[HUG ] Re: SWC or 40mm?

Michiel,
From a personal, and not a technical point of view (no pun intended), I prefer 
the 40 because:
1. It can be used on different bodies,
2. you can pack it with your body and use other lenses too, whereas the 38 
requires you carry it attached to the body and, if you want a different focal 
length, you must carry another body.
3. The 2mm difference didn't outweigh 1. and 2. above.
That said, if I were going to travel very light, an SWC would be very nice to 
have in my arsenal with other light equipment.
Finally, being unfamiliar with the SWC, I do like to use filters (for BW, 
polarizing and ND) and I'm not sure if the SWC can be outfitted. Others may 
know about this, but I don't.
Boils down to what you want to use it for IMO. H optics are superb and you 
won't go wrong optically either way (again, IMO).
Good luck with a fun decision,
Bob

 Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.raflexions.com




________________________________
From: Michiel Fokkema <michiel.fokkema@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: HUG <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:11:19 AM
Subject: [HUG ] SWC or 40mm?

Hello,

I wonder if there is a difference in the performance between the swc and 
the 40mm?
I guess the 38 should be better because it is a symmetrical design were 
the 40mm is retrofocus. But the swc is more expensive. Is the extra cost 
  justified by the better performance, if there is any?

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: