Why do you want to sell the back? Why did you get it in the first place?
I though long and hard before deciding to purchase a MFDB system (Arca rm3di and 40mm HR). I make decent money with my Canon gear (advertising/commercial) and the MFDB is for several projects and to maybe use it for my architecture photography (which I do a bit and sometimes nets me about $5-6k a month for a few days work). I will still use the Canon's for most of my work. The MFD system is just an additional tool for me.
That said, financially speaking, the MFDB systems are not a good value at all. Its no secret that to get that bit extra quality one has to pay a LOT more. But if you know what you want and are a dedicated photographer the systems do offer something unique that might help you achieve your goals. In my case I wanted to make very large prints and sell them in a gallery exhibition. I already have a working relationship with a local art promoter with publishing and international experience and we are in the process of setting everything up.
The theme and look and feel of the project has been agreed and I just have to go out and produce the images and prints.
For the type of images I intend on producing I mostly use the Canon 24mm TSE II on a Canon full frame DSLR. I love setting up on a tripod and composing the image using the rise and fall of the lens and sometimes tilt to achieve the focus desired. For camera movements in the field the "pancake" tech cameras are still the best option IMHO. The Arca offered integrated tilt and seemed like the most versatile and cleanest design out there in a light and compact package.
I chose the 40mm HR for the focal length and the fact that its the best wide angle for the larger backs if you want to do quite a bit of movements. Even though I got it to use it on an IQ160 it works great on the IQ180 (ever seen Rodney Lough Jr's prints? I think he uses an Arca with a 40mm HR) and should work well with future backs. The 40mm HR is also not a huge lens. The 32mm is. I might also get the 23mm HR and the 70mm or 90mm later. Those would be my lens choices.
The guys at Digital Transitions NYC helped me a LOT in deciding what to get. I just think its insane to purchase such expensive systems without a knowledgable dealer to help out with the purchase, service and support. They have a great tool for pre-visializing lenses:
https://www.digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-visualizers
[I am expecting the whole back/camera/lens system soon so I have not had a chance to use it yet]
You have the IQ180 with you, why not at least have some fun with it! I would just make the best of it and try not to think of the financial depreciation hit if you sell it. Think of that money as camera rental. (IQ180 rigs are rented out at about $1600 a week or more!)
I bought it as Gareth says as the last in a long upgrade path, tempted by the new interface, pixel count, live view etc. And of course it is a very very fine back: but I had not anticipated (and I was not alone on this) the much more notable LCC needs. Honestly, after the C1 upgrade that once lost my LCCs, I have never been happy with this process. I need, years hence, to know that the LCC profile I created for a shot is still immediately available. I know that there are workflow methods that can 'belt and brace' this but it feels like a step too far for me personally, whatever the gains.
So I guess having learned from the good folk in this thread that there are no wides that don't need LCCs, I should either give up and get back to trying to sell, or ask a slightly different question:
"what is the widest lens if any (even if it is, say, 90mm or more) that doesn't need an LCC on the IQ180?"
I will not be switching to a 260 or 280 because the prices are daft and will frankly for my purposes be good money after not so good. I no longer buy the fiction that purchasers of this sort of gear have their investment protected. Not that there's any reason they should feel a right to that, but it is a myth that is put about to some degree.
However I do have one suggestion that is simple and which gets rid of this problem altogether: there would be a firmware tweak that does the following:
[*] User identifies to back that tech cam is being used with lens that needs LCC
[*] After exposure back asks you to identify the lens from a list you have already set up
[*] Having done so, back asks for shooting parameters (largely: aperture, shift, tilt) which can be entered from tab-able lists.
[*] For each subsequent shot back asks whether these parameters are unchanged.
[*] Photographer then has some additional metadata that identifies what 'library' LCC (s)he needs to use or at worst to shoot.
Easy. Admittedly the second order issues of WB and focus distance also impact the LCC but if we assume that most wide shots are focussed at somewhere between 5m and infinity and that the shooter has done a proper WB, then we should have gotten most of the way to solving a problem which, frankly, has really p****d people off.
What I would say to anyone in line for any future upgrades is, 'don't do what I did' - don't place an order months in advance, take the back sight unseen when it arrives and then not return it immediately when it turns out that there is some radically unexpected innovations such as your favourite lens being made effectively redundant. I do not want to go off on rant here at all, I chalk all this to experience - but the fact is that we all pitch up at our dealers. hand over our old backs and then find that the new one has an issue we had no reason to anticipate and that by the time we have discovered it, our old back has disappeared into the channel.