The XCD 90V isn't just Hasselblad's finest lens – it could be the finest lens we've ever tested

[Doppler9000]

Not to disparage anyone else's personal experience: I recall when I was at the NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the middle 1980s. I was on a flight project doing research into imaging radar systems ... We used 35mm and 6x6 cameras (with film) to validate ground truth. Technology of the times ... Anyway, I needed a pair of Nikkor 105mm lenses for the project. I called our contact at Nikon. He sent a dozen lenses with the note: "Check them in your rig, pick the best two, return the rest."

Even the poorest of the dozen were pretty good performers. Three were clearly far better than the others. I set the two best aside for the project, and paid to keep the third of that set for myself.

Variation exists in even the most tightly controlled production of precision optical/mechanical units, consumer production typically quadruples that. So far with Hasselblad equipment, I've seen better than average variance control on everything I've bought from them so far. I have seen a couple of issues, but I've seen similar issues with Olympus, Nikon, and Leica equipment as well.

No manufactured product has zero defects over the course of a production run.

G

In the photo realm, I believe Canon has the lowest variance, followed by Sigma.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Variation exists in even the most tightly controlled production of precision optical/mechanical units, consumer production typically quadruples that.

No manufactured product has zero defects over the course of a production run.

G

This is true. No one is immune. The price point maybe makes a little difference, but it's no guarantee.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[MGrayson]

While perfection is impossible, there's a difference between checking every 100th lens and checking each individual lens. I'd like to think that some of that ~$5000 went to better testing, but it's probably not cost effective for the manufacturers, as most buyers won't care and those few that do will return the rejects.

I'd pay for curation.

Matt

 

[B L]

Those in UK will remember, R G Lewis (famous Leica shop in London, close 2015), ran weekly ads in Amateur Photographer magazine staing they sold all lenses accompanied with MTF chart.
They also stated that no two lenses from same batch,same maker are same.

 

[Doppler9000]

While perfection is impossible, there's a difference between checking every 100th lens and checking each individual lens. I'd like to think that some of that ~$5000 went to better testing, but it's probably not cost effective for the manufacturers, as most buyers won't care and those few that do will return the rejects.

I'd pay for curation.

Matt

I believe Sigma MTF tests every single lens.

 

[PeterA]

I wonder if there will ever be a market for photographs that pass the 'sharp' test.

 

[MGrayson]

I wonder if there will ever be a market for photographs that pass the 'sharp' test.

I don't know what the 'sharp' test is, but I've taken some images that benefitted from the detail of the SK 43 on an IQ160. Pictures of my cat? Not so much. Complicated cityscapes? It makes a difference. Maybe not between a good photo and a bad one, but detail can make a good photo a bit better.

It's been a long time since I posted this, but it's still true:
Percent of good photos ruined because of
Insufficient MP - 2%
Inferior glass - 2%
Camera error - 3%
User error - 25%
User lack of talent/vision - 75%
User sitting at computer instead of taking pictures - 100%

(Yeah, it doesn't add up. It's morally true.)

 

[Doppler9000]

I wonder if there will ever be a market for photographs that pass the 'sharp' test.

Ansel Adams’ photos seem pretty popular.

 

[PeterA]

I don't know what the 'sharp' test is, but I've taken some images that benefitted from the detail of the SK 43 on an IQ160. Pictures of my cat? Not so much. Complicated cityscapes? It makes a difference. Maybe not between a good photo and a bad one, but detail can make a good photo a bit better.

It's been a long time since I posted this, but it's still true:
Percent of good photos ruined because of
Insufficient MP - 2%
Inferior glass - 2%
Camera error - 3%
User error - 25%
User lack of talent/vision - 75%
User sitting at computer instead of taking pictures - 100%

(Yeah, it doesn't add up. It's morally true.)

If a person sees a benefit or wants to see a benefit- they will see or say they see a benefit. The ensuing statement speaks to neither the absence nor the presence of a benefit - rather, it speaks to and of the person making the statement.

 

[Godfrey]

In the photo realm, I believe Canon has the lowest variance, followed by Sigma.

I believe Sigma MTF tests every single lens.

Not my experience. I've owned Canon, found them in the same class as Nikon for variance control (which is darn good, actually but not as good as Leica or Hasselblad).

