Hasselblad Superwide Medium Format Camera
by Robert Monaghan
Photo thanks to Richard Spitzer
[page was at http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/3120 -
not found as of 2/2003; [email protected]
Related Links:
Cosina/Voigtlander Finder for Hassy SW/SWC
(Cameraquest for sale) [5/2001]
Hasselblad Notes
The Hasselblad Superwide is a camera whose body was designed to mount
this extraordinary 38mm f4.5 Zeiss Biogon lens. The camera was capable of
taking in a 90 degree field of view. This design was different from the
other contemporary Hasselblads, the 500c and 500EL models, in that it was
not an SLR. The camera used an auxiliary finder or optionally ground
glass back to focus and take photographs. The finder is visible at the
top of the photograph below.
Photo thanks to Chuck Rubin - [email protected]
The lens was highly corrected
and gave a uniquely rectilinear coverage over a broad 90 degree angle,
unique in its day. The camera body itself was quite thin, necessitated by
the 38mm lens non-retrofocus design, so an SLR configuration could not be
used.
The later design of a 40mm Biogon offered a similar field of view in an
SLR mounting lens design, but the original Superwide and later
Superwide models still enjoy a popularity for their photographic
capabilities.
The big attraction of the biogon lens is that it is not a retrofocus design.
As a result, the design does not require the compromises needed to create an
ultrawide angle lens which can accommodate a moving mirror design in a medium format
SLR. While the 40mm Hasselblad zeiss lens is a fine design, it is also much bigger
and heavier, with more costly 93mm filters. The biogon lens design provides a stunning
zero percent distortion along the diagonal axes, and a remarkably low distortion on
axis (circa 3mm maximum over a meter sized enlargement). The benefits of ultralow
distortion for architectural use is obvious, and sells a lot of users on the SW/SWC series.
A second benefit of the biogon design is the high contrast which it makes possible. In
part, this is thanks to the lack of extra elements of a retrofocus design contributing
flare and so lowering contrast in retrofocus designs. However, the latest optics (e.g.,
Leica retrofocus wide angles for M series with metering cells) are potentially as low
flare and high contrast, thanks to improved glasses, anti-flare techniques, and so on.
My personal experience with my SWC/M is mixed. As a wide angle fan(atic), I find the
38mm biogon not wide enough for many cityscape or cramped interior shots. The horizontal
coverage is less than 73 degrees, though the diagonal does cover 92 degrees. The 24mm
lens on a 35mm SLR covers just over 73 degrees horizontally (and 84 degrees on diagonal).
So you get the same horizontal coverage of a 24mm lens. By today's standards, 24mm is
not particularly wide on a 35mm SLR. I have found myself using a 6x10cm panoramic
Veriwide 100, whose 47mm super angulon lens is equivalent
to an 18mm on a 35mm SLR. The rectangular format is also a better match for my style
of ultrawide shots, while the square format of the SWC/M tends to get more sky or more
foreground into my shots when carefully leveled.
On the other hand, the biogon 38mm f/4.5
can be used wide open, while the veriwide needs to be at f/11 or better f/16 for best
performance. However, closeup work such as copying or macro with the biogon really
mandates use of the accessory ground glass back to ensure precise focusing.
The relatively small and low cost filter size of the SWC/M (versus the 86mm or 93mm filters
for the 40mm) is a big plus, especially if you have a lot of older series filters, as I do.
Be sure that your filters do not touch the surface of your SW/SWC when the retainer ring is
tightened. A number of damaged lens front elements are reported from
coating repairers, and these front elements are no longer available
from the manufacturer. Some of my older and thicker kodak series filters do ride or touch the
center of my SWC/M's front lens elements, so I have to use a spacer or different brand filters.
A further note is that the older SWC series now have a minor plus over the newer models.
The old MTF charts of the older SWC/M biogon lenses showed them
slightly better than the latest 905SW model lenses. The reported reason is the need
to reduce the use of heavy metals and pollutants in the glass mixes being produced and used.
In nearly all practical uses, the current 90X series lenses are just as good, perhaps better (e.g.,
for flare etc.). But this is an interesting example that later and more costly isn't always
better.
I would be remiss if I didn't report that my SWC/M is a nearly ideal travel camera. It is
much smaller and lighter than a multi-lens MF SLR kit, and nearly as light as many 35mm SLRs.
The square size is compact, and fits neatly in many small bags. The camera hangs lens down
on straps, providing added protection. The /M modification on the older SWC and later SWC/M
models provides the option of using a polaroid back for checking lighting and composition.
The huge depth of field in most daylight situations makes it an easy matter to
set f/16 or f/22 and have everything you can't reach out and touch in focus! With the ground
glass back, you can also get some amazing closeups of objects like door panel carvings. Nifty!
For those tall buildings that don't quite fit, even with my back to the wall across the street,
I simply cheat by turning the camera to use the diagonal (for a "diamond" shaped shot). I can
crop the shot later on the slide duplicator. With preset controls, and the quiet leaf shutter,
I can pop the camera to my eye, compose and level it, and quickly shoot.
Should you buy the 40mm SLR lens, or the hasselblad SWC/M series? Do you really need precise
composition which the SLR lens makes easy? The 40mm makes precise use and visualization of its results
easy. You can see the wide angle effects directly, without having to use a ground glass back
(or tripod). For closeup work with some moving subjects like insects, the floating lens
element design correction on the later 40mm lenses is also a plus, and macro work is faster
and easier and more precise with an SLR design.
On the other hand, I happen to like popping the SWC finder off and putting it in
a shirt pocket while walking around. I can quickly pull it out, and see if I am in the right
spot for the shot. I have learned to ignore the huge distortion in the finder, as it won't
show in the final pictures. The optical finder makes it easy to explore shots without setting
up the camera and tripod, and so is a seldom cited positive feature of this SWC/M setup.
But the SWC/M is lighter, a
stand-alone (or good backup camera to a hasselblad SLR kit) camera
which is still optically supreme for low distortion and high contrast. For many users, that
reason alone is enough to make the SW/SWC series cameras worth owning...
Photo notes:
Hasselblad SWC Photo by Mr. Spitzer:
Hasselblad Super Wide C, #CEW 3457, with 38mm Biogon/4.5, #1990186.
There is also a
Hasselblad Ground Glass back.
Hasselblad Superwide Photo by Mr. Rubin
Hasselblad Superwide 38mm Biogon Lens. Comes with finder but no back.
| Amazing Biogon Resolution Tests |
|---|
Supporting Michael's statement, I would also see the SWC with Biogon 38 as
first choice, if I can get away without movements. I recently did high
resolution tests with Biogon lenses in Hasselblad SWC and Alpa cameras and
found resolutions up to 200 line pairs per millimeter (this was the limit
of the film used: Agfa APX 25). So even the best color film can be fully
exploited with this lens.
-- Kornelius J. Fleischer, January 20, 2000...
posting/thread
|
Related Postings
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998
From: Alfred Breull [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: SWC Biogon (1961 vs 1998)
Yesterday, the Zeiss technician judged the front element of
my 1961 SWC's Biogon as "not Zeiss standard anymore", and
that they would throw it in the trash bin.
Today, I showed some E 100s slides taken with my 1961 SWC
to the Hasselblad representave during the "Hasselblad Days",
and asked to point out and comment the differences to the
current Biogon.
He looked at the slides, took a loupe, called the Zeiss
technican, and they agreed: "There is no difference, except
- maybe - in this picture".
The picture he was pointing at shows a meadow with the sun
directly on the upper left border of the picture. There are
reflections of the lens elements, and flares (?, word) in
the pictures. The Zeiss man continued: "These are less severe
in the multicoated version. I do not see any other difference".
Ok, ok. It's not a test. Just wanted to let you know, that you
may have the same fun with old and used gear.
Alf
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998
From: DonjR43198 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC Biogon (1961 vs 1998)
Great story! I had a new SWC in 1986 or so and sold it. Am now in the
process of buying the 903SWC and wondered if there is really any difference.
From your experience, there is probably no difference other than the
current model costs about 2 1/2 times more than the 1986 model.
Thanks again for your comment.
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998
From: Alfred Breull [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC Biogon (1961 vs 1998)
[email protected] wrote:
>From your experience, there is probably no difference other than the current
>model costs about 2 1/2 times more than the 1986 model.
Thanks for your kind words.
I agree, specially since they assured, that there is no difference
in the optical formula - just a different coating.
Alf
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (H.Gunnarsson)
[1] Re: SWC
Date: Tue Dec 08 1998
Now that we have the Arcbody with three lenses, generous shift and tilt
(not so generous) capabilities, the market for new 903SWC:s must be
limited; the Arcbody kit with 45mm lens is much less than a new SWC.
--
Hekan Gunnarsson
Gvteborg/Gothenburg, Sweden
h dot gunnarsson at ebox dot tninet dot se
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (H.Gunnarsson)
[1] Re: SWC
Date: Wed Dec 09 1998
Maybe so. But after all the SWC is a guess-focus camera, and for critical
focusing in the close range I wouldn't use it without ground-glass
adapter. And then it's not very much more a location camera to me than is
the Arcbody. Moreover, it wouldn't be very hard to make some sort of
viewfinder accessory for the Arc in order to use it handheld. It's too
much guess-work involved in shooting with the SWC already.
When my economy allows it I'll get something wider than my CF 60;
therefore and I'm trying to decide between the CF40, the Arc and the SWC.
The shift capabilities make the Arc the most attractive choice so far.
Just my thinking...
> H.Gunnarsson wrote in message ...
> >Now that we have the Arcbody with three lenses, generous shift and tilt
> >(not so generous) capabilities, the market for new 903SWC:s must be
> >limited; the Arcbody kit with 45mm lens is much less than a new SWC.
--
Hekan Gunnarsson
Gvteborg/Gothenburg, Sweden
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] John Van Stelten - Focal Point Inc
> He just did a Hasselblad Supreme Wide Angle for me, and did a very nice
> job. He removed fungus from the center element, and re-coated the two
> outer elements. (Snip)
> guna
I knew a guy who got a deal on an older Hasselblad Superwide, it was WAY
PRE T* it was an SWC! But he got a new expensive Hasselblad UV multicoated
filter which was always on the lens...
he seemed to be under the impression that as his front surface was
multicoated; so was the whole lens. or something like that... You couldn't
get him to take the thing off.
[Austin] Hi Mark,
Well, this one is the 182nd one made (1954), and it is certainly pre T*...
It's really a Supreme Wide Angle...which pre-dates the Super Wide
Angle...
The coating is soft as, well, it's soft ;-) I use an original correct
vintage UV filter (drop in, not screw mount...facing the correct way now,
so I don't damage the NEW coating I had John put on it), in keeping with
the spirit of the item... Perfect pictures, no flare no nuttin but great
pictures. If you haven't used one of these, I urge you to give it a
try...
Austin
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: "Henning J. Wulff" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] John Van Stelten - Focal Point Inc
Mark Rabiner wrote:
>Austin Franklin wrote:
>>(Snip) Perfect pictures, no flare no nuttin but great
>> pictures. If you haven't used one of these, I urge you to give it a try...
>>
>> Austin
>
>Bob Bedwell lent me his very new Superwide for a few weeks a few months
>back and
>with the ground glass back and magnifier as well!
>A great tool for fine wide angle photography but with a learning curve that
>needs to be paid attention too.
>Love that camera.
>Mark Rabiner
I've had one of the earlier T* ones for about 20 years. A mainstay for
quick architectural stuff. This, and most other decent wideangle lenses,
are prime motivators for removing needless filters. An early SWC, non T*
might have the flare from the filter hidden behind the rest of the flare.
If you think your non-T* Biogon 38 doesn't flare, you just haven't looked
critically at your results in comparison with a modern coated lens. It's
almost as big a difference as the pre and post Super-Multicoated-Takumars.
My one and only post on filters (at least this time around), as my
drivel-meter was once again charged up fully and needed this release.
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[email protected]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
From: Klaus Schmaranz [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Comments on the Hass SWC vs. 40mm
HMorHM [email protected] writes:
> If you use the wide angle to include both near and far elements in sharp focus
> the SWC image should dramatically excel over the 40mm (assuming you are able to
> frame it properly!) If your interest is limited to getting just close ups or
> large groups or distant scenics, then the convenience of the SLR for framing
> would make the 40mm the more appropriate lens choice.
I tested the two lenses side by side 3 weeks ago... Well, the SWC is
frighteningly sharp :-) On the other hand the 40mm is also a superb
lens and under normal circumstances you wouldn't notice too much of a
difference looking at the final prints. I also tried near/far element
mix, and the 40 can handle this situation very well. I also tried
wrong settings of the floating elements to see the difference
(e.g. setting the floating elements to infinity and focussing a near
subject and vice versa). The difference is there, but it's less than I
expected. Excessive stopping down is worse for the result than wrong
settings of the FEs as far as I tested it. I think, the decision comes
down to:
- would you want to give up the benefits of an SLR
- is the last little bit of image quality really essential for you (in
which case I'd rather think of using a large format camera).
- Are you sure that you would never use extension rings, which you
can't do with the SWC
I can't deny that I was really impressed by the SWC. It's relatively
light-weight (the 40mm lens is a much heavier chunk of glass) and it's
rather small compared to the retrofocus design of the 40. Once you
found out that you don't need any real pressure to release the shutter
you'll stop making photos unless you really want to :-) Well, photos
of the lens cap also could happen at the beginning :-))
If you have the chance, you'll maybe want to get both for a day and
try them out. Then you also know the "feeling" of both, which I think
is an important point for your decision too.
Klaus.
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Comments on the Hass SWC vs. 40mm
Jeff S [email protected] wrote:
>David Meiland wrote:
>>
>> I'm torn now. It seems like roughly the same money will buy the 40 or
>> the SWC. I certainly am not going to own both, so I have to decide
>> whether to go for SLR convenience with the 40 or fabulous optics with
>> the 38.
>>
>
>I haven't used the 40mm, but I find that the SWC is easily hand-holdable
>and makes a very fine box camera of sorts! Pay some attention to that
>bubble level and you should be fine. The finder does have some barrel
>distortion so when in doubt follow the bubble level.
>
>Jeff
That's a good point about the finder. Actually, now that you say it, I
realize that I really did not enjoy looking through it at all--it has
pronounced barrel distortion (I think that's the term) and a TINY
eyepiece. Plus, it gives you no sense of the converging lines that may
be happening. It was far more satisfying to mount the ground glass
adapter and a finder and look that way. The image the lens casts on
the glass is incredibly... vivid. It is just very visually interesting
to compose that way. Made me want to take pictures.
Now if I could only buy the thing for less than $2500.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Date: 25 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad SWC FS
> It also has a Hasselblad
> sky UV filter that has a nice nick in the center.
The filters used with the SWs have to be put in, in the correct direction,
since the glass in the filter is offset. If they are put in wrong, it
will cause the filter AND the front element of the lense to grind into
each other. This can cause, what looks like, a nick in the middle of the
filter, and a spot in the middle of the front element of the lense.
I'm not saying this one has this problem, but you might want to make sure
before buying... If the lense coating is damaged, it can be re-coated by
FocalPoint, for probably around $100 or more.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Using Focusing Screen Adapter
Paolo,
For its worth, I also use a SWC and a SWC/M with the CF lens. The
Focusing Screen Adaptor I have is the latest version with the
Acutte-Matte gridline screen embedded. Part No# 41050
As you had stated, the shutterspeed setting must be at "B" setting. First
thing, I always mount my SWC onto a tripod with the Hassey Quick Release
plate. Crank up my camera, set the aperature to the widest opening,
(F4.5). Although the Focusing Screen Adaptor has an Acutte-Matte Screen,
to obtain the brightest view with any of their finders, you have to set
it at F4.5 for composing and for focusing. Before you fire the camera,
set the lens aperature lock to "T" setting, so that the lens will be open
till you reset the "T" back to "O" setting. I then mount my polariod back
to get a "quick" snapshot with my desired setting. I figure that you
probably know all of this, but this is the only way that I know to get
the necessary shot the first time and not having to stand around till I'm
satisfied. Just be patience and have someone with you when you are
setting up. This person will either nag or help you in getting it right
the first time around.
Evan
"Paolo Pignatelli" [email protected]
writes:
> In using the Focusing Screen Adapter with the SWC, the only way I can
> get
> the lens to open is to set the EV so high that the time goes to "B"
> (and
> when I would like to see it wide open, I need even more of a turn of
> the EV
> ring). Is there a more direct method of using the adapter so that
> I can
> set the EV, then just remove the back, insert the adapter, add the
> chimney
> magnifier, and Voila`, it's all done?
>
> TIA,
>
> Paolo
>
> Paolo Pignatelli
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Date: 25 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad SWC FS
> It also has a Hasselblad
> sky UV filter that has a nice nick in the center.
The filters used with the SWs have to be put in, in the correct direction,
since the glass in the filter is offset. If they are put in wrong, it
will cause the filter AND the front element of the lense to grind into
each other. This can cause, what looks like, a nick in the middle of the
filter, and a spot in the middle of the front element of the lense.
I'm not saying this one has this problem, but you might want to make sure
before buying... If the lense coating is damaged, it can be re-coated by
FocalPoint, for probably around $100 or more.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 903swc vs 40mm.
"Chris J. DiBona" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So I've done a ton of reading and such, and I'm leaning towards the 40mm
> for my 503cw based rig, but I'd love to hear from the list what are the
> real differences between the 40 and 903? It seems the 40 is much more
> convienient for my rig, as I get to continue to use my winder/prisms and
> such. And optically speaking, I d'm not sure what the 903 gives me.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Chris
Hasselblad has a brochure out which demonstrates what the Biogon on the
903 gives you and it is very impressive, awesome. But the does not compare
it directly or at all with the 40.
But the performance of the 38 frankly does not compare with anything SLR.
The 903 is a compact viewfinder camera but you are tempted to bring a tape
measure along with you at least I was and did on the one I shot with for a
few weeks.
Then there is shooting it with it's ground glass back and viewer on a
little tripod and getting everything level!
It's a life support system of an awesome classic true wide angle lens
which makes for distinctive imagery.
But in some ways indistinctive because especially when it's leveled it it
SO corrected with the edges lining up perfectly with the sides of the
frame.
How much does that happen with the 40 I've never seen? I'm sure it's darn
nicely corrected.
But the 38 is perfection!
I just wish we could could see better thought the viewfinder the whole
bottom third of the image is blocked by the lens. That's not fun!
Mark Rabiner
I'm still not sure which i'd get, the 40 or the 38. In a better world,
both, someday.
but which first?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: ULF S JOGREN [email protected]
Subject: SV: 903swc vs 40mm.
Of course you can put the 903/SWC on a tripod, of course you can be sooo
accurate when levelling it and of course you could bring a measuring tape.
BUT, nothing of all that is necessary. You can swing the neat little
camera over your shoulder and go out taking snapshots and candid shots
just as you do with any 35 mm camera. The difference is the quality of the
pictures. Of course it is difficult to guess if the distance is 47 cm or
52 cm. But how often do you use a wideangle camera for those distances?
That the 903/SWC also is one of the best repro cameras is another thing.
But when it comes to repro you have lots of time and can use the ground
glass screen. It IS a marvellous lens, much better than the Distagon 40,
but on the other hand who here shoot so fantastic pictures that the
quality of the Zeiss lenses (any of them) is their limitation? Not I
anyhow.....
Ulf S
Sweden
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lense production numbers...
Hi,
Rick Nordin has a couple of pictures, serial numbers etc in his book.
All models are of course labelled as such but there are a few variations
within one model.
-Super Wide C: came first with silver barrel lens, later with black
barrel lens, even later with black barrel T* lens (thats what I have)
-SWC/M: Came first with a black CT*-lens, later with a CF-lens, even
later the megaphone style viewfinder was replaced with the square one
-903SWC: there have been changes of the tripod quick coupling which
appeared on the other camers too
Peter Jon White schrieb:
> Is there a definitive guide to identifying the various models?
>
> Peter Jon White
>
> > > I would like to see the SWC numbers.
> >
> > Supreme Wide Angle - 903
> > Super Wide - 1,039
> > Super Wide C - 13,971
> > SWC/M - 2,450
> > SWC/M CF - 3,550
FRom hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lense production numbers...
Austin Franklin wrote:
> I believe there were also changes to the tripod mount and the winding crank
> to allow the use of Polaroid backs...but I am not sure of the details.
Those were the modifications that gave the SWC the additional /M.
The viewfinder had to be raised, the tripod mount lowered, and the winding
crank was given a ratchet movement to allow the polaroid back to be used.
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters for Biogon
The SWC takes 63mm drop in filters held in place with a threaded retaining
ring designed specifically for this lens. No vignetting and no contact
with lens surface. Same setup as the old 50mm C. The ring should
accompany the camera but if not, it is not expensive, nor are the filters.
(Available used -- Ebay, KEH, B&H. etc.) This answer seems too simple.
Did I misunderstand the question?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filters for Biogon
> The SWC takes 63mm drop in filters ... no contact with
> lens surface.
That is not true of the filters I have, and they are Hasselblad originals.
The filters are directional, and if you put them in, in the wrong
direction, they will come in contact with the front of the lense, and mar
the coating (as you screw the retaining ring in). Take one out, and
notice the glass is closer to one side of the filter than the other.
Install them such that the side of the filter that has the glass closer to
the edge is away from the lense.
Austin
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000
From: Ian Goodrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters for Biogon
Austin Franklin at [email protected] wrote:
> The Biogon has no lense shade that I am aware of.
> ----------
>> Is the retaining ring separate from the thread that I use to screw in the
>> lens shade?
The Lens shade for the Bigon C has a space for the filter integral with
the hood so ther is no need for a ring and a hood. In fact you need to
discard the filter reating ring to use the hood
Just slip the filter in to the back of the hood and attach to the lens.
Regarding the Filter touching the lens.
I have just had a good hard look at my camera and it is hard to see how
close the rear of the filter is to the lens. I did cut a piece of white
plastic with a straight edge that will span the lens. There seems to be a
1-2mm gab between the filter and the front element.
This is on my camera, but I have never be aware of a problem of filters
touching elements in any of the SWC's I have used.
Just to confirm what we discussing. it is the 63mm filter with no thread
that you are talking about?
--
Ian Goodrick
[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filters for Biogon
> The Lens shade for the Bigon C
I stand corrected, there is a shade listed for a 38mm C lense! Never seen
one...
> Regarding the Filter touching the lens.
>
> Just to confirm what we discussing. it is the 63mm filter with no thread
> that you are talking about?
Yes. We are talking about a 63mm filter with no threads that drops into
the front of the Biogon and is held in place with the filter retaining
ring (and apparently the #40282 lense shade also ;-).
Does your filter have offset glass?
This phenomenon of the filter being able to damage the glass if put in
'wrong' may only pertain to the early Biogon, pre C... It appears from
the pictures in The Hasselblad Compendium, that the later C lense has a
much smaller front element...though the picture can be deceiving. I
thought the optical formula for this lense has been the same since it was
conceived, and I don't know if that means the elements can't be larger or
smaller in diameter.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000
From: Ian Goodrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters for Biogon
Austin Franklin at [email protected] wrote:
>> The Lens shade for the Bigon C
>
> I stand corrected, there is a shade listed for a 38mm C lense! Never seen
> one...
It is the same as that for the 50mm C lens but about 2mm shallower.
>> Regarding the Filter touching the lens.
>
>> Just to confirm what we discussing. it is the 63mm filter with no thread
>> that you are talking about?
> Yes. We are talking about a 63mm filter with no threads that drops into
> the front of the Biogon and is held in place with the filter retaining ring
> (and apparently the #40282 lense shade also ;-).
>
> Does your filter have offset glass?
Yes the filter has offset glass. One face is almost flush with the metal
of the holder the other side has a ring holding the glass in the rim. It
looks as if it is held in by a very short thread. This puts the glass 2 or
3mm away from the face of the filter holder
> This phenomenon of the filter being able to damage the glass if put in
> 'wrong' may only pertain to the early Biogon, pre C... It appears from the
> pictures in The Hasselblad Compendium, that the later C lense has a much
> smaller front element...though the picture can be deceiving. I thought the
> optical formula for this lense has been the same since it was conceived,
> and I don't know if that means the elements can't be larger or smaller in
> diameter.
You may be correct regarding older pre C lenses and filters touching .
Like you I think the optical formulae has not changed but the metal work
surrounding it has.
Could this be why the elements look different?
--
Ian Goodrick
[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What's so charming and intimate about an SWC?
Marcober
[email protected] writes:
Some of you, in the past have intimated that there is something
special
about the SWC, beyond the technical specifications of what it can do. I,
for one would like those who so believe to explain exactly what they
mean.
I've heard it said that people either love or hate the SWC. I'm in the
latter group. The SWC is touted for its lack of distortion yet the finder
is extremely distorting, plus you get a view of half the lens blocking the
composition. Using graduated ND filters for landscape work requires an
additional ground-glass back. The only thing I liked about the SWC was it
takes B60 filters.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: 28 Sep 2000
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: hassy swc non t* vs new 903
> Has anybody compared the quality of pictures from an old swc non T* biogon
> kit to the newer ones. I could get a non t* for about $2000 while buying a
> new biogon 903 would cost about $5000? Similar used 903's are going for at
> least $3500 with about $4000 for a good kit.
I have, but only in a cursory manner. I examined a friends chromes
taken with his T* SWC/M and shots taken with a non-T* SWC under the
same lighting conditions. The only shots that were readily noticeable
as taken with the multicoated lens were those that had very bright
specular light sources like sunlight bouncing off water, etc. The T*
lens had considerable less flare.
However, for all other shots with "average" lighting, the pictures
were almost indistinguishable, with the T* lenses having very slightly
darker, richer shadows (less flare to reduce the Dmax).
> Is it worth the extra price?
Unless you're going to be shooting a lot of high flare prone photos, I
think non-T* is fine. Just use the pro-shade. If you really want T*,
you can save money by getting a used black lens SWC/M, the one in
Compur shutter. Just saw a couple go on eBay for around $2000, body
and finder only. They were both in Ex++ condition.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad SW questions
jjs wrote:
> I'm teetering on the decision to buy a Hasselblad SW. My widest Hassey lens
> is a 50mm. For wider work I rented a SW and found the optics to be stunning
> in all respects. However, I can no longer rent because I'm living in the
> boonies so, I'm looking for an early used SW. The questions are: is lens
> coating the only significant difference between the later and earlier SW
> lenses, or has there been a design change? Is there any particular weakness
> in the early SW cameras that I should be aware of?
SW? Do you really mean the very early (1950s) SW or SWA? They are
collectors items by now. Or do you perhaps mean the SWC (1959 - 1980)?
Lens design has remained unchanged: the early Biogons are just as good as
the newest Biogons.
Multi-coating makes a difference, but perhaps not that much: the early
SWCs are very good even with single coating.
The SWC differ from the SWC/M in that the M(odified) version is suited to
take a polaroid back. To do this, the viewfinder base was raised, the
tripod-attachment was lowered, and the winding crank was given a
ratcheting action.
The viewfinder also changed to a more convenient design, but this change
took place in 1985, and by that time all SWCs were SWC/Ms with a CF
version lens (changed from C to CF in 1982).
There are no particular weaknesses that spring to mind. (Except for the
peculiarities of a viewfinder wide-angle camera, which you have
experienced already.)
So only the usual caveats apply: look for signs of damage, wear, etc..
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
X-Admin: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000
[1] Re: Goofy Zeiss Biogon question
At the film plane I would venture to state that the circle should be
approximately a1-3/4 in radius. (This covers the covers). As I
determined from the manual for the SWC, the light falloff is nearly a
constant, and would drop to nearly 0 at about 50mm from the lens center.
dan
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Tim Rylance)
[1] Re: Goofy Zeiss Biogon question
Date: Wed Nov 22 2000
[email protected] writes:
>Uh oh. MinneSnowta cabin fever is showing its ugly head - I'm thinking
>of mounting my Zeiss Biogon 38mm on a 4x5 to see what coverage it has.
>Save me the grief - does anyone know the circle of coverage? (And Yes,
>I do have a 4x5 I made to accomodate super-wide lenses.)
http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/alpa12_tech.htm says 80mm - the Alpa 12 will
take 66mm x 44mm pictures with a Biogon, which is claimed to make
better use of the lens if you want a non-square image. You pay dearly
for this - the Alpa 12 makes the SWC look positively cheap.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
From: "Williams, Bill" [email protected]
Subject: RE: meter and 903SWC
Nitzan,
I am adding this question to the user group, as someone else might have
some additional advice for you.
You cannot have the image right side up using a prism finder on a 903SWC.
Any prism finder (45 or 90 degree) is constructed for the top of the
camera over the mirror box, viewing through the fresnel viewing screen.
The view from the fresnel screen on a 500 series camera with the
collapsible hood is reversed but right side up. The prism finder
re-orients the view back to what you view outside of the viewfinder
(unreversed).
The 903SWC has no mirror, no fresnel viewing screen, and therefore, no
viewing from a collapsible hood, and no place for a prism finder.
Hasselblad makes a viewfinder that fits on the back of the camera (in
place of the film magazine) that re-orients the view. This viewfinder
does not have any type of meter, but the view is correct. You cannot take
any photographs though, as the viewfinder would have to be removed and the
film magazine re-attached for the exposure.
You could attach a prism finder to the back of the 903SWC using the ground
glass adaptor. However, the meter in the metered prism would have to be
adjusted to work through the ground glass back. I doubt this set-up is
practical at all, but maybe someone else in the group has some experience
in this. Again, the orientation in the prism finder will not be very
helpful.
Why do you want a meter so badly for a 903SWC? What do you want to use
the 903SWC for? It is quite a specialized camera. I have a 500 C/M I use
for weddings and portraiture and have never needed a metered prism...
Maybe consider a good flash meter and a 501 C/M with a 40mm lens. I have
a feeling it might be cheaper too.
Bill
...
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001
From: "Dr. Joseph Yao" [email protected]
Subject: Angle finder for SWC
Just in case it has not been mentioned already, Voigtlander/Cosina has an
angle finder for the SWC:
http://www.cosina.co.jp/swc/
Rgds,
Joseph
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
From: Michael Waldron [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC or 903 SWC
you wrote:
>Any current uses of this cameras out there. I am thinking of getting one of
>these cameras and obviously would like to spend the least amount of $$. at
>what point in time these cameras are the same (lens and mechanics wise)!!
>and last but not least how often do you use this camera. what would be the
>difference to in buying the 40mm lens as opposed to this setup.
Since a new one is about $5k and used 903 about $3,500-4,000, while a used
SWC is about $1,200 - 2,000, I would definitely go used myself. If you
fine you do not use it much, you could always sell it again without a
loss.
I own the SWC and have handled, but not used the 903. The newer camera
has an improved finder with the level built in. I do not have a problem
with the old one and am able to level and aim at the same time. I bought
mine used and it was already modified to take a Polaroid holder (the new
one is already adapted -- if you plan on using Polaroid, this might be an
issue -- I do not often use Polaroid).
I do not really have a problem with flare using the non-T*, but still
coated older lens. The actual lens design is identical.
I quite often use the groundglass adapter which makes the old finder
irrelevant. This is a critical accessory IMHO.
My SWC from the mid-70's has an odd 67mm lens thread (neither bay 50 or
60). If you use and own many round filters, this could be an issue. I
use the Lee 4x4 gel system and only needed a 67mm adapter, which fit
perfectly. It is also nearly impossible to find the correct OEM lens hood
for the 38, but I use the more widely available 50mm metal lens hood with
the correct thread and I do not have a big vignetting problem.
I do not have the 40mm, but the SWC is supposedly a bit sharper. I find it
very sharp and distortion free. With 20x20 prints, the limiting factor is
certainly film grain. The biggest plus is that the SWC gives you another
body and makes a nice travel and "snapshot" camera since it is relatively
small.
Hope that helps.
Michael
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
From: Robert Meier [email protected]
Subject: 903 or SWC
The filter and hood situation is the most important difference for most
people. The 903 takes regular B60 filters and the same hood as the 50 CF.
It therefire fits into the system very well, while the SWC sticks out with
its oddball filter and hood requirements.
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
From: "S. Hill" [email protected]
Subject: 903 or SWC
From: Robert Meier [email protected]
> The filter and hood situation is the most important difference for most
> people. The 903 takes regular B60 filters and the same hood as the 50 CF.
> It therefire fits into the system very well, while the SWC sticks out with
> its oddball filter and hood requirements.
For those who use earlier lenses, there is a highly economical
alternative. I use all Series VIII (67mm) filters and shades for my SWC,
50mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses (a couple with Hasselblad made adapters).
I use lens shades modified from other brands. For example, for my SWC I
have a steel Tiffen-brand shade intended for a different lens, but
shortened to work perfectly on the SWC. You can do the same with a $3
Kodak Series VIII shade, too. (I can have my associate describe this in
more detail. He's promised to make a web page on the processs.)
FRom Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC and various type
Mehrdad Sadat wrote:
> Does anybody own any version of the camera? what are the major differences
> between the current release and older version? lens, body? functions and
> features? Please enlighten me
There are no major differences: the current 903 SWC still is very much the
same as the early SWC.
Changes made during the years were:
The original SWC (taking the 1959 version as "original". There were
earlier SW and SWA cameras) had a C-version Biogon, taking series filters.
Film was wound and the lens shutter cocked by a wind crank. It had a
slide-on viewfinder, and a bubble level on top.
In 1980 the SWC was modified (thus becoming the SWC/M) to accomodate the
Polaroid back. Changes included raising the veiwefinder and lowering the
tripod coupling plate by inserting shims, and changing the wind action to
allow winding film and cocking the shutter using several short strokes
instead of the full 360 degree wind on the SWC.
No other changes.
In 1982 CF lenses were replacing the C lenses. Accordingly the C version
Biogon was replaced by a CF version. The CF version takes diameter 60
bayonet filters and a ditto sunshade.
In 1985 the old style viewfinder was replaced by a new style finder. The
old style finder had a tiny prism on one side, allowing you to see the
bubble level on top of the camera. But you had to move your eye/head to do
so.
The new style finder has a built-in bubble level, which is visible in the
viewfinder. In the same year the bubble level on top of the SWC/M camera
disappeared.
The lens on the SWC and SWC/M cameras protrudes into the bottom part of
the viewfinder image. The new viewfinder incorporates a small segment
allowing you to read the distance scale on the CF lens.
In 1989 the current 903 SWC was introduced. There were only two changes
made: the 903 has a different internal body coating to prevent
reflections, and some minor changes to the styling of the chrome trim edge
was made (more angular around the wind crank).
Ever since its first introduction in 1954 (!) the Biogon lens remained
unchanged.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 55 Schneider Super Angulon PC in Hassy Mount
Frank Filippone wrote:
> I just heard back from Schneider... the lens was never made in Hasselblad
> (200/2000) Mount.
>
> So there is and never was a Tilt and Swing Hasselblad (200/2000) lens made
> that can be identified.
There once was a shift SWC/M with Schneider lens.
It was a special construction, having a Schneider Super-Angulon f/5.6 47
mm large-format lens in synchro-compur, mounted on a sliding front plate.
The plate was connected to the SWC viewfinder, tilting it when rise or
fall was applied. It was made in 1979, as a one-off.
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Cleaning Marks/ Recoating
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >{Snip}
> > > difference is nothing short of amazing-flare is almost nonexistent.
> > >
> > > Richard Wasserman
> >
> > I'd say that your experience makes you an expert ;-)
> >
> > I send a Biogon 38 to John to have it re-coated, and fungus
> cleaned off the
> > middle element...well, needless to say, the lense is as new, of not
> > better...since the coating is far harder than the original
> coating it had in
> > the first place.
>
>
> Wonder if Johns business is booming because of Ebay?
> :) (obnoxious smiley face)
> Mark Rabiner
Not in my case...mine was because some knucklehead didn't realize the
filters for the Biogon have offset glass!
[Ed. note: WARNING! regarding Series VIII filters - check carefully!]
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: RE: SWC filters
Hi Bob,
It wasn't the wrong filter. The glass is offset to one side (as you say,
asymmetrical) and has to be facing away from the lense, or it will grind
the coating on the very apex of the front element! I know, I found out
the hard way, and had to have Jon Van Stelten re-coat the front element of
my SWA (which, BTW, is the #285th Supreme Wide Angle made ;-)
Regards,
Austin
> I saw a note your posted on problems with your SWC caused by the wrong
> filters on the SWC, IIRC?
> and the UV filter does
> indeed seem to be asymmetrical
And no one mentions that anywhere that I could find!
> So I'd be understandably interested in ferreting out any problems for my
> own SWC use, before I blast this great lens, and passing on details or
> warnings on my hassy swc pages...
DO put a warning about this on your web pages PLEASE!
> thanks again
My pleasure, rainy and comfortable here. We needed the rain!
Best regards,
Austin
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Date: Sun Jul 01 2001
[2] Re: warning on SWC vs. series VIII? Re: Hasselblad Filter Threads
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
To add to the record. To be specific, this info regards a SWC with
lens serial # Nr42755xx, camera TTW72xx.
My Hasselblad brand Series VIII filters are, indeed, relieved
(indented) a bit on ONLY ONE side. The glass is not dimpled, but flat.
And FWIW the same relief exists in my Enteco and Harrison Series VIII
filters, but my unnamed (Kodak?) filters have no relief. Note that the
relief on the Enteco and Harrisons are oriented opposite the
Hasselbad's (oriented by the type on the rim.)
ALSO, for those who use 67mm filters or shades instead of the Series,
have you noticed that they don't fit quite properly? I picked up some
Old New Stock Vivitar 67mm filters, still in box, and they are all a
bit tight. I suspect the Series VIII and typical 67mm filter threads
differ, with the later fitting largely through compromised
manufacturing tolerances.
Finally, I just went through a confusing issue regarding the 67mm
filters made by B&W. They make only the E (not ES) thread in 67mm, so
B&W 67mm filters do not fit my SWC. No way. In fact, they catch only a
thread, and mine fell out right away. Onto a rock.
Date: Sun Jul 01 2001
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (John Hicks)
[2] Re: warning on SWC vs. series VIII? Re: Hasselblad Filter Threads
[email protected] (John Stafford)
wrote:
>. I suspect the Series VIII and typical 67mm filter threads differ
Right; I believe the pitch is slightly different. I can use a Hoya
67mm screw-in filter but the B+W and Heliopans won't go.
---
John Hicks
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: "jjs" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: warning on SWC filter relief
"Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote
[...]
> it is a bit odd, since a number of references like Wildi suggest that you
> can use series VIII filters from any mfger, not just hasselblad.
As you said, and it is worth emphasizing in stronger language - Wildi is
dead friggin wrong. Not _any_ Series VIII will work. Period. Okay, after
reading your page and post, I checked my Kodak filters. Never used them.
Good thing, too. They do seem to kiss to the lens, and I didn't screw down
the series adapter. It's too close for me. And as I mentioned earlier, if
you are careful with orientation, the Harrison and (mumble, forgot the
brand) fit like the 'blad filters. But you have to check the orientation.
Someone asked about dimensions earlier. The Series VIII filters are
generally 60mm across. Include the circumference ring and they are 63mm,
just as Hasselblad suggests in their part number.
A WORK AROUND which I tried and seems to be adequate is to put a length of
stout nylon fishing leader around the inside of the lens, where the Kodak
Series VIII filter rests. Be sure the leader is seated properly after
screwing down the series ring. Don't use cement in there. I'm afraid
cement vapors might fog the lens surface.
The final solution for me comes from Steve Grimes who told me he could
make a very nice series filter with the proper brass or anodized alumnimum
mount with relief to work in the SWC. I just have to come up with a 60mm
glass. (The whole point is to mount _one particular_ colored B&W filter
which I really like. B&W can't tell me if their Series VIII is properly
offset. And I have been waiting four months already for the last filter I
ordered from them. What is this Germany thing, anyway?) I have some
checking to do in person. Humm, anyone willing to tear the mouting ring
off their B&W filters to find which size is 60mm? ;)
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (John Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: warning on SWC filter relief
"jjs" [email protected] wrote:
>really like. B&W can't tell me if their Series VIII is properly offset.
FWIW the Heliopan Series VIII filter is offset. I just looked at it
to make sure.
---
John Hicks
Date: 30 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: warning on SWC vs. series VIII? Re: Hasselblad Filter Threads
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
....
To add to the record. To be specific, this info regards a SWC with
lens serial # Nr42755xx, camera TTW72xx.
My Hasselblad brand Series VIII filters are, indeed, relieved
(indented) a bit on ONLY ONE side. The glass is not dimpled, but flat.
And FWIW the same relief exists in my Enteco and Harrison Series VIII
filters, but my unnamed (Kodak?) filters have no relief. Note that the
relief on the Enteco and Harrisons are oriented opposite the
Hasselbad's (oriented by the type on the rim.)
ALSO, for those who use 67mm filters or shades instead of the Series,
have you noticed that they don't fit quite properly? I picked up some
Old New Stock Vivitar 67mm filters, still in box, and they are all a
bit tight. I suspect the Series VIII and typical 67mm filter threads
differ, with the later fitting largely through compromised
manufacturing tolerances.
Finally, I just went through a confusing issue regarding the 67mm
filters made by B&W. They make only the E (not ES) thread in 67mm, so
B&W 67mm filters do not fit my SWC. No way. In fact, they catch only a
thread, and mine fell out right away. Onto a rock.
Date: 4 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: warning on SWC filter relief
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
> [...]
> Since I didn't realize this either (duh! ;-) and neither does Wildi etc.,
> I'm a bit surprised too ;-) I keep hoping somebody will say, oh you need
> the inner retaining ring part #xxxxx to keep those filters off the lens
> glass, but so far, I haven't heard of any such part or item ;-)... bobm
(forgive if this message is repeated, but I travel and use two
different news servers, and they do not reflect the same messages.)
Part #xxxxxx is feasible in a couple forms. First, Steve Grimes has
told me that he could machine a spacer to drop in under the
noncompliant Series VIII filters. The alternative that I'm trying in
the meantime uses a stout nylon fishing leader cut to fit the
circumfernce of the inside of the lens. It 'springs' out to fit
nicely. Then you place the filter on top, screw in the series ring,
double-check fit and go to work. I've no idea yet how long this thing
will work, but consider it a temporary kludge.
But I like the brass or anodized aluminum spacer idea. I wonder if
Steve Grimes would offer a discount if we all went in and bought a
dozen or so of the same size.
Date: 6 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: workaround? Re: warning on SWC filter relief
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
> an alterative I'll look at shortly is simply grinding off the ring on the
> lower half of the standard (and cheap) series VIII half of a holder - it
> is probably perfect for height, I hope ;-) [...]
Bob, I am pretty sure you find it too high. The filter holder rests
closer to the lens rim. You might not be left with many threads for
the fastening ring.
I agree that asking Steve Grimes to make a few might be silly. I'll
bring a measure to the local hardware place. Chances are there is a
big O-ring or something which fits. (need a 63 to 65mm ring.) In the
meantime, the plastic leader is working. We have to be careful to pick
something that doesn't outgas and fog the lens.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Next Lens Choice for my Hasselblad 501CM
Eugene A. Pallat wrote:
> The quality of the 38mm is ledgendary. I read the the barrel distortion
> is so low, the deviation from a straight line ate the edges of a 1 meter
> square print is less than 1.5 mm.
Double that. With a maximum distortion of about 0.3%, that would be less
than 3 mm.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: a NEW SWC - 905SWC
Warnecke Gerald wrote:
> Good news to read that the 903SWC is redesigned [etc.]
Am i the only one to notice that the MTF curves of the new, redesigned
Biogon indicate WORSE performance than the MTF curves of the old Biogon
attest?
And is that what they mean by "improved"?
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: a NEW SWC - 905SWC
And all the ad seems to indicate that we get for the improvement is
environmentally-friendly glass. What percentage of global pollution is
contributed by discarded Hasselblad lenses?
From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Aug 2001
Subject: Hassy announcements
Hasselblad is upgrading the 903SWC to a new model 905SWC with an newly designed
Biogon 38/4.3 CFi lens. The new lens incorporates the Nivrox mainspring in the
shutter assembly, has a new optical design, and will include the 40668 lens
hood. The product number for the camera is 10304 and it should be in stores
mid-September.
Last Autumn, at PhotoPlus (in NYC) Hasselblad showed prototypes of colored
camera bodies. They have now announced the release of 501CM kits and 503CW
bodies in sun yellow, forest green, ruby red, or cobalt blue. A12 and A24
magazines to match will also be available. First deliveries to retailers should
be mid-September.
regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
Barry S. wrote:
> Hmmm. The current incarnation of the Biogon 38 is regarded as one of
> the best camera lenses made, period. I wonder what the optical
> improvements are?
Hasselblad say:
"We therefore do not claim a higher MTF performance for the new CFi Biogon
4.5/38 mm lens. We just claim that it is as perfect as before but built into
an even better barrel for improved handling and long time precision
performance."
But be sure to have a look at the MTF curves of the old CF version and
compare them to the MTF curves of the new version (to be found on Zeiss'
website). Apparently not all change is improvement...
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Check out Hasselblad SE website. I don't beleive that the optical quality of
the Biogon could be improved upon. Gathering what I read on the Hasselblad
User's Group, the improvement is the new style barrel with the anti-reflection,
new improved shutter spring, improved flash PC contact, and the new eco-glass
used. Zeiss and other glass manufacturers are using a lead free and arsenic
free glass manufacturing process. This can all be verfied by going to the
link:
http://www.hasselblad.com/press/detail.cgi?new/998310426.txt
Evan
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
Karen Nakamura wrote:
> For us consumers, is there any point? It's not like we lick our lenses
> (at least I don't) and we don't dispose of them either, so does have an
> ecologically sound lens make sense? Does it improve the quality of the
> lens?
According to Zeiss' very own MTF curves: no, it doesn't. The old C and CF
Biogon is better!
The change in glass apparently was done because of environmental reasons
(not so much concerning ecology as worker safety and health). The change in
glass properties (however small) made a recalculation of the optical formula
a necessity. Though still very good, according to the (measured!) MTF-curves
the recalculated Biogon is not quite as good as the old one.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
-= H.=- wrote:
> > According to Zeiss' very own MTF curves: no, it doesn't. The old C and
CF
> > Biogon is better!
>
> Got a URL?
Yes: http://www.zeiss.de
Select the English language version, if so desired,
go to "Photography",
select "Camera and Cine Lenses",
then select "Medium format",
then "Hasselblad",
next "SWC Super Wide",
select "Lens for SWC (etc.)",
then "Technical Information",
and about here you should find the option to open "Biogon4,5_38_CFi_e.pdf".
You will need to find the curves of the old version in your own archives,
since they are no longer available online.
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: ULF S JOGREN [email protected]>
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" <[email protected]>,
Subject: SV: a NEW SWC - 905SWC
The "improved with the new CFi design" means that the lens barrel is light
blue, else everything is the same.....
Ulf
----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Fr�n: "Q.G. de Bakker" <[email protected]>
Till: <[email protected]>
Skickat: den 21 augusti 2001
�mne: Re: a NEW SWC - 905SWC
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Hasselblad's release on this new camera:
> >
> > "The replacement for the 903SWC is the 905SWC, incorporating a totally new
> > BiogonCFi f/4.3 38mm lens. The lens has been completely recalculated using
> > new optimized optical glass. As you know one of the strengths of this
> camera
> > has been the outstanding performance of the Biogon lens, this is only been
> > improved with the new CFi design. [...]
>
> Anybody noticed the difference between the (identical) MTF curves of the C
> and CF versions compared to the MTF curves of the new CFi version yet? What
> can it mean:
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001
From: Peter Rosenthal <[email protected]>
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC conversion/modification
Yes Peter R. can do this and has many times. The biggest problem with the
conversion is that the winder is not a ratchet. One needs to turn it half
way, fold the lever, open the lever and finish winding. It actually takes
longer to describe than to do but works well enough and the price is right.
Nobody has yet to complain armed with the knowledge of what to expect. The
VF needs a small shim to raise it above the polaroid back. Without the
polaroid it acts normally of course. Oh yeah...we gotta hack off part of
the overly large tripod plate. Since there are no more conversion parts
it's the best we can do.
Peter R
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
> From: Bob Keene <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001
> To: hassydigest <[email protected]>
> Subject: SWC conversion/modification
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm new to the list- mainly a wedding and portrait photographer.
> Just picked up an SWC- used it at my last wedding, haven't gotten the
> results yet....
> Got some information from Peter R about modifying the SWC to take a polaroid
> back. Anyone have Peter do this? Anyone know anyone else who might do SWC/M
> conversions?
> As I understand it, the mod kit from Hasselblad is discontinued.....
>
> Also, I have a deposit down on one of Stephen Gandy's SWC Low Angle Finders-
> anyone else?
> see info at:
>
> http://cameraquest.com/inventor.htm
>
> Thanks,
>
> great list...
>
>
> Bob Keene
> Keene Vision Photography
> "Creating Visions That Last A Lifetime"
> (781)449-2536
> [email protected]
> www.keenevision.com
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] re: avoiding possible SWC/M 38mm biogon damage from filters...
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Cartier Bresson wrote:
> I found other things that Wilde has to say about the SWC to be either wrong
> or very confusing. When talking about the parrallex problem with the SWC
> viewfinder he says that the bottom portion of the viewfinder coincides with
> what the lens records. But, the top and sides are not true to form. He says
> just take in three (3) inches from the top and sides and you have ide of
> what is being photographed!!!YIKES.
>
> ANy help on understand wha tthe viewfinder sees and what is being covered?
Wildi is correct (in the 4th edition he in says that you see 5" extra on
top, and about 2" on either side. There is a diagram in that edition too
explaining the matter).
The viewfinder has a larger coverage than the lens (the mentioned 2 - 2.5"
on all sides), and is about 2.5" above the lens, shifting its field of view
the exact same amount. So you see 5" extra on top (the bottom edge is
aligned with what the lens sees because of the higher position of the
viewfinder), and 2 - 2.5" extra on either side.
These amounts do not change when your subject moves away from the lens, so
while 5" is a lot, when expressed as an percentage of field of view, when
the lens is set to its close focus limit, it dwindels away when subject
distances become larger. Just remember that the image you see through the
viewfinder is 2-2.5" wider on either side, and has 5" extra on top, compared
to what the lens sees.
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]>
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>, [email protected]>
Subject: AW: [HUG] re: avoiding possible SWC/M 38mm biogon damage from filters...
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Let me just add something to clarify this matter (or make it more confusing,
that depends). The viewfinder and the lens of the Hasselblad SWC have the
same viewing angle, therefore the same area coverage. The difference between
what you see and what you get is because the viewfinder is not only mounted
above the lens but also a little behind the lens. This has been done in such
a way that the bottom edge of viewfinder and picture are identical. This
also explains why the extra inches you see at the top and at the sides do
not change with distance (as it would be if the viewing angle of lens and
viewfinder were not identical.
Appearently the amount of parallax at the top should be bigger with SWC/M
and 903 SWC-models because the viewfinder has been raised compaired to the
original SWC to accomodate polaroid-backs.
Greetings to all, have a great new year.
Ulrik
> Cartier Bresson wrote:
>
> > I found other things that Wilde has to say about the SWC to be either
> wrong
> > or very confusing. When talking about the parrallex problem with the SWC
> > viewfinder he says that the bottom portion of the viewfinder coincides
> with
> > what the lens records. But, the top and sides are not true to form. He
> says
> > just take in three (3) inches from the top and sides and you have ide of
> > what is being photographed!!!YIKES.
> >
> > ANy help on understand wha tthe viewfinder sees and what is
> being covered?
