[HUG ] Re: SWC or 40mm?

Ever used a 503CW in a Church?
That is to say not even with the winder attached.
The winder should be forbidden anywhere.


 "Mark Rabiner" <mailto:mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb:
> A rather amazingly loud click when the shudder goes off I'd say.
> As in its the single loudest click I've ever heard in any camera I've ever
> used or seen anyone else use...
> By far and to the scale of ten.
> 
> 
> Mark William Rabiner
> 
> 
> 
> > From: <mailto:flexbody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reply-To: "mailto:hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; 
> > <mailto:hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: 03 Jan 2009 00:49 GMT
> > To: <mailto:hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [HUG ] Re: SWC or 40mm?
> > 
> > Early Super Wides used series VIII filters that were secured either by
> > the shade or the retaining ring supplied with the camera.
> > Even today these filters are easy to find some even unused.
> > 
> > Starting with the later upgraded SWC/M Lenses from the CF range were
> > fitted with 60 mm bayonet.
> > Filters are easy to find new as well as second hand.
> > 
> > Often neglected is the possibility to use the Super Wides as point and
> > shoot camera.
> > Only a soft click from the shutter and a modest noise while the camera
> > is cocked make this an ideal street camera.
> > 
> > 
> > "Bob Adler" <mailto:rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb:
> > 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 <mailto:michiel.fokkema@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: HUG <mailto: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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> =============================================================================================================
> 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: