Thoughts on Hassel SWC.

RobertoMiglioli · May 9, 2014

Hello.

I´m thinking to buy a Hasselblad SWC but I´v read some bad things about its focus. I checked Ebay and got shocked by how expensive this camera is. I mean, c´mon... $20,000 for a camera?! My budget is $1,800 tops... Is it too far from reality for a good SWC?

I also have a 500C/M with 50mm so I have the option to buy the Distagon 40 f/4. It is heavy and bulky but a bit faster and focus through the lens. And it is much cheaper than SWC!!

Any thoughts from experienced users?

NB23 · May 10, 2014

Wait a few weeks more and add 200$ to your budget.

Paul Goutiere · May 10, 2014

You should be able to find a fine early model ( Chrome lens version) for about 1400 to 2100.

You may want to send the thing off for a CLA as well for another $200-300.

The field of view for a SWC is about the same horizontally as the 24mm on my Nikon F3HP.

I don't see why focus would be an issue. Stopped down to f16 pretty much everything is in acceptable focus from
3 feet to infinity.

I have the early version with the chrome lens, manufactured in 1959 (!). It's a fantastic camera, if you like wide
angle shots and are prepared to put up with a squinty little finder. I'll never sell it.

Black Dog · May 10, 2014

+1 on that...loved it ! [used to use the college one].

TheToadMen · May 10, 2014

Hello Roberto,
I got me a Hasselblad SWC camera from about 1965, with a chrome lens in good condition. See here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
It came with one film back and the original lens shade.
I paid Euro 600 (about US$ 750) for it, so $20.000 is really absurd in my book. Just wait for a good deal and be patient.
Never trust prices on Ebay. Only look at finished sales to see what it''s really going for. I wouldn't pay more than $1500 for a recent model in very good shape with all the extras.

A 500C/M with 40mm (not 50mm) is a good alternative: easier focussing, but heavier and bulkier.
The SWC is small, light and compact. So the maine decission is what you want with focussing options.
Focussing is something to get used to, but I like it. There are some good focussing tips in my thread.
I shot my first rolls and these are being developed next week.
I''ll post some results in the trhead mentioned above.

Greetings from Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

TheToadMen · May 10, 2014

Some interessting info on the Hasselblad SWC models: http://www.gilghitelman.com/news_0005.html

John Koehrer · May 10, 2014

$20K is laughable. It must be one of the "rare" versions, perhaps used by Victor himself with his initials and SS number scratched into the front of the lens.

Berts response would be pretty much the norm for pricing

Sirius Glass · May 10, 2014

John Koehrer said:
$20K is laughable. It must be one of the "rare" versions, perhaps used by Victor himself with his initials and SS number scratched into the front of the lens.

Berts response would be pretty much the norm for pricing

I paid about $2300 for a Hasselblad903 and it is worth much more than I paid for it. Like the song says, you are looking in all the wrong places ...

Dan Fromm · May 10, 2014

Roberto, if you want the SWC functionality and more without the expense, get an ex-aerial camera 38/4.5 Biogon, have it put in a proper shutter, and then use it on a Century Graphic. The lens covers 84 mm. On 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" this is a strip 24 mm x 80 mm. Who needs an XPan?

Aerial cameras with 38 Biogons turn up from time to time and so do ex-aerial camera 38 Bigons. Here's http://www.ebay.de/itm/Fairchild-Aerial-Camera-/351039012153 one. Ignore what's engraved on the lens, it is a 38 Biogon. Not mine, and I have no financial interest in it although I may have seen that camera chez my late friend Charlie Barringer.

I have an ex-AGI F.135 38 Biogon that Steve Grimes put in a Copal #0 for me. I use it on a Century Graphic. Who needs an Alpa 12? Oh, yeah, my kit, including a roll holder, cost considerably less than an SWC with roll holder.

mgb74 · May 10, 2014

There is one over on rangefinderforum.com right now.

RobertoMiglioli · May 10, 2014

Guys, thank you very much for replies. One last question: what´s the diference on the models with chrome lens, black lens and rubber black lens? I will shoot mostly Provias and Velvias and a bit of Tri-X.

JW PHOTO · May 10, 2014

RobertoMiglioli said:
Guys, thank you very much for replies. One last question: what´s the diference on the models with chrome lens, black lens and rubber black lens? I will shoot mostly Provias and Velvias and a bit of Tri-X.

Really no difference in the image output. I have the later (1970) black lens barrel, rubber guard on the viewfinder and have used the slightly older chrome barrel version. I could tell no difference at all. If I had to buy one right now I'd look for a "T" coated one, but that's just me. Truth is I'm plenty happy with the one I have. JW

Alan Gales · May 11, 2014

You could pick up a cheap 4x5 monorail and a 90mm or 75mm wide angle lens for around $500.00 off ebay and have sharpness plus movements.

Just something to think about.

NB23 · May 11, 2014

Alan Gales said:
You could pick up a cheap 4x5 monorail and a 90mm or 75mm wide angle lens for around $500.00 off ebay and have sharpness plus movements.

Just something to think about.

The whole point of thd swc is its extreme portability

giannisg2004 · May 11, 2014

Well, if you're considering the SWC because you need a great symmetrical superwide in a compact packet, you could also consider the Mamiya 7 with the 43mm lens (same horizontal coverage).

The camera goes for ~800$ body only, and 800-1200$ for a minty 43mm lens.
It fits nicely in your budget, you get rf focusing and a great wideangle in a compact camera (on which you can use other lenses too).

That said, the SWC is a special camera which looks really nice and feels good and solid in the hands, so if that's what excites you, go for it.

Sirius Glass · May 11, 2014

Alan Gales said:
You could pick up a cheap 4x5 monorail and a 90mm or 75mm wide angle lens for around $500.00 off ebay and have sharpness plus movements.

Just something to think about.

It just AIN'T the same Alan. The Hasselblad SWC is rectilinearly correct and that is something that cannot be found in a 75mm or 90mm wide angle lenses. In the words of a 1960's rock song "fakin' it ain't makin' it".

RobertoMiglioli · May 11, 2014

NB23 said:
The whole point of thd swc is its extreme portability

Exactly.

RobertoMiglioli · May 11, 2014

giannisg2004 said:
Well, if you're considering the SWC because you need a great symmetrical superwide in a compact packet, you could also consider the Mamiya 7 with the 43mm lens (same horizontal coverage).

The camera goes for ~800$ body only, and 800-1200$ for a minty 43mm lens.
It fits nicely in your budget, you get rf focusing and a great wideangle in a compact camera (on which you can use other lenses too).

That said, the SWC is a special camera which looks really nice and feels good and solid in the hands, so if that's what excites you, go for it.

I like the square format of 6x6 (Mamiya 7 is 6x7). And it also have a bunch of electronic stuff that is more than likelly to fail someday. I want a pure mechanical camera.

RobertoMiglioli · May 11, 2014

Rolleiflex Wide is also a possibility. Although not so wideangle as SWC I very used to handle Rolleiflex cameras.

What can you say about Rolleiflex Wide?

Sirius Glass · May 11, 2014

Rolleiflex Wide?

When hanging from a neck strap a Rolleiflex Wide, along with a Rolleiflex, and a Rolleiflex Tele worn at the same time provides a magnificent display of camera bling!

Black Dog · May 11, 2014

If you can find one that is!

Alan Gales · May 11, 2014

NB23 said:
The whole point of thd swc is its extreme portability

Yeah, I agree that it does depend on how the OP is going to use it. I was just throwing out another alternative.

Alan Gales · May 11, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
It just AIN'T the same Alan. The Hasselblad SWC is rectilinearly correct and that is something that cannot be found in a 75mm or 90mm wide angle lenses. In the words of a 1960's rock song "fakin' it ain't makin' it".

OK, but the OP was also considering the 40mm which isn't rectilinearly correct. I was just throwing out another option to think about.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 11, 2014

The Rolleiwide is a terrific camera and I honestly believe it may be the sharpest lens of any camera I've owned. It's terrific for even fairy close up shots too. It is not nearly as wide as the 38 Biogon or 40 Distagon though. It's like saying "I'm thinking of getting a 24mm lens for my Nikon F3, do you think a 28mm will work?" But still a great camera and lens. Tough to find in good condition under $2000 and often $3500-4000 with anything original like lens hood, cap, filters and/or case. Some of my recent fairly shots using it:

Shoshone Falls Rolleiwide TMY-2 HC-110dilH 10min 21C 1minAg2x 2012-06 VSmac 9000 Scan-120830-0008 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Golden Gate Park Mallard Lake Rolleiwide Plus-X HC-110dilH 10min 20C 1minAg2x 06-2012 VSmac 9000 Scan-120602-0005 FFw by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Golden Gate Park fern grove Rolleiwide Agfapan25 HC-110dilH 9min30sec 21C 1minAg2x 05-2012 VSmac 9000 Scan-120531-0002 FFw by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Black Dog · May 12, 2014

fantastic images-thanks for posting them.

Thoughts on Hassel SWC.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency