...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:
Cons:
- Sharp!
- Almost no distortion
- Light
- I can say I have a 'Blad
- Scale focus
- 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:
Cons:
- 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
- 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
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.
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.
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....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:
Cons:
- Sharp!
- Almost no distortion
- Light
- I can say I have a 'Blad
- Scale focus
- 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:
Cons:
- 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
- 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
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.I should have known.... I'm talking to a GAS support group! Sure not making my decision any easier.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?