>
> Wildi is correct (in the 4th edition he in says that you see 5" extra on
> top, and about 2" on either side. There is a diagram in that edition too
> explaining the matter).
> The viewfinder has a larger coverage than the lens (the mentioned 2 - 2.5"
> on all sides), and is about 2.5" above the lens, shifting its
> field of view
> the exact same amount. So you see 5" extra on top (the bottom edge is
> aligned with what the lens sees because of the higher position of the
> viewfinder), and 2 - 2.5" extra on either side.
> These amounts do not change when your subject moves away from the lens, so
> while 5" is a lot, when expressed as an percentage of field of view, when
> the lens is set to its close focus limit, it dwindels away when subject
> distances become larger. Just remember that the image you see through the
> viewfinder is 2-2.5" wider on either side, and has 5" extra on
> top, compared
> to what the lens sees.
>
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001
Subject: a NEW SWC - 905SWC
To: [email protected]
I just got notice of this.
It is hard to imagine a Hassy with a better lens than the 903...but it sounds
like they may have done it with a NEW version of the SWC.
I'm currently accepting pre-orders for the 905SWC. The price is $5537.00.
Hasselblad's release on this new camera:
"The replacement for the 903SWC is the 905SWC, incorporating a totally new=20
BiogonCFi f/4.3 38mm lens.=A0 The lens has been completely recalculated using
new optimized optical glass.=A0 As you know one of the strengths of this camera
has been the outstanding performance of the Biogon lens, this is only been
improved with the new CFi design.=A0Important differences of the 905SWC are as
follows:
1. The CFi lens incorporates the main shutter spring ofNivarox to ensurelong life and lasting precision.
2. The camera will now be supplied with the lens shade#40668.
3. New optical design of the 38mm Biogon, Nivrox mainshutter spring.
4. The price of the 905SWC will only go up by $87.00, the price of the lens shade.
The camera is available inchrome finish only and will be in stock, as of the
beginning of September.
Product and price information is as follows:
Product: 10304
Description: Hasselblad 905SWC"
cheers,
Rich
photovillage.com
(646) 613-1107
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
-= H.=- wrote:
> From memory the MTF's of the older design was considerably better.
Actually comparing the two one should say that "considerably better" is
saying way too much.
The old Biogon is better, yes, but just a bit, and the new one is still
extremely good.
But having said that, and as i mentioned before, the "improved" version
shows unmistakingly worse MTF graphs. So much for progress...
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy announcements
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
John Stafford wrote:
> Look at the larger picture. List the materials then follow them beyond
> the manufacturing process to their final destination - for example, as
> solutions, salts, preciptates, gasses, into the air and earth, then
> into plants, people, your cat, your children. It adds up, and while
> maybe, just maybe the manufacturer could capture these elements,
> disposing of them might be prohibitively expensive, so he opts to use
> less or none of the difficult elements. So you lose a couple LPMM. Big
> deal.
But i don't think it is about a choice either to use environmental
friendlier materials or good performance. Zeiss should be able to
recalculate the lens using the new glasses and perhaps come up with an even
better lens. Don't forget the original Biogon hails from before the digital
age, while this new one was calculated using all computer power available
today (at least one should think so). So why a (slight!) drop in LPMM?
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Modification of Hasselblads SWC to SWC/M
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001
ctbobby wrote:
> I got an old Hasselblads SWC and want it can accommodate a Polaroid
> back, who know where I can send to do the modifications?
>
> How about the price?
>
> Is it possible to buy a kit and doing by myself? Where can I buy a kit?
The conversion kit was available from Hasselblad years ago. I doubt it still
is, but it never hurts to ask: [email protected].
If you are skilled and confident enough to dismantle your SWC (including
taking out the lens in parts) and get it back together again, then yes, you
can do it yourself.
Peter Rosenthal in Arizona (i know: it's a long way from where you are) can
do the conversion for you, apparently evenb without the kit. Here's what he
has to say:
"The biggest problem with the conversion is that the winder is not a
ratchet.One needs to turn it half way, fold the lever, open the lever and
finish winding.It actually takes longer to describe than to do but works
well enough and the price is right.
Nobody has yet to complain armed with the knowledge of what to expect.The VF
needs a small shim to raise it above the polaroid back.Without the polaroid
it acts normally of course.Oh yeah...we gotta hack off part of the overly
large tripod plate.Since there are no more conversion parts it's the best we
can do."
You have to decide yourself whether or not let him butcher your SWC to get
it halfway converted. And ask him how much he will charge you for doing so.
His adress is:
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
U.S.A.
928 779-5263
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Modification of Hasselblads SWC to SWC/M
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> "The biggest problem with the conversion is that the winder is not a
> ratchet.One needs to turn it half way, fold the lever, open the lever and
> finish winding.It actually takes longer to describe than to do but works
> well enough and the price is right.
> Nobody has yet to complain armed with the knowledge of what to expect.The VF
> needs a small shim to raise it above the polaroid back.Without the polaroid
> it acts normally of course.Oh yeah...we gotta hack off part of the overly
> large tripod plate.Since there are no more conversion parts it's the best we
> can do."
I should perhaps add that when using the Hasselblad conversion kit, in
contrast to the story above, there is no butchering involved at all. And the
wind lever is converted to a ratcheting lever, so you can wind the film
using either one full turn or several short part turns. You end up with a
complete SWC/M.
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 07 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: Modification of Hasselblads SWC to SWC/M
Q.G. de Bakker and any other who are interested,
I recently had Hasselblad USA perform this on my SWC. As of August 31,2001
(roughly one week ago) they still have the original SWC/M conversion kit
available for $240 by itself. Now if you sent in your SWC for a CLA or as I
did, a complete overhaul, they will install the kit as part of the overhaul OR
CLA. That way, it will be all original Hasselblad SWC/M conversion kit parts
and the camera will be good fo rthe next 50 years or so, till you either lose
it, have it stolen, or just decide to upgrade to sell! Give them a call and
ask for the Service Dept.
Evan
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC question
George Day wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm interested in purchasing a SWC camera for use on an upcoming trip. This
> is going to be a specialty use item and I can't really justify the
> kilo-bucks for a new camera.
>
> So, my question is this: prices seem to vary a fair amount between
> relatively new cameras and early '80s / late '70's models. Is there any
> significant change in the optic itself (I would suppose coating)? Bear in
> mind that I'll be shooting b/w exclusively.
The optics are very similar except for coatings. Here are the main differences:
The SWC and SWC/M use a 67mm thread for filters. The difference between those two is that the SWC/M can use the Polaroid back and has a ratchet wind crank. The SWC can be upgraded with a SWC/M kit, which I had done to my SWC - the
tripod shoe is lowered and the winding crank is replaced with the ratchet wind crank. You need either an adapter or the older bellows for these.
The 903SWC uses bay 60 filters and can use the Polaroid back.
All three can use the 41050 focusing screen which enables you to use any viewfinders, PME45, PME90, etc.
Gene Pallat
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SWC question
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 101
From: [email protected]
George Day [email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm interested in purchasing a SWC camera for use on an upcoming
> trip. This
> is going to be a specialty use item and I can't really justify the
> kilo-bucks for a new camera.
New doesn't necessarily mean better.
> So, my question is this: prices seem to vary a fair amount between
> relatively new cameras and early '80s / late '70's models. Is
> there any
> significant change in the optic itself (I would suppose coating)?
> Bear in
> mind that I'll be shooting b/w exclusively.
For all practical purposes, the 38mm Biogon lens is the same formula
regardless of the year of manufacture. So, a SWC from the 60s is just
as sharp as one from 2001. I'm sure there have been minor improvements,
particularly because of laser guide, computer controlled lens grinding;
but as far as practical photography, you won't see those differences.
I prefer the older, pre-Prontor shutter lenses anyway. I think they
are of better quality manufacture. My prime lens is a 60 f5.6
Distagon. It is about 40 years old. I bought it in Like New condition
17 years ago and I've shot professionally with it since. It has broken
down only twice in that time. Both minor repairs. $45 each.
Multicoating does improve contrast and greatly reduces lens flare in
high flare conditions like shooting scenes with bright point light
sources or shooting into the sun. However, for most other lighting
conditions, the differences between pictures done with T and non-T*
lenses are almost indistinguishable.
I would concentrate more on getting an SWC that is in great condition
and well cared than on how new it is or whether it is a T*.
>
> And, hey, if someone has a good deal out there...I'm all ears.
Check on eBay. Every one-in-a-while, you find a real deal. Just saw
an SWC from about '65 with barely a sratch on it, go for $1200.
Good hunting . . .
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From: Charles Barcellona [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Modification of Hasselblads SWC to SWC/M
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001
I see they've priced the kits lower -
I had my SWC converted to SWC/M and it cost me nearly $700 in 1991, with a CLA.
At one time, Hasselblad said the kit requited removal of the lens for
installation. I've got that here in my old Hasselblad paperwork. I have always
doubted this statedment, and believed that it was just an out and out lie.
My SWC/M had a shim between the camera and viewfinder shoe, a shim between the
tripod plate and the body, and the crank was replaced with a smaller diameter one, that also ratcheted.
Evanjoe610 wrote:
> Q.G. de Bakker and any other who are interested,
>
> I recently had Hasselblad USA perform this on my SWC. As of August 31,2001
> (roughly one week ago) they still have the original SWC/M conversion kit
> available for $240 by itself. Now if you sent in your SWC for a CLA or as I
> did, a complete overhaul, they will install the kit as part of the overhaul OR
> CLA. That way, it will be all original Hasselblad SWC/M conversion kit parts
> and the camera will be good fo rthe next 50 years or so, till you either lose
> it, have it stolen, or just decide to upgrade to sell! Give them a call and
> ask for the Service Dept.
>
> Evan
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: Modification of Hasselblads SWC to SWC/M
Charles,
The price of $240 is just for the kit only. I am having my SWC/M undergoing a
complete overhaul that will cost me $325 - $ 350 and that is for the overhaul
only. As for parts, if needed, I will have to paid a separate fee for the
parts, that is if they are available. I was told all of this information
upfront by Hasselblad.
The kit did cost at one point $350. I beleive the lower price to use all
existing parts. SO for me, the cost at the end will be in the ballpark of $600
to $650 with the complete overhaul. That way, I will have my SWC/M for the next
10 to 15 years beofre it will need another CLA. I don't think that Hasselblad
rip you off. As for the lens being removed, I was told that is true to get to
the inside portion of the older rewind crank and to have the newer rewind crank
installed. I have the lens removal done and this is true.
Evan Dong
From: "Oliver Bryk" [email protected]>
To: "HUG" [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Jammed A12
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
The communication about the jammed A12 back reminded me of a problem I
created about 5 years ago. I had bought a 4.5x6cm mask from the dealer and
used it in my Superwide with an A12. Nothing worked, the darkslide would not
move, and I could not release the back. The dealer's service department
manager fixed the problem (for a fee, of course) and told me sternly that I
should have never put the mask on the Superwide. There was nothing in the
camera or mask instructions to that effect. To this day I do not understand
why it did not work. Needless to say, I've never used the mask, and would be
glad to sell it.
Oliver Bryk
From: "Klaus H. Peters" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Finest wide angle lens for 6x9 no movements
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001
Stuart schrieb
>I am considering contructing my own camera. I am looking at the
>Schneider Super Angulon 47mm 5.6 non XL. Do you know of any sites
>that Cite test results on suitable lenses?
>
>THanks
>
>Stuart
I do not know such a site. But I have friend who constructed and built a
camera that is similiar to the Hasselblad SWC. That camera takes the
Hasselblad A12 magazine and it uses the Super Angulon 47mm XL. When I see
pictures taken with this camera I always admire their great sharpness. It is
really crisp and as far as I can judge as good as the according Hasselblad
lens - may be even better.
Klaus.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002
From: Peter Rosenthal [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 38/Biogon repair?
This is not a big deal repair but there are some issues that need to be
addressed. One of which cannot be resolved without a $2,000 auto-collimator
(infinity focus) "really good" screwdrivers not withstanding. Also, the
focus ring is held on in a manner that doesn't resemble anything else living
or dead. It's very "Hasselbladish!!" Sending this lens to Hassy is only a
good idea if you knock over your local 7-11. Several times. Even with a 20%
discount. Like I said, not a big deal repair!! I'd send it to your guy.
Peter
--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
> From: "Tourtelot" [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002
> Subject: [HUG] 38/Biogon repair?
>
> The focus ring on my new (to me) 38/Biogon has popped free. Is this
> something that some of you DYIers out there could recommend buying a $12
> spanner wrench and attempting myself? I already own the "really good"
> screwdrivers. If not, is it something I could entrust to my local
> service guy or should I send it away for weeks to my Hassy guy? Thanks.
>
> Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
> Seattle, WA
> [email protected]
From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stupid 501CM questions
Date: 17 Mar 2002
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote
> That, by the way, is a thing you really must buy, a lens hood!
