i was looking to buy some swedish toys before they're completely
discontinued. i'm not sure about how much they'll last, but chances
are that hasselblad will discontinue them sooner or later to go on
with developing h[1|2|*] products.

anyway, i have found some brand new lenses of cfi and cfe series. i
would have loved to get the distagon 50, planar 80, makro 120 and
sonnar 180. one day, perhaps a sonnar 250 non-apo --i cannot even
write its price: that's too big :)
i'd go with 40 more than 50, but in my wishlist there's an swc one
day, when money will raise between carrots in my granma's vegetable
garden. what is more, if the 135-format-equivalent focal length is way
around half the focal on medium format --or something more--, 50mm
should be something between 24 and 28mm on 135 format and i think it's
enough --also because a 40 is awfully expensive compared to 50 and i
couldn't find a used one, then going with a new one would make my
cardiologist very happy--.

of course, i wouldn't get everything at once because i could never
afford it, *but* i've also found a couple of cf lenses, namely a
sonnar 180 and a distagon 50 that would make things simpler.
i know that cfi stands for cf improved and cfe is a cfi with electric
contacts (i'm planning to go with a 503cw, then i'm not sure about use
of electric contacts), but how improved is this improved design?

i'm not a pro nor a great photographer, but i wouldn't want to buy
expensive lenses ("plain" cf are cheaper compared to cfi/cfe, but
they're not cheaper at all) and then discover they are quite poor (if
you can call poor anything made by hasselblad).

well, i guess you understand that it's a matter of both real quality
and psichologic mood, the pleasure to own something that made a bit of
history of the photo.

i'll appreciate any pointer on the web or any opinion about this.

regards,