Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Blad 40mm versus SWC  (Read 8740 times)

buzzski

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • Scottish wedding  photography on film and digital
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« on: April 08, 2008, 02:39:57 pm »

I posted about anyone using an SWC a week or so back but no one replied so apologies, but here I am again... I'm using an Aptus 17 on Blad stuff just now and want to go wider either with a 40mm or an SWC. I could probably only afford a C type 40mm which is a beast of a lens so it got me thinking about an SWC. I love the idea of it being so small, it's be easier for me to carry than the 40 and having used them previously with film I know that optically they're the business. However, I'd need to fashion some sort of crop marks on the viewfinder. Has anyone out there used this combination before? How did you go with guessing the focussing with digital (it was never a problem on film but with digital needing that bit more accuracy has anyone found it a problem?) Any info'd be great or does anyone know of a good Blad forum I could post this to? Thanks in advance, Craig
Logged

SeanFS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • http://www.seanshadbolt.co.nz
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2008, 05:52:59 pm »

Quote
I posted about anyone using an SWC a week or so back but no one replied so apologies, but here I am again... I'm using an Aptus 17 on Blad stuff just now and want to go wider either with a 40mm or an SWC. I could probably only afford a C type 40mm which is a beast of a lens so it got me thinking about an SWC. I love the idea of it being so small, it's be easier for me to carry than the 40 and having used them previously with film I know that optically they're the business. However, I'd need to fashion some sort of crop marks on the viewfinder. Has anyone out there used this combination before? How did you go with guessing the focussing with digital (it was never a problem on film but with digital needing that bit more accuracy has anyone found it a problem?) Any info'd be great or does anyone know of a good Blad forum I could post this to? Thanks in advance, Craig
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use the 40mm CF lens with an Imacon 22mp back. Yes its a beast but a very high quality, well corrected one, very sharp with a tiny amount of CA out to the corners. I'm pretty sure I'm getting sharper, more detailed images from it now than I did with film. Pretty good for a lens that is now 13 years old.
I thought about an SWC but it really for me makes more sense to look for a second hand HI body and a 35mm lens , and get a CF adaptor to use my V series lenses  - or go crazy and buy a whole new HD3 kit  -  for what really isn't a huge advance on what I am getting now from my V series gear. Auto focus and exposure aren't really a huge requirement for the sort of work I do with this camera as its mostly still life stuff . The one thing I would say is that if you go with the 40mm , get a Beattie intense screen as it makes focussing that much easier.
Logged

patrickfransdesmet

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2008, 03:33:13 am »

Quote
I use the 40mm CF lens with an Imacon 22mp back. Yes its a beast but a very high quality, well corrected one, very sharp with a tiny amount of CA out to the corners. I'm pretty sure I'm getting sharper, more detailed images from it now than I did with film. Pretty good for a lens that is now 13 years old.
I thought about an SWC but it really for me makes more sense to look for a second hand HI body and a 35mm lens , and get a CF adaptor to use my V series lenses  - or go crazy and buy a whole new HD3 kit  -  for what really isn't a huge advance on what I am getting now from my V series gear. Auto focus and exposure aren't really a huge requirement for the sort of work I do with this camera as its mostly still life stuff . The one thing I would say is that if you go with the 40mm , get a Beattie intense screen as it makes focussing that much easier.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello,
I have the CFi 40 and used it primarily on film (still do) it is an outrageous lens.
I have 6 CF lenses, if I have to keep only one, Its should be the CFi40 !!!
Even on digital this lens shines, as it is a wide angle, it is not critical on focus as tele's are.
I also had an SWC, nice camera too, but I noticed that there was more sharpness and detail from the CFi40 than the SWC
I sold my SWC, need I say more ...
I prefer to SEE in my viewfinder what I get, in stead of guessing with an SWC.
Your choice.
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2008, 05:30:37 am »

When i had my Phase Back with 'V' Blad i used extensively the 40 CFEIF which was exceptionally sharp to the point of outresolving the back easily, even out to the corners. The 903SWC i had did not seem to like the back so much and i had mixed results, mostly not so good. Both lenses suffer a little C/A and fringing, and i'm sure i saw more moiree with the 40 than any of my other lenses? or just that i used it more and therefore the ratio was higher.

Gary.
Logged

Conner999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 932
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2008, 07:36:33 am »

What's the 40mm like when it comes to veiling flare?
Logged

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2008, 07:59:42 am »

Buzzski:

You can take a dslr with autofocus and put it at the swc position. then focus, then read the meter on the dslr lens.