And the old square hoods are a huge rip-off. (He says smugly, having
them all already.) BUT you might be better served to get the adapter
so that you can use 67mm/Series VIII shades and filters. You can use
the old Kodak and Vivitar and Universal shades which are just as good
and cost maybe $12 each. (I have even cut one down to use on a SWC).
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 905swc
Rolf Katzenstein wrote:
> Does anyone think that there is a significant quality difference between
> the 38cf on the 903 vs the 38cfi on the 905? I've heard negative
> comments on the cfi lens. Thanks
Though i haven't seen a 905 yet, i think it is safe to say that the
difference between its new Biogon and the old one is negligible.
The "negative" comments are based upon the new lens's MTF graphs, which do
show a difference.
I feel these comments should be interpreted as an expression of amazement
about how the new Biogon, designed with the aid of modern computer power and
after many decades of progress (?) in glass and manufacturing technology,
could not improve (or, looking very close, even equal) the "ancient" SAD
(=slide-rule aided design) design. It rocks the commonly held belief that
"new" equals "better".
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002
From: Pablo Kolodny [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: 2.8C or D?
Julian Thomas wrote:
> yeah I know. I tried one last time I was in London. I could do with a 55mm
> to compliment the 80mm though. The hassy 501/3 just doesn't focus as fast.
> Now if only someone made a Mamiya RZ in 6x6 with the size/weight handling of
> the hassy...
>
> Julian
Nah... you'll dislike both stuff, the Hassy thing and even worse the RZ thing.
Keep on Rollei stuff, just step back when you need to go wider. Not big deal
but sometimes works fine. And depending on what you're looking for you have
the mutars, really not a big deal but mutars do exist.
At last, for half the money of a Rollei wide you'll get one of the best
cameras ever made: a Hassy SWC, SWC/M and all of the family tree.
Maybe not so well built but no doubt the best lens ever found: the
incredible Biogon. Maybe you'll find the finder a little uncomfortable but
when you get used to it is a great deal.
And focusing ? forget it, just set the f number you want, pre focus as you
want and that's it: a sort of P&S, almost everything in focus, everything
really sharp as with no other lens in the world. And if you take your time,
a tripod, and get it leveled you'll achieve absolute distortion free, again
like no other lens in the world.
Sh*t, I miss the one I had many years ago.
saludos
Pablo
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Tiffen filters and SWC
Does anyone know if the Tiffen Ser. VIII filters, not out of production, are
offset in their frame for use with the SWC?
Thanks.
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] The New Organically Grown 905swc
[email protected] writes:
the difference between its new Biogon and the old one is negligible
At the Hasselblad booth at the big show (NYC) last November, the gentleman
from Sweden advised that it is because the glass manufacturer cannot supply
certain glasses that Zeiss had to rework the Biogon. Glass manufacturers now
must straighten up their act as it relates to employees' health and the
environment. (rember the apo-lanthar!!?)
Zeiss, therefore, had to do some juggling with the Biogon. (Maybe with other
lenses in the course of time.) With the use of computers I'm sure the new
91 degree Biogon is equal to the former and, in all likelihood, an
improvement. Without hesitation, the Gentleman from Sweden said that,
together with the 250 Superachromat and the 100/3.5 Planar, the new Biogon
was WITHOUT PEER.
IF I had the bucks I'd spring for a 905 in a heartbeat.
Vincent L. Gookin
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] The New Organically Grown 905swc
...
Not an improvement (except in environmental aspect), that's a certainty.
The new Biogon not being quite on par with the old one isn't just a rumour.
Zeiss/Hasselblad do publish lens performance data revealing all.
And they (Zeiss/Hasselblad) tell us that it isn't an improvement too: ---
"Over the years the design has been subjected to a number of recalculations
at Zeiss for further improvement of the image quality. One would have
thought that with modern computers and available types of glass, a design
from mid-1950 must surely be easy to beat? Even this time it proved to be
quite the opposite." --- (Hasselblad press statement)
The difference, though clearly marked, isn't sizeable, so we would perhaps
do best to forget about it.
> Without hesitation, the Gentleman from Sweden said that,
> together with the 250 Superachromat and the 100/3.5 Planar, the new Biogon
> was WITHOUT PEER.
Sales pitch... The old Biogon still is (a tiny bit) more than its peer.
;-)))
> IF I had the bucks I'd spring for a 905 in a heartbeat.
And that wouldn't be wrong.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Softrelease
FWIW. I just discovered, by accidental good fortune, the Tom Abrahamsson's
softrelease make camera shake on my SWC much less evident. I am going to
try on on my 500C/M as well. I have no affiliation, bla, bla, bla!
http://www.rapidwinder.com/
D.
[Ed. note: the item is long sold, but price and option may be of interest...]
Subject: FS:Voigtlander Low Angle Finder for the SWC, Swc/m
From: Bob Keene/Keene Vision Photography [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format,rec.photo.marketplace
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002
I have a Like New Voigtlander Low Angle Finder for the SWC, Swc/m. As new.
Bought for $500 with case and original box- will sell for $350. This is the
sharpest finder I have ever used! (see details of it at:
www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm
...
Regards,
Bob Keene Keene Vision Photography
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide
Bill Grimwood wrote:
>I need a lens hood for my Hassy Superwide.
Is there such a thing?
The "lens hood" for my 40CFE is all of 1/4" deep. Not much of a lens hood.
But all that can be expected on a Wuper Wide lens... :)
Jim
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
From: "Dr. Ulrik Neupert" [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide
Moin,
there is a lens hood for the Hasselblad SWC. Earlier versions for C-lenses
are round and replace the filter retaining ring, the shade for CF- and CFi
lens is square has a bayonet and is made for 38, 50 and 60 mm lenses.
The lens hood for the C-lens SWC has "38" engraved on it and is often
ridiculous overpriced on the secondhand market. You can also buy the shade
with the "50" engraving for the 50 mm C-lens which is more common. I heard
that it does not cause vignetting, in case it does you would have to shorten
it by 2 mm.
Ulrik
...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
From: dick chandler EL [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide
I have the B60 38-60 hood on my SWC/M. It's about an inch deep.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] lens hood for Wuper Wide
Bill-
Just so you know, I have never had any cutoff on my 38 C Biogon with the 50
hood. It works fine for me on both lenses.
Regards,
D.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] I'm thinking of buying a SWC
Hi Ian:
Check www.ebay.com and search completed auctions (it lists last thirty days).
This will give you an idea of the going rate for the various models. Also
check www.keh.com for used models (usually a decent selection available).
I have seen mint 903 SWC's (B 60) go for as low as approx. 2900 and as high
as approx. 3600 USD. SWC/M's (also B 60) tend to sell in the range of 2300 -
2600 USD. Have observed older SWC's in good condition sell between 1100 -
1900 USD. The oldest models do not accept a Polaroid back though some can be
easily retrofitted to do so. The B 60 lens hood for this model (a must have
accessory although you can use a proshade) usually sells in the range of 40 -
75 USD.
These prices have been observed by me generally over the last two years. All
are with viewfinder and without film back. I would expect that with the
introduction of the 905, and with more and more people turning to digital,
the prices may have dropped and will be dropping more.
Read the archives on the HUG re this camera. Everyone says that it is second
to none!
Good luck.
RL Demsey
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] hand-strap for Hasselblad
I have the hand strap too and am using it with the 903SWC when I'm walking
about doing street photos. It allows me to cradle and stabilize the camera
with my left hand very nicely, adds to my ability to hold the camera
steadily, and leaves the right hand free to work the wind and other
controls.
You might look into one of the generic hand straps that just screw into
the tripod mount: that's a single point mounting on the bottom and would
allow you to catch the camera if it accidentally tumbled.
That's kind of how I use the shoulder strap: I have it looped around my
forearm when i'm shooting so that if the camera starts to fall, I can
catch it by just raising my arm. It also allows me to sling the camera
over the shoulder and under my arm while I'm walking about, a bit more
inconspicuous than having the camera always in my hand with the handstrap.
Godfrey
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Gene Woolridge [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] hand-strap for Hasselblad
try a velcro Raquetball raquet tether! Mine works wonders especially
when im shooting out the windows of planes!
daniel taylor wrote:
>I just returned from New York City, toting my 203FE,
>and living dangerously. I mean to say, I have fallen
>into this routine of simply picking up the camera sans
>strap, and assuming I won't be unlucky enough to drop
>it. so far, so good ... but the odds are against me. I
>looked at the small Hasselblad strap, that uses both
>attach points, but it didn't afford a comfortable fit
>around my hand in the manner I hold the camera. the
>longer strap just doesn't fit my style either. I was
>hoping for a hand-strap with a single attach point,
>that merely acts as a safety-net should I lose grip. I
>haven't found anything, and even a trip to the B&H
>madhouse didn't yield anything of value. it is the
>Hasselblad attach fitting that is derailing my
>choices. yes, I know ... tie a rope around it, or weld
>a new fitting to my 203FE. any less-intrusive
>suggestions?
>
>Daniel Taylor
>Lightsmythe Studios
>Oregon, USA
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002
From: rstein [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] hand-strap for Hasselblad
Dear Daniel,
Simple. I got a 500ELX with a small hand strap and didn't like it so I
stripped the fittings off in my workshop and sewed up a longer leather strap
that I did like. Your local shoemaker or harness maker can do the same.
Uncle Dick
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on 500 c/m and lens capability
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
Austin Franklin wrote:
> As an aside note, there were 903 Supreme Wide Angle cameras made. That is
> speculated to be the source of the current designation for that camera, the
> 903SWC.
So "903" is not the angle of view, plus the "3" that was added to all camera
type designations at that time?
Nice if it were true ;-) But that seems highly unlikely to me.
The exact number of SWAs built being 903 is indeed speculative. But even if
it were correct, there is no denying the link of the extra "3" with the
overall change in type designations made in 1989.
[Ed. note: see hassy lenses sold
posting for related figures]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Next Lens Choice for my Hasselblad 501CM
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
Eugene A. Pallat wrote:
> > Double that. With a maximum distortion of about 0.3%, that would be less
> > than 3 mm.
>
> True - if you mean the entire width. I was refering to a true straight line
> at one edge of a 1 meter square print.
So was i.
The amount of distortion is given as a percentage of the image height. So
0.3% at the edge of a 1 m print is 3 mm.
The corners, by the way, will show less distortion, astounding 0%.
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica/RF645 comparison?
As I slide more and more into medium format, I reflect:
I have and love to use 645 cameras. Mine are a Fuji GA645 and a Zeiss Ikon
Super Ikonta A. I handled an RF645 and immediately wanted one ... It's
*handy* and feels much like a 35mm camera, where the Mamiya 7 feels large
and clunky to me. A 645 viewfinder camera is like using a large 35, and
the RF645 feels very much in the same handling idiom as a Leica M7 now,
with similar features.
I also love 6x6 format ... I grew up with Rolleiflexes and always wanted a
Hasselblad SuperWide. Recently I traded all my Leica M gear for a
Hasselblad 903SWC and I have no regrets whatsoever. Shooting with the
SuperWide feels so natural and easy to me ... I set exposure by guess when
not carrying a meter. I still have my '51 Rolleiflex and it's now seeing a
bit of use too.
So my advice is to handle each of the cameras you are interested in and go
with what your gut feelings tell you. The RF645 is a very nice piece, the
lenses are excellent, and it might be The One for you ... You are the only
one who can say and you'll only find out by trying one. Rent one if you
can!
No matter which format you ultimately choose, moving to medium format from
35mm changes things. Even 645 provides enough additional tonal space and
finer grain to be well worth it.
Godfrey
---
First Hasselblad SuperWide work:
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW2/17.htm
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW2/18.htm
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/swc28APR02/
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SWC or 40mm?
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002
The Biogon is quite a special lens, it's very different compared to the 40
Distagon. Better correction, more even illumination, higher resolution,
etc etc. Plus the fact that the SWC models are smaller, lack the mirror
noise and vibration ... all of that together makes the SWC a special
camera.
For convenience and cost, the 40 on an SLR body is better but there's a
reason that the SWC has been around for 40 years and continues to sell
very well...
Godfrey
..
"RGB" [email protected] wrote:
> I've never used either, but is there really a big difference between the swc
> with the 38mm lens, and a 40mm lens on a regular camera? It would seem that
> the 40mm being able to be used with a regular camera and view finder would
> be a lot more convenient, for the cost of a lens. Is the 38mm biogon that
> much better?
From: [email protected] (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SWC or 40mm?
Date: 15 May 2002
Ken Rockwell has a comparison (sort of) the SWC to a Mamiya 7 with the
43mm lens.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/43.htm
I have the 43mm Mamiya and it is a hard act to follow. Ken claims it's
a copy of a 10 element Biogon, which it does appear to be.
Thanks!
Steve
> > I've never used either, but is there really a big difference between the swc
> > with the 38mm lens, and a 40mm lens on a regular camera? It would seem that
> > the 40mm being able to be used with a regular camera and view finder would
> > be a lot more convenient, for the cost of a lens. Is the 38mm biogon that
> > much better?
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SWC or 40mm?
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002
Comparing a 1968 issue SWC lens, prior to even T* multicoating, with a
current series Mamiya 7 lens returns pretty fairly predictable results...
