has a poorer lens design than the previous SWCs. That contradicts the statement by Kornelius Fleischer (Zeiss) on photo.net:
"With the new version of the Biogon in the Hasselblad SWC 905, we were able to increase the performance in the corner, at a very slight expense in the center, compared to the previous version as used in the SWC 903 ... one aspect is visibly better with the new 905 version: stray light suppression is clearly improved over the 903".

 

[Lachlan Young]

I generally avoid KR's website when it concerns digital photography, but I am a newbie when it comes to film cameras. So I visited his site, after many years of restraint .
KR claims that 905SWC has a poorer lens design than the previous SWCs. That contradicts the statement by Kornelius Fleischer (Zeiss) on photo.net:
"With the new version of the Biogon in the Hasselblad SWC 905, we were able to increase the performance in the corner, at a very slight expense in the center, compared to the previous version as used in the SWC 903 ... one aspect is visibly better with the new 905 version: stray light suppression is clearly improved over the 903".

I've attached the MTF claims for the 905 (top) and the last of the 903's (bottom) - you can see that the 905 is slightly more even across the field at the expense of the centre contrast performance as Zeiss claimed. I recall it was done to remove certain lead containing glasses for workforce safety reasons.

 

[grat]

KR claims that 905SWC has a poorer lens design than the previous SWCs. That contradicts the statement by Kornelius Fleischer (Zeiss) on photo.net:
"With the new version of the Biogon in the Hasselblad SWC 905, we were able to increase the performance in the corner, at a very slight expense in the center, compared to the previous version as used in the SWC 903 ... one aspect is visibly better with the new 905 version: stray light suppression is clearly improved over the 903".

I'm not sure those are contradictory statements-- Lens performance, after a certain point, becomes a bit subjective. If your preference is weighted towards the center performance of a lens, than the 905 lens would be a bit of a letdown compared with the 903. If you're more concerned with lens flare, then the 905 would be a distinct improvement.

If you're like many photo-trolls on the internet, than any downwards trend in any aspect of the graphs, charts and 8x10 glossy color pictures with the circles and the arrows and the paragraph on the back explaining each one, reduces your ability to brag about the elite nature of your gear, thus diminishing your ability to claim everyone else's gear is inferior, and therefore they can't be as cool and (un)gifted as you.

... nuts. I've been on DPReview again. Gotta quit that.

 

[mshchem]

I'm not sure those are contradictory statements-- Lens performance, after a certain point, becomes a bit subjective. If your preference is weighted towards the center performance of a lens, than the 905 lens would be a bit of a letdown compared with the 903. If you're more concerned with lens flare, then the 905 would be a distinct improvement.

If you're like many photo-trolls on the internet, than any downwards trend in any aspect of the graphs, charts and 8x10 glossy color pictures with the circles and the arrows and the paragraph on the back explaining each one, reduces your ability to brag about the elite nature of your gear, thus diminishing your ability to claim everyone else's gear is inferior, and therefore they can't be as cool and (un)gifted as you.

... nuts. I've been on DPReview again. Gotta quit that.

I've got the 903. One important observation, with any version, I can spoil the picture by accidentally including my big feet in the photo.. I need to enter that one in a contest, see if anyone notices . Ain't life funny?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm not sure those are contradictory statements-- Lens performance, after a certain point, becomes a bit subjective. If your preference is weighted towards the center performance of a lens, than the 905 lens would be a bit of a letdown compared with the 903. If you're more concerned with lens flare, then the 905 would be a distinct improvement.

If you're like many photo-trolls on the internet, than any downwards trend in any aspect of the graphs, charts and 8x10 glossy color pictures with the circles and the arrows and the paragraph on the back explaining each one, reduces your ability to brag about the elite nature of your gear, thus diminishing your ability to claim everyone else's gear is inferior, and therefore they can't be as cool and (un)gifted as you.

... nuts. I've been on DPReview again. Gotta quit that.

It's also probably worth mentioning that Dr. Fleischer, the ground truth of All Things Zeiss, from his posts on photo.net happens to be an employee of Carl Zeiss AG. In fact, he was the marketing director of the lens production factory in Germany. I think he generally tells the truth about Carl Zeiss related things, but he also never presents anything that isn't completely complimentary to them. I spent some time a few weeks ago reading all of his posts on photo.net and they are very interesting, but he is probably not an unbiased source. In the case of the SWC lenses it is backed up by the datasheets. He also makes the claim that the T* coating was often improved consistently on a year-on-year basis, but I've never seen anyone else notice a significant difference between, say early 70s T* coating and late 80s T* coating. Another one of his claims I've never seen substantiated by an independent source is that the palpas coating in CFi lenses and late Hasselblad bodies leads to a substantial increase in contrast.

 

[SrMi]

I'm not sure those are contradictory statements-- Lens performance, after a certain point, becomes a bit subjective. If your preference is weighted towards the center performance of a lens, than the 905 lens would be a bit of a letdown compared with the 903. If you're more concerned with lens flare, then the 905 would be a distinct improvement.

If you're like many photo-trolls on the internet, than any downwards trend in any aspect of the graphs, charts and 8x10 glossy color pictures with the circles and the arrows and the paragraph on the back explaining each one, reduces your ability to brag about the elite nature of your gear, thus diminishing your ability to claim everyone else's gear is inferior, and therefore they can't be as cool and (un)gifted as you.

... nuts. I've been on DPReview again. Gotta quit that.

BTW, when Nikon improved their 24-70/2.8 lens they did a similar thing: reduced the resolution in the center slightly and increased the performance in the corners.

Kornelius Fleischer is known for providing concise and factual information. Instead of sharing his post piecemeal, allow me to quote his full post:

Dec 3, 2001, kornelius_j.fleischer:

OK, here we go: At Zeiss, we see the Biogon 4.5/38 as a documentation tool, able to record as many details as possible regardless of the position within the frame. As such, we want the Biogon 38 to deliver even performance over the entire frame. With the new version of the Biogon in the Hasselblad SWC 905, we were able to increase the performance in the corner, at a very slight expense in the center, compared to the previous version as used in the SWC 903. This expense is most probably unnoticeable in practical photography, given the resolving power of color film with its limits far lower than the Biogon's.

This is what I achieved with my SWC 903 in terms of resolution (using Agfa APX 25 B&W film, which resolves up to 200 linepairs per millimeter):
Center: 200 linepairs per millimeter,
Edge: around 140,
Corner: 100
For comparison: The color film with highest resolving power, Fuji Velvia, achieves no more than 160. Kodak Ektachrome types achieve around 130.
If we now resolve more in the corners, and slightly less in the center, Fuji Velvia will only benefit from the improvement in the corner, not losing anything in the center.

While for most photographers, sharpness may not even be different between the two versions of the SWC, one aspect is visibly better with the new 905 version: stray light suppression is clearly improved over the 903.

I hope this helps​

I disagree with Mr. Rockwell that 905SWC is a downgrade from 903SWC ("The first downgrade in the history of the SWC, the 905 SWC replaced the original Biogon with a watered-down version using only unleaded glass", K.R).

When I was shopping for my SWC, the difference in the lens was not a criterion.

 

[ruilourosa]

Using a 905 for 2 months and doing velvia and PAN f, i found no substancial diference...

I had a swc with a non t* black lens before and also found no substancial diference from my 903... Flare maybe... But not worse, just different...

I kept my 903...

Resolving power is high with all three...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've got the 903. One important observation, with any version, I can spoil the picture by accidentally including my big feet in the photo.. I need to enter that one in a contest, see if anyone notices . Ain't life funny?

That is a bigger problem with the 30mm Fisheye. Time to start a thread "Talk me out of buying a Hasselblad Fisheye lens".

 

[mshchem]

That is a bigger problem with the 30mm Fisheye. Time to start a thread "Talk me out of buying a Hasselblad Fisheye lens".

I've got the 40mm, all the gizmos that allow you to use the enormous 93mm filters etc. That lens weights as much as the 903 with a back. If you have a tripod and the time it's easier for me to get exactly what I'm after with the 40mm. I use the 903 SWC more, because it's fun. I've never liked fisheye lenses. I have one for my Nikon DSLRs a nice AF-D that will work nicely with all the film bodies.

 

[mshchem]

Using a 905 for 2 months and doing velvia and PAN f, i found no substancial diference...

I had a swc with a non t* black lens before and also found no substancial diference from my 903... Flare maybe... But not worse, just different...

I kept my 903...

Resolving power is high with all three...

Nice. Keep the lens in the shade, it's all good.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I'll try: Most SWC pictures I've seen online were decidedly meh because, it seems, the owners have this beautiful toy and tell themselves they need to use it. So are you certain you can meaningfully use such a wide lens?

Probably no photographer used the SWC more "meaningfully" than Lee Friedlander in his America by Car series. It's Über Massive.

 

[SrMi]

Probably no photographer used the SWC more "meaningfully" than Lee Friedlander in his America by Car series. It's Über Massive.

I really like Lee Friedlander's Western Landscapes, all shot with SWC, often with flash.

 

[Arthurwg]

I think Friedlander actually invented a new and unique pictorial syntax, something he had worked on for decades. The SWC became his means to that end. But don't try this at home. He is a genius.

 

[redrockcoulee]

@Sirius Glass I am not man enough for an SWC. I'm Old Gregg!

I personally would never had considered purchasing a SWC. However a few years ago my wife did purchase one and immediately finding I like it better every time I use it. I just wished it was a SWC/M so I could use my filters. My other lens are 60 100 150 and a borrow and seldom used 250