Also if tethered you can focus on the mac screen-as far as I know.


Quote
I posted about anyone using an SWC a week or so back but no one replied so apologies, but here I am again... I'm using an Aptus 17 on Blad stuff just now and want to go wider either with a 40mm or an SWC. I could probably only afford a C type 40mm which is a beast of a lens so it got me thinking about an SWC. I love the idea of it being so small, it's be easier for me to carry than the 40 and having used them previously with film I know that optically they're the business. However, I'd need to fashion some sort of crop marks on the viewfinder. Has anyone out there used this combination before? How did you go with guessing the focussing with digital (it was never a problem on film but with digital needing that bit more accuracy has anyone found it a problem?) Any info'd be great or does anyone know of a good Blad forum I could post this to? Thanks in advance, Craig
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2008, 08:03:04 am »

Maybe it's because when using the biogen the lightbeam angle near ccd is just too small.

Quote
The 903SWC i had did not seem to like the back so much and i had mixed results, mostly not so good
Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gary Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
    • http://
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2008, 12:28:46 pm »

I use a P45+ with both the latest 40mm V series lens (the IF lens) and also the 38mm Biogon. Here's some thoughts,

1. The 40mm IF is significantly sharper than previous Hasselblad 40mm lenses, this is true at all apertures and right across the frame (although the very largest benefits are out towards the edges at medium to wide apertures). It's even visibly sharper than the 38mm Biogon.

2. The key downside of the 40mm IF (besides the jaw dropping price) is the dreadful distortion. Two points about this distortion. First, it's worse than any other Hasselblad lens (current or past) except for the 30mm fisheye. Second, it's not a simple distortion, so it's actually difficult to fully correct in Photoshop, because I mainly take architectural shots this can be a real problem.

3. The 38mm Biogon SWC/M is noticeably sharper than the Hasselblad 40mm lenses prior to the IF lens, furthermore distortion is virtually zero. It does however vignette very badly, although this is normally very simple to correct in post-processing.

4. There was one final version of the 38mm, just before the lens was finally deleted, I think it was called the 905 and it involved a new optical design. This change was forced on Zeiss/Hasselblad as one specific optical glass type was removed from the supplier's stock list because it contained undesirable elements like lead and arsenic. The new design gave some tiny improvements out at the edges at open apertures, but the central performance dropped by rather too much to make it a desirable trade-off. Avoid the 905.

5. But also be careful if you're getting a 903, because some of the earlier versions had a shutter problem which could cause the shutter to brush against the optics causing micro-scratching. Unless you're experienced with this issue you're unlikely to spot it, but if you subsequently try to sell the camera to a dealer they'll certainly spot it and reflect it in their offer price! The simplest way to avoid the problem is to just make sure that you don't buy any 903 with the level bubble built into the body. This is a crude precaution as actually there was one year of production with both the new (non scratching) shutter and a level bubble in the body, I'd argue that this is the most desirable 903 of them all, but to keep it simple just say "no" to body bubbles!

6. I find the later 903 viewfinders are pretty easy to use with a 37mm x 49mm digital back. Just to maintain the bubble theme, you should look for a viewfinder where the bubble's visible during composition, then you know you've got a later one! There's vertical/horizontal composition lines in the viewfinder that allow you to compose with surprising accuracy. However, for architectural applications I normally use ground glass focusing, which is painfully slow and the ground glass costs a king's ransom. Unless you're at infinity or f22 you'll find focusing innacuracies will really take the edge off digital resolution, and sadly the range focusing of the 903 can never really be that accurate for demanding applications.
Logged

buzzski

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • Scottish wedding  photography on film and digital
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2008, 11:23:28 am »

Thank you one and all for your replies. I take on board all you'r comments - and in some cases they are contradictory, just to make my decision that little bit easier! In an ideal world, I'd hire both options prior to a purchase but no one in Scotland holds stock and it has to come up from London so you're looking at a four day hire - expensive...  for just a test.  I'm gonna keep my eyes on ebay for the next wee while and see what comes up, a bargain price might sway me one way or the other! Thanks again, Craig
Logged

marcwilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
    • http://www.marcwilson.co.uk
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2008, 11:43:23 am »

Quote
In an ideal world, I'd hire both options prior to a purchase but no one in Scotland holds stock
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Craig, from memory there is a calumet in Edinburgh and they hire gear..as they are a uk wide company it should be up to them to get it to your closest shop for a one day hire if you want?

Marc
Logged
www.marcwilson.co.uk [url=http://www.mar

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Blad 40mm versus SWC
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2008, 12:08:33 pm »

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up