I tried to own Sigma lenses, but ended up returning the lenses every time as none seemed to have the quality that the reviewers ballyhooed ... Of course, that was a lifetime ago, and Sigma has made a significant effort to improve their quality since. However, I don't trust them and don't buy them. Whether they MTF every lens nowadays .. eh? Who can know for sure that doesn't work for Sigma?

I just don't expect miracles... And, by and large, most of what gets into my hands from Hasselblad, Leica, Zeiss, et al, works well enough nowadays.

G

 

[jduncan]

I'm only very rarely in a hurry, although often impatient. Hasselblad dealers and Hasselblad USA have, so far, always delivered whatever I've ordered in a reasonably timely manner. I think the longest wait I've had was for the 907x/CFVII 50c "50 Years on the Moon" camera itself, which was six months (I ordered it the day it was announced).

I have no regrets about waiting for it.

I bought a used XCD 90mm and found it was superb, just like the new XCD 45P and XCD 21/4, and used XCD 65. I just didn't use it enough and decided to sell it. If the XCD 90V is actually that much better, I'm delighted and might consider one again, but I'm more interested right now in the XCD 28P ... Almost went for one when they came in stock at B&H the other day, but I have a few things to pay for first that take priority. (Yes, I've been dumping money into my 1967 Lancia Fulvia Coupé again... LOL!)

Such it is.
G


Lancia Fulvia Coupé - Rear 3/4 view with new Abarth exhaust
Click for short video and exhaust sound.

Old cars are not as safe as modern ones, or as aerodynamic, but back then cars had personalities and were different from each other.
This one is an example of it. Wonderful.

Best regards.

 

[Doppler9000]

Not my experience. I've owned Canon, found them in the same class as Nikon for variance control (which is darn good, actually but not as good as Leica or Hasselblad).

I tried to own Sigma lenses, but ended up returning the lenses every time as none seemed to have the quality that the reviewers ballyhooed ... Of course, that was a lifetime ago, and Sigma has made a significant effort to improve their quality since. However, I don't trust them and don't buy them. Whether they MTF every lens nowadays .. eh? Who can know for sure that doesn't work for Sigma?

I just don't expect miracles... And, by and large, most of what gets into my hands from Hasselblad, Leica, Zeiss, et al, works well enough nowadays.

G

Roger Cicala’s team at Lens Rentals runs MTF tests on more lenses than anyone else in the world, I suspect. They test at least ten copies of each lens model and analyze the variances, and concluded IIRC, Canon was the tightest. Their podcasts, sadly discontinued, are very entertaining and informative, by the way.

Sigma, and the lenses they are making today, bear little resemblance to the Sigma you know. They make some of the best-corrected lenses, period, and the pricing is well below the competition.

Sigma Art Lens MTFs

 

[MGrayson]

I just don't expect miracles... And, by and large, most of what gets into my hands from Hasselblad, Leica, Zeiss, et al, works well enough nowadays.

That's my experience as well, even with older lenses from those manufacturers and other established MF brands like Pentax and Mamiya (I assume Rollei and Bronica as well, but have never used their stuff). I also understand that when Hasselblad releases a lens for under $2,000 that I can't expect the same QC as their units costing over twice as much.

My bad luck streak was Sony (three out of four lenses needed returning) so I'll never touch them again. Could be random. Don't care.

Matt

 

[Alkibiades]

Roger Cicala’s team at Lens Rentals runs MTF tests on more lenses than anyone else in the world, I suspect. They test at least ten copies of each lens model and analyze the variances, and concluded IIRC, Canon was the tightest. Their podcasts, sadly discontinued, are very entertaining and informative, by the way.

Sigma, and the lenses they are making today, bear little resemblance to the Sigma you know. They make some of the best-corrected lenses, period, and the pricing is well below the competition.

Sigma Art Lens MTFs

I found always that canon Red line had a very good end control. I never get a bad copy.
Nikon- even the cheap lenses was also always very good.
Sony with the new G-master lenses have also a real high standart - some of them are the most innovating modern lenses- what i hate is that they use plastic even at the best lenses.
Sigma start with the second generation of the Art lenses to be also a premium lens maker.The fist art generation was opticly not bad, but has AF problems.
This was not the case in the next generation.
When I would compare the newest Sigma Art lenses for Sony with G-master ( for example the new 1,2-50 mm) so Sigma make better build lenses, with same optical performance, for cheaper price. Maybe Sony AF is little faster.
So now you get also from Sigma very good products with very good end control.
What Sigