Will I miss my Superwide-C....

[cramej]

...if I sell it and get a Nikkor 40mm (or Zenzanon if I can find it) for my Bronica S2A?

I have a Superwide-C with 4 backs and a set of Series 8 filters with a hood that I have used a few times and I like the images but, I also would like to carry less equipment and have a ground glass. This is the only Hasselblad I own.

So far -

Pros for the Superwide:

• Sharp!
• Almost no distortion
• Light
• I can say I have a 'Blad
• Scale focus

Cons:

• It's another body and back(s) when I want the option of really wide
• Scale focus
• Less-than-accurate viewfinder
• Separate ground glass for focusing precisely

For the Bronica 40mm
Pros:

• Nikkor - I like the other Nikkors I have for the Bronica
• Seems to be plenty sharp looking at images on Flickr
• Low or no distortion that I can tell
• Light - only adds a lens to what I'm already carrying
• Nikkor 40mm is easy to find
• Easy ground glass focusing

Cons:

• Not quite as wide as the Superwide
• Zenzanon 40mm is difficult to find
• Not sure what else?

Does anyone have experience with either of the Bronica 40mm lenses?


Thanks

 

[Cholentpot]

It's worth the hassle. Keep it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...if I sell it and get a Nikkor 40mm (or Zenzanon if I can find it) for my Bronica S2A?

I have a Superwide-C with 4 backs and a set of Series 8 filters with a hood that I have used a few times and I like the images but, I also would like to carry less equipment and have a ground glass. This is the only Hasselblad I own.

So far -

Pros for the Superwide:

• Sharp!
• Almost no distortion
• Light
• I can say I have a 'Blad
• Scale focus

Cons:

• It's another body and back(s) when I want the option of really wide
• Scale focus
• Less-than-accurate viewfinder
• Separate ground glass for focusing precisely

For the Bronica 40mm
Pros:

• Nikkor - I like the other Nikkors I have for the Bronica
• Seems to be plenty sharp looking at images on Flickr
• Low or no distortion that I can tell
• Light - only adds a lens to what I'm already carrying
• Nikkor 40mm is easy to find
• Easy ground glass focusing

Cons:

• Not quite as wide as the Superwide
• Zenzanon 40mm is difficult to find
• Not sure what else?

Does anyone have experience with either of the Bronica 40mm lenses?


Thanks

The other 40mm lenses are not rectilinearly correct and will show more distortion, including the Bronica.

 

[mgb74]

You say you've used it (the Hasselblad) "a few times" but did not say how long you've owned it. To my thinking, that's an important factor. If you've owned it for a month and used it "a few times" that's different than if you've owned it for a year and used it "a few times:

 

[cramej]

You say you've used it (the Hasselblad) "a few times" but did not say how long you've owned it. To my thinking, that's an important factor. If you've owned it for a month and used it "a few times" that's different than if you've owned it for a year and used it "a few times:

The latter is pretty much correct. I've had it a while - more than a year - and it hasn't been a go-to camera.

 

[jloen]

I carried a SWC for 200 miles hiking the Appalachian trail, and have also taken it to Iceland and throughout the Western US for landscape photos. Several of my best photos taken with it hang on the wall. No its not perfect. (you will never find "perfect").

 

[mgb74]

The latter is pretty much correct. I've had it a while - more than a year - and it hasn't been a go-to camera.

Then I would say sell the Superwide, buy the 40mm, and pocket the (considerable) difference. Using the Superwide is largely a solitary, outdoor experience. If you haven't used it much in the past year - where a solitary, outdoor experience has been encouraged - it just isn't a tool you have a real need for.

Besides, when someone starts these "Should I" threads, they usually already know the answer.

I'm in the same boat with a Fuji 6x9. I lusted for one for a while and finally found one to buy. But, now that I have it, I don't find myself using it much.

 

[cramej]

Then I would say sell the Superwide, buy the 40mm, and pocket the (considerable) difference. Using the Superwide is largely a solitary, outdoor experience. If you haven't used it much in the past year - where a solitary, outdoor experience has been encouraged - it just isn't a tool you have a real need for.

Besides, when someone starts these "Should I" threads, they usually already know the answer.

I'm in the same boat with a Fuji 6x9. I lusted for one for a while and finally found one to buy. But, now that I have it, I don't find myself using it much.

I'm really on the fence with this one. On one hand, the difference in price is quite tempting as I have a long list of things I could put that towards. On the other hand, it's a unique camera experience and the results speak for themselves. I suppose I should run a half dozen or so rolls through it in short order and decide if it really works for me or not. It's so easy to get caught up in the Flickr ooohs and aaaahs when looking for other gear!

 

[Arthurwg]

I think the SWC us one of the best cameras ever designed. Try using it more, and in different ways than you have in the past. You might be surprised. Nothing else can take its place.

 

[Mike Lopez]

In my view you already answered your own question when you identified "less-than-accurate viewfinder" as a shortcoming of the Superwide-C. This is precisely why I tried one for about a month and quickly sold it about ten years ago. Composition is everything, and the viewfinder on that camera is only an approximation of what shows up on the negative. And I don't crop.

(yes, I know one could hunt for a ground glass back--but then you're using a tripod for every exposure as well)

 

[mshchem]

I have regrets for selling Leica stuff when I was frustrated with things in general. I replaced what I sold with the exact Leica I wanted but I payed dearly. My stuff is precious to me. Keeps me interested in getting out and making some exposures.
Cameras are like cars, part of it isn't rational. Mike Collins lost a SWC on a Gemini flight orbiting earth. Hasselblad claimed it as Sweden's first satellite . How cool is that!!

 

[mshchem]

...if I sell it and get a Nikkor 40mm (or Zenzanon if I can find it) for my Bronica S2A?

I have a Superwide-C with 4 backs and a set of Series 8 filters with a hood that I have used a few times and I like the images but, I also would like to carry less equipment and have a ground glass. This is the only Hasselblad I own.

So far -

Pros for the Superwide:

• Sharp!
• Almost no distortion
• Light
• I can say I have a 'Blad
• Scale focus

Cons:

• It's another body and back(s) when I want the option of really wide
• Scale focus
• Less-than-accurate viewfinder
• Separate ground glass for focusing precisely

For the Bronica 40mm
Pros:

• Nikkor - I like the other Nikkors I have for the Bronica
• Seems to be plenty sharp looking at images on Flickr
• Low or no distortion that I can tell
• Light - only adds a lens to what I'm already carrying
• Nikkor 40mm is easy to find
• Easy ground glass focusing

Cons:

• Not quite as wide as the Superwide
• Zenzanon 40mm is difficult to find
• Not sure what else?

Does anyone have experience with either of the Bronica 40mm lenses?


Thanks

Oh you need to buy the focusing screen and chimney viewer especially made for the SW cameras. The Bronica 40mm and the Hasselblad 40mm lenses are great! I sold off all my Bronica stuff and went all in on Hasselblad. I've got the 40mm and I have a Super Wide. The Zeiss Hasselblad 40mm weighs more than the entire SW setup. Both are cool.
Bronica never let me down, I really enjoyed the SQAi cameras and lenses. But the sheer simplicity of Hasselblad and the Zeiss optics, couldn't resist.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Make it your go to camera and just use it. I've been using mine since I bought it new in 1997 - don't let anyone tell you otherwise - it is the PERFECT camera.

 

[cramej]

I should have known.... I'm talking to a GAS support group! Sure not making my decision any easier.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I haven't shot with the 40mm but if it is anything like the 50mm Zenzanon I don't think you'll miss the Hassy much. I've borrowed Superwides a few times over the years and I was always kind of meh. One trick wonder. It does that one thing really well, but only that one thing.

 

[Richard Man]

I have my SWC/M for over a decade. I don't always use it, less often than my 203FE for example, but a few of my BEST photos were taken with it.

So no, don't sell it.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I should have known.... I'm talking to a GAS support group! Sure not making my decision any easier.

I think the best answer you have gotten is to shoot a few rolls through the Hassy in a short time and really hash out what you think of it. You might have a 'breakthrough' and hold on to it. Or you might see more precisely why it isn't for you. Sounds to me that your hesitancy is because you simply haven't used it enough to be comfortable letting it go.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I spent a month in Greece and the Greek Islands, I only used the SWC on the islands and in the Plaka area of Athens. It is wonderful for places with narrow streets and walkways.

 

[4season]

It's not particularly expensive, so why not try the 40/4 Nikkor lens before deciding?

 

[cramej]

The overwhelming opinion is that I keep it.

Having the 41025 ground glass and a finder would be nice.... at a cost $$$.

There are also some votes for "try it, then decide" regarding the 40mm.

I think I have enough that I can sell off to fund a 40mm and give it a go before I decide if the SWC is on the chopping block. That will give me time to run some more film through it and then A-B test when I get the 40.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I didn't find the finder on the SWC/M I had to be particularly inaccurate. It only gets inaccurate when you start getting really close up to the point parallax kicks in. As a matter of fact, it's the one piece of Hasselblad kit I keep thinking about buying again. I don't totally regret it because it helped fund my Canham 5x12, but it sure would make a nice companion to my Rolleiflex.

 

[Arthurwg]

In my view you already answered your own question when you identified "less-than-accurate viewfinder" as a shortcoming of the Superwide-C. This is precisely why I tried one for about a month and quickly sold it about ten years ago. Composition is everything, and the viewfinder on that camera is only an approximation of what shows up on the negative. And I don't crop.

(yes, I know one could hunt for a ground glass back--but then you're using a tripod for every exposure as well)

I've never had a problem with the viewfinder. Close enough for government work, as they say. And I don't see why the camera demands exact composition. I see it more as a "run and gun" device. You have a "I never crop" rule. Not sure why. Take a look at Lee Friedlander's superb "Western Landscapes," all shot with an SWC. True, if you need architectural perfection, the GG and tripod will help. But the SWC can also be dangerous. It was my first Hasselblad and now I have....several.

 

[Mike Lopez]

I've never had a problem with the viewfinder. Close enough for government work, as they say. And I don't see why the camera demands exact composition. I see it more as a "run and gun" device. You have a "I never crop" rule. Not sure why. Take a look at Lee Friedlander's superb "Western Landscapes," all shot with an SWC. True, if you need architectural perfection, the GG and tripod will help. But the SWC can also be dangerous. It was my first Hasselblad and now I have....several.

To each their own, I guess. I'm well aware of Lee's work, having met him and Maria in San Francisco and in Santa Fe a few times. I don't crop for the same reason a painter doesn't throw away portions of their canvas when their work is complete.

Run and gun, spray and pray, close enough for government work...all good and well, but not my preferred way of working. Cheers.

 

[4season]

I liked the SWC when I had it, but ultimately decided that I didn't have a lot to say in the wide / square format, at least not enough to have $1400+ tied up in it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I didn't find the finder on the SWC/M I had to be particularly inaccurate. It only gets inaccurate when you start getting really close up to the point parallax kicks in. As a matter of fact, it's the one piece of Hasselblad kit I keep thinking about buying again. I don't totally regret it because it helped fund my Canham 5x12, but it sure would make a nice companion to my Rolleiflex.

I've never had a problem with the viewfinder. Close enough for government work, as they say. And I don't see why the camera demands exact composition. I see it more as a "run and gun" device. You have a "I never crop" rule. Not sure why. Take a look at Lee Friedlander's superb "Western Landscapes," all shot with an SWC. True, if you need architectural perfection, the GG and tripod will help. But the SWC can also be dangerous. It was my first Hasselblad and now I have....several.

I have the ground glass and view finder, and I have almost never used it. Once I learned to use the 903 SWC viewfinder accurately [it did not take a lot of time or effort] I found that I can get the composition without resorting to cropping later. If the border for the lower part of the image is important, turn the camera upside down.