Why not compare with a 905SWC or 903SWC for something that would actually
give you real information on a fair comparison?
They haven't changed much in the Hasselblad over the past 40 years, but
lens coatings are definitely one of the biggies they did change.
Godfrey
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 May 2002
Subject: Re: SWC or 40mm?
I've never used either, but is there really a big difference between the swc
with the 38mm lens, and a 40mm lens on a regular camera?
This question has been going around for some time since Zeiss started producing
the 40mm lenses. Interestingly, the 38mm Biogon still plugs along. Aside from
the pure sharpness of the 38, there is relatively no distortion in the SWC.
That's very hard to claim with any wideangle, particularly one that delivers
90� on the diagonal.
Let's face it, when you pull a Hassy out of you bag, you're probably going to
set up a tripod as well to maximise your sharpness. For that effort, you can
just as easily slap a focusing screen on the back of the 903SWC and do all that
other stuff. I like the SWC for what it does,--and for a second Hassy body
(for me), it's really tiny!
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002
From: Darrell Jennings [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Adapter ring + threaded filter on SWC?
It has been a while since I bought the filters for my
SWC, but they are a "Tiffen 8" with no threads at all.
They fit behind the retaining ring at the front of
the lens. As a result there is no vigneting.
--- David Meiland wrote:
> I've been thinking about picking up a SWC (a CF
> version) sometime in the
> future, and am wondering if I can use the filters I
> currently use on my
> other CF lenses--all are 67mm threaded, mounted on a
> B60-67
> adapter--without vignetting. Anyone doing this
> successfully? Anyone use a
> Lee holder on a SWC?
>
> David Meiland
> http://davidmeiland.com
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
To: Hasselblad [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Superwide examples
The superwide is a really great camera. Most of the photos bellow were
taken with a SWC/M in Australia. Only one of them was not (here's a good
test: figure out which one wasn't).
http://www.schnetzler.com/Photography/ click on the Australia image
(field with yellow flowers).
One comment: although I am really pleased with the scans (Epson 2450)
and the prints I got from them (Epson 1280), I am not so happy with the
way the images turned out on the website - gotta work on that.
Comments and suggestions appreciated.
Cheers,
Manu
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1622
HCP Historical Camera Press from Spokane Washington had a softcover book on
collecting and using Hasselblad 1000F 1600F and SWA Cameras and some bits
about the Ross stuff as well.
I thumbed through a copy (not for sale) at Blue Moon s Library
Anyone know of a source for more copies of the book?
Mark
> With reference to MF SLRs pre-Hasselblad, take a look at Ivor Matanle's
> "Collecting and Using Classic SLRs," published by Thames and Hudson, 1996.
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002
From: Darrell Jennings [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Using a SWC for landscapes
Jeff, I use the SWC for landscapes all the time. It
is a great lens/camera. I have some on photo.net at
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=449840
There are various cameras and lenses used, so you'll
have to click on the images to see which ones were SWC
shots, but as a starter they include:
-the "Welcome Square Dancers"
-the two beach shots in New Jersey
-tree and creek in North Carolina
-Ranchos de Taos church
-creek near Clark, CO
Hope these are helpful. DJ
--- Jeff Grant [email protected] wrote:
> I am contemplating my options for a wide angle lense
> for landscapes. My
> inclination is to buy a SWC but I wonder how such a
> wide angle would
> look in a square. I can't rent one in Sydney, so the
> research becomes
> necessary. Can anyone point me at a site with images
> from a SWC, or,
> even better, give me some real life feedback.
>
> Jeff
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Using a SWC for landscapes
Jeff Grant wrote:
> I am contemplating my options for a wide angle lense for landscapes.
> My inclination is to buy a SWC but I wonder how such a wide angle
> would look in a square. I can't rent one in Sydney, so the research
> becomes necessary. Can anyone point me at a site with images from a
> SWC, or, even better, give me some real life feedback.
Whether an SWC would be suitable for you for landscapes really depends
on what type of landscapes you like to shoot. If you prefer sweeping
vistas, and a 50 just isn't quite wide enough, then the SWC would be
the right lens.
If you don't own anything wider than an 80, I would first rent a 50 to
see if it would be suitable. An 80 to SWC is a very wide spacing, not
to mention the cost of the SWC, even a used one.
I myself find the SWC a little too wide for most landscape work. I
prefer the 60 for quiet, studies of the environment. I use the SWC
primarily for architectural and industrial work.
By the way, have you tried renting a 40? It's within 3 degrees
(horizontal) of the angle of view of an SWC. Might help you with your
decision.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002
From: Dale Jehning [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Using a SWC for landscapes
A few of use do want that 645, but may not need it. I took a picture of
Shasta dam with SWC. It includes the guardrail from the overview parking lot
& lots of sky with the a12 back. The width of the dam filled the frame side
to side. There always is the option to crop later. But then again, Im just
for fun.
I have a 645 back and I n-e-v-e-r use it for wide-angle landscapes. Wide
angle 'scapes need a lot of interesting stuff in the immediate foreground.
The 645 back cuts this off and it is a pain to use it vertically. I use my
40CFE for landscapes a lot. Gotta have that foreground!
But the 645 is good for panoramas where you only want a strip across the
center. This gives you 16 instead of 12, 32 instead of 24. It's also good
for wedding formals if you happen to have to shoot a wedding.
Jim
Jeff Grant wrote:
Thanks to all who replied. I am heartened to see that there are people out
there shooting good landscapes with the SWC. I will also look more closely
at the 645 back option.
Jeff
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002
From: Darrell Jennings [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC Filter size
Austin, I have one of the old SWC's that use the drop
in filters. I am not aware of any offset on the filter
(it is the same on both sides with a simple flat metal
ring around the outside of the glass. The way the lens
is designed, the front element of the lens is recessed
far enough that the filter doesn't come into contact
with it.
--- Austin Franklin [email protected] wrote:
> The SWx cameras that use the drop in 63 MUST use an
> offset filter, or the
> filter will damage the front element. The filters
> are offset, and must also
> be put in with the offset toward the outside, or
> again, they will damage the
> front element.
>
> Austin
>
> > Jeff,
> > around 1983 Hasselblad changed the lens mount on
> the SWC/M to CF-design,
> > from then on the filter size was bay 60. Before
> they had series 63 drop in
> > filters.
> >
> > Ulrik
> >
> > > My new second hand SWC 903 has all the
> resolution of a box brownie, so
> > > it is off to the doctor's. I may be lent an
> older one in the meantime.
> > > Can someone tell me whether all SWC's are a bay
> 60?
> > >
> > > Jeff
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC Filter size
I was warned of this same thing when my friend loaned me his SWC. He
supplied 6 filters with it. some were offset, others were not, and
warned to be careful to use the offset ones with the "deep side" towards
the lens, installed incorrectly they could burnish a small mark in the
very center of the front element. I measured the depth of the ones that
were offset (it was something like 2.75-3.5mm) and then checked all of
them. The non-offset ones all had at least that depth on both sides.
Be careful. There's not a lot of clearance there.
Godfrey
Darrell Jennings wrote:
> Austin, I have one of the old SWC's that use the drop
> in filters. I am not aware of any offset on the filter
> (it is the same on both sides with a simple flat metal
> ring around the outside of the glass. The way the lens
> is designed, the front element of the lens is recessed
> far enough that the filter doesn't come into contact
> with it.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC Filter size
Darrell,
> Austin, I have one of the old SWC's that use the drop
> in filters. I am not aware of any offset on the filter
> (it is the same on both sides with a simple flat metal
> ring around the outside of the glass.
Yes, the correct filters for these cameras have the glass in the filter
almost completely flush with one side of the filter ring, and recessed from
the other side.
If you have used a filter, and it is not the "correct" offset one, you might
want to take a look at the middle of your front element for damage... It is
not uncommon on these cameras.
> The way the lens
> is designed, the front element of the lens is recessed
> far enough that the filter doesn't come into contact
> with it.
That is not correct. The offset filters MUST be put in correctly or you
WILL damage the front element. I am not sure if filters that are not offset
(glass centered in the filter ring) will not do the same thing, and I'm sure
it depends on the filter...but it would have to be pretty thick to avoid the
contact.
Regards,
Austin
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC Filter size
Just to stick my nose in here. . . . The front lens element in my old SWC
(not even a SWC/M) would not be touched by using any sort of Ser. 8 drop-in
filter. I used Harrison and Harrison filters all the time that were glass
virtually to the outside edge of the filter ring. It was pretty close but
they never touched. A piece of lens tissue between the filter and the front
element eased my mind after reading all these articles about scraping the
coatings on an SWC. I used a clear filter, screwed it down tight and saw
that it didn't touch the tissue I had laid over the front glass.
I believe that only the very oldest SWs had this problem, but I'd love to
hear from someone with a newer model who has actually experienced damage.
Regards,
D.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC Filter size
I don't know about SWCs or SWC/Ms, as my comments were based on my personal
experience with the original Supreme Wide Angle and the subsequent model the
Super Wide Angle. I have not tried anything on the SWC or later models, and
I would have HOPED that issue would have been resolved by then, if it could
have been resolved at all.
In this case, I do believe it is best to err on the side of caution, as
damaging the front coating on your very nice and expensive lense is not
something most people want to really do.
How were you putting your "Harrison and Harrison" filters on, offset towards
the lense, or offset away from the lense?
Austin
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Starter kit
> If I ever get a 645 film back, I'll get a 90 degree prism, but not
> before.
Yikes, y'all have given me an epiphany! With the 500CM I prefer the WL or
chimney finders and I wouldn't dream of using an A16 back in any normal
circumstances. But the SWC is an *eye level* camera and an A16 back can
work brilliantly when you want to do explicit horizontal or vertical
compositions ....
geez, hasselblad addiction is worse than i ever imagined. ;-)
Godfrey
[Ed. note: a cute scale model SWC is available - for a hefty price ;-)]
From: John Stafford [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format vs. 35mm
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
Lassi Hippel�inen at [email protected] wrote
> http://www.minox-web.de/minox/english/produkte_classics.html
> "Hassy SWC" shoots Minox film (8 x 11 mm), external size 85 x 62 x 76
> mm. What a waste of volume. And it's a normal lens, not wide angle.
I GOTTA have one of those! Next time a friend asks me to take pictures of a
social occasion, I'll use it! Can't wait to deliver the POP contact proofs.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC shutter jam
I've had problems with the shutter button getting stuck - actually it
happens all the time. I have (so far) always managed to fix the problem
by moving the lever back and forth from T to O a few times and playing
with the shutter button. Don't know if you are having the same problem
though...
Manu
[email protected] wrote:
> Anybody know an easy was to fix an SWC shutter jam? This is a
> relatively new 905 SWC, but bought from Robert White thus not
> under Hasselblad USA warranty.
>
> The shutter cocking mechanism won't turn forward any farther to
> cock the shutter, but the shutter won't fire, either with timer or not.
> I've taken the back off and put it back on, wound and unwound, but
> that makes no difference.
>
> If it's not something to try myself, will Hasselblad USA do the repair
> and charge me an arm and a leg, or must I send it back to the UK
> for repair?
>
> Thanks much,
>
> George
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: HUG [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC guess focusing
>> will the old style metal finder from the SWC fit the 903/905? The old
>> finder seems brighter and has less distortion than the current plastic
>> version.
>
> Yes, all finders, old and new, fit all bodies, old and new.
Of course, using an older finder on the 903/905SWC bodies means that
you lose the bubble level. Older bodies had the bubble level in the
body...
Godfrey
[Ed. note: the new finder is plastic - for $895?]
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002
From: ray tai [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] SWC guess focusing
I am just wondering when estimating the distance between subject and
camera does it mean from the front of the lens or the film plane? Also
will the old style metal finder from the SWC fit the 903/905? The old
finder seems brighter and has less distortion than the current plastic
version. Thanks in advance! Ray.
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] SWC GG back
I guess everyone just got tired of writing e-mail...
Anyway, I wrote a long dissertation of how to change out the split ground
glass in a SWC GG back to a plain ground glass. I did it on mine and it
makes a H-U-G-E difference!!! It is not simple, but if I can do it, anyone
can. I have a few more things to add. If anyone is interested, I'll finish
it and post it sometime tomorrow. Let me know...
Jim
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC GG back
Frank Filippone wrote:
>Jim, please give us the low down..... I have 2 GG backs. the old one with
>the silver retaining arms and the newer one with the level on top.....
>Please ID the starting design...
>
>Thanks....
>Frank Filippone
This is the GG for the SWC. It is engraved on the side of it "For SWC Cameras".
There is no level. That's on either the camera or the finder - or both.
When using my SWC with the GG back, I use a HAMA double bubble level in the
finder shoe. The built-in bubble circle levels are only good for making the
camera level in all directions. I rarely photograph this way. I always have
some tilt, but I still want the horizon level.
This GG back has no level and I don't know what the silver tabs are for? My
FlexBody GG back has a level but it won't work on a SWC. All I know is this
is what they currently sell for the SWC.
Jim
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC GG back
Jim.. the confusion is that there are 3 different "focusing screen
adapters", each looks very different, and each was made for the SWC.
the GG back must have an attachment method for the finder.... the retaining
strips are used to hold the finder to the GG back.... The oldest GG back
( 41025) used chrome plated (SS?) strips that I call silver.... You
apparently have the "improved" back that has a black ring to hold the
focusing screen ( 41050) and is marked as you say " SWC"... The current GG
back for the SWC has a level on top ( 41057)
Your back had a Acute-Matte screen already supplied....
Note.. Nordin Compendium page 230 for pictures of the various models....
Frank Filippone
[email protected] Digest archives are stored at
http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC GG back
Frank,
The GG adapter shown on page 231 is a FlexBody, Arcbody, and standard
camera adapter and will not work on the SWC. Nordin has it wrong.
Look at the side and you will see the slot for the vertical shift prisms.
When used with no vertical shift (standard Hass body or the Flex/ARC with
no shift) a blank frame is inserted to keep out stray light.
The 41507 will not work on the SWC. Try it and you will see immediately
that it will not work.
The 41050 is for the SWC and is what I have and have modified.
Jim
...
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002
From: Stuart Phillips [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] What the heck is this?-Industrial Hassies
It's a Hasselblad MKWE
>From the 2000 Catalog:
"For Photogrammetry there are two metric cameras equipped with a reseau
glass plate with the optical quality equal to that of a lens elements. The
surface of the glass plate has a pattern of hair line crosses which are
reproduced on the film as reference points. Ther cameras are calibrated
together with their lenses and use especially designed magazines to give 24
or 70 exposures. Both cameras feature an integral motor for film and shutter
winding."
"The optimum precision and low image distortion make the MKWE especially
useful for critical architectural photography, as well as close range and
aerial photogammetry."
I don'tknow much about photogrammetry, but I do know that at certain times
Hasselblad did make special equipment for industrial uses - there was a
20mm? lens made for a tire company, I believe. As for the reseau plate, if
you look at some of the astronaut pictures, they do seem to have cross-hairs
in the pictures.
(There seems to be a great book out of the space pictures )
The other is based on the 555ELD
It's also interesting to note that the 2000 catalog featured a 903SWCE -
same as the 903SWC but with motor wind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Meiland" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002
Subject: [HUG] What the heck is this?
> Appears to be a SWC with an EL-type motor drive and an attachment of some
> sort for superimposing a grid on the image. Anyone able to expound on this
> one?
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] WTB: Hasselblad Ground Glass adapter
[email protected] wrote:
>I got my hands on a SWC without a lens, I'm going to put a 45mm Rodenstock on
>a rise mechanism.
>
>It can be the GG adapter for a non SWC as this one will have the mounting
>plate flush.
>
>Dirk
A "regular" Hasselblad GG adapter will not work. You must use a SWC
adapter. Only the SWC adapter has a Fresnel lens on the back side of the
GG. And without this, you will only get a small image circle in the middle
of the non-SWC GG. The reason is that short focal length non retrofocus
designed lenses put the back element too close to the GG for the image to
be illuminated (on the GG) anywhere but in the middle, directly behind the
lens. The Fresnel lens gathers the image light and gives you a full clean
bright image. A 45mm non retrofocus lens and a non-SWC GG back will give
you v-e-r-y dark corners when viewing on the GG.
The current regular GG adapter is for the FlexBody. It has no Fresnel. But
it has a slot behind the GG and frames with Fresnel prisms for brightening
the image when a lot of shift is used. This might work for you. You would
need the plain frame (no Fresnel) fitted with a standard Fresnel in order
to be able to see the GG image clearly. You could use the shift frames for
when you use lens shift.
There is a camera exactly like what you are doing, made commercially. The
Bahrami. It uses a 35mm Rodenstock (maybe a 45) as standard and uses the
Flex GG back with special Fresnel frames.
One reason I know so much about GG backs is that I tried to use my Flex GG
back on my SWC and it didn't work. I then changed out the split-image GG in
my SWC GG back to a plain GG and discovered the Fresnel lens required to
make a GG back work on a SWC. Then I remembered the Bahrami, which is made
locally, and in stock at Keeble & Shuchat Photography in Palo Alto CA.
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC
According to the B&H Photo website, a new 905SWC with A12 back is about
$6500 ($6100+ change since they cannot advertise their actual selling
price on the website by distributor rules).
I traded my Leica M kit for a mint condition used 903SWC with some
accessories (A12, ground glass back, finder for the back, a few dozen
rolls of film, straps, etc etc), value of the exchange about $3500-3800
roughly.
KEH http://www.keh.com/ is listing a few SWC and up models at prices
from $1600 to $3300 roughly.
Why do they cost so much? I can't answer that, other than the usual
mouth movements in the direction of low production, very expensive
lens, etc etc, but I can tell you that I just *LOVE* what the Superwide
lens does to a piece of film... and it go so far beyond what any
consumer priced digicam could hope to do in this particular
specialization of function that there isn't any point to discussing it.
Ultrawide photography, to be truly at its best, must have resolution
that is simply not approachable with a 6Mpixel camera, and no lens for
a Nikon or Canon with this coverage can compete with the Biogon 38 for
imaging performance. I've had several of them and the Biogon leaves
them all far far behind.
Godfrey
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
> I looked up one of the rare 903/905SWC's that pop'ed up on the Norwegian
> 2.hand market. Although I was told on the phone that it was in
> 'pristine' condition, it was not. And the price was stiff too, some
> 20.000 NOK (Norwegian Kroner), in black finnish, but 'weared'.
>
> Tell me...
>
> What is a typical price for a SWC today 'around the world'. Either new
> or in prestine condition.
>
> Can anyone tell me why this camera should cost more than a Canon EOS D60
> or Nikon D100??
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
> I looked up one of the rare 903/905SWC's that pop'ed up on the Norwegian
> 2.hand market. Although I was told on the phone that it was in
> 'pristine' condition, it was not. And the price was stiff too, some
> 20.000 NOK (Norwegian Kroner), in black finnish, but 'weared'.
>
> Tell me...
>
> What is a typical price for a SWC today 'around the world'. Either new
> or in prestine condition.
I bought a used SWC from Buster Ostler (fstop camera) 3 or 4 years ago
for 2300 USD and it looked as if it just came out of the box. I had Pro
Camera of Cleveland, Ohio modify it by lowering the mounting shoe so I
can use the Polaroid back and replacing the crank with a ratchet one
which converted it to a SWC/M.
The optics are superb. I used it to photograph the inside of the
conning tower of the USS Cod. To avoid paralax problems, I use the
ground glass screen and PME51. I recently bought an Epson 2450 scanner,
and as soon as I get it connected, I'll scan the negs for the Cod's web
site.
> Can anyone tell me why this camera should cost more than a Canon EOS D60
> or Nikon D100??
>
> Tom of Oslo
2 reasons: Limited market and the number and size of lens elements
required for a 6x6 format. I looked for 2 years befor finding a used
SWC in good condition at a reasonable price. The lens does have a 90
degree diagonal field and reducing barrel distortion is a *non trivial*
excercise in design. On a 1 meter square print, the sides deviate no
more than 1 1/2 mm which is not normally noticable.
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] SWC
Demand......
Price for used is between $2500 USD and 3000 for a used 903 or SWC/M
Frank Filippone
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] SWC
Godfrey, Eugene and Frank,
Thank you all three for excellent feedback on prices.
US$ 6,100 should equal some 45 - 46.000 NOK equals very much a price
list from the Norwegian importer (www.interfoto.no) from last year,
Norwegian sales tax included (24%). Since then, however, Norwegian
Kroner has appreciated some 20% against both the dollar and Swedish
kroner (SEK), which should explain why the price in Norway (VAT
included) equals that of the US price (excl. sales tax).
When a 500C/M with a A12 back and a 80 mm/2,8 in excellent condition
will go for 8.500 NOK (1,150 US$) on the 2.hand market in Norway (all
too little for this excellent camera) the few and rare SWC's that are
sold here seldom goes for less than 20.000 NOK - regardless of
condition. Most often the very few 2.hand SWC's that are sold here in
Norway carries signs of being extensively used, - which vouches for
which an excellent camera this is. The few who have a SWC rarely sells
them and if they do only after 'extensive use'.
Generally, I have no qualms about buying 'well or heavily used' 2.hand
Hasselblad equipment. My 30-years experience with this camera system
tells me that I can sleep peacefully. If anything breaks down,
excellent service is near. Typical thing on a well weared SWC can be the
shutter-spring, among the few really expensive repair-jobs that can be
expected on any Hasselblad gear. With a serviced Compur-shutter you are
off for another 30 - 40 years of use. - Or as long as Kodak and Fuji
bothers to provide us with 12-film...
The SWC is a remarkably camera. Light, compact and silent
(Leica-owners; eat your hearts out) and delivers pictures close to 100%
free of any distortion and with a sharpness 'no film can capture' (<- a
genuine statement from the Hasselblad web page). Checking up on the
photographers of a popular interior decorcating-magazine here in
Scandinavia (the equal to 'House & Gardens'); all of them uses SWC's.
The same goes for one of the photographers of Norway's most popular
yachting-magazine; a demanding task to shoot cramped boat interiors. He
regularly shoots excellent pictures of renovated 12-meters richly
interior-decorated in mahogany & brass. - Some pictures that makes you
lick your mouth.
Despite it's qualities, the SWC is very little used among the men of the
press (but then very few of them are really good photographers). On TV
recently, I saw a press photographer from a EU news conference in
Brussels shooting with a SWC and a Metz flash; - should be the excellent
tool for the 'People'-kind (Springer in Germany, Se & H�r in Norway and
Denmark etc.) of publishing-work. The guys in this business tend to use
the awful (I have one myself) Canon EF 17-35mm/2,8L. (My wife likes it,
though. It has this excellent quality of 'including everybody in the
picture' at family gatherings. Regardless of where old ants or small
children tend to run off, they are there; in the picture'.)
The reason could be that 'nothing is automatic' on a SWC. You even have
to measure up the shooting distance yourself and rely on a hand-held
light meter. This demands 'a lot of thinking', obviously a drag for
many people.
But...
With a 400 ASA film and EV9 (should equal EV 7,5 with a 160ASA) - rather
dull indoor light - you can shoot hand held (1/15) at aparture 5,6 that
gives you a DOF from 1 meter (3 ft) to 4,5 meters (13,5 ft) which should
cover most of a modest living room.
Or, at full aparture; 4,5 (down at EV8,5) a DOF from 1,5 meters to 3
meters (5 to 10 ft), 'a distance that anyone can estimate', as Wildi
puts it. Only at close-ups you need a ground glass and all that.
This should put the SWC among the 'Instamatics' - the camera for idiots
- regarding ease of use, - no wonder the people of the press finds this
difficult...
Keep me posted on any 'regional promotional sales' of this excellent
instrument.
Tom of Oslo
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003
From: "Mose, J P" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'"
Subject: [HUG] Use of 63mm Filters on a 38mm Biogon (early)
hello,
I have read many times that the use of filters (63mm or series VIII) on a
early Hasselblad Superwide must be done with caution since the front element
can easily rub against the filter. In fact my friend Austin Franklin had to
recoat the front element of his Supreme Wide Angle because the prior owner
had placed Hasselblad 63mm filter(s) in backwards (they are offset on one
side to prevent front element contact). I am now in the market for some
63mm filters (or series VIII) and wonder if brands such as B + W, Heliopan,
etc. are safe to use? I did purchase a couple of filters (generic brand)
off Ebay, which ended up contacting the front element.....I don't want to
make this mistake again! I'd continue to aim for Hasselblad 63mm filters
but I usually loose to a higher bid (prices of these filters can be sky high
on Ebay). Hence, I don't want to wait for a long period to get my filters!
I would also like to stick with this size since the lens hood also works as
a filter retainer. Thank you for your inputs.
Best regards,
J. P. Mose
From: Dr. Ulrik Neupert [[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 4/7/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: AW: [HUG] filter sizing question on 50mm lens
Hi Ian,
on your C-lens, filters are held in place by a filter retaining ring or ,as
an alternative, by the screw-in lens hood. When you look at Hasselblad
Series 63 filters the glass is not mounted in the center of the mount but
somewhat offset to avoid contact between filter and front lens (when you
mount it the right way of course).
Regards
Ulrik
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 6/5/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] 903SWC
The problem that I have found is that the circular bubble levels are good
for only one thing, making sure that the camera is level both front-to-back
and side-to-side.
It is rare that I ever use my 903 SWC in this manner. I always want
side-to-side levelness, but rarely front-to-back levelness. Therefore, when
on a tripod, I use a GG back and a Hama dual level in the hot shoe. This
allows me to do side-to-side leveling and not affect my front-to-back position.
I guess, what I am saying, is that I rarely use the built-in circular
bubble level. When hand holding my SWC (somewhat rare) I just rely on my
own sense of being able to hold the camera reasonably level side-to-side. I
don't really like trying to frame the scene and watch a circular bubble
level through a distorted optical finder. If I need things to be perfect, I
use a tripod and GG back.
:-)
Jim
...
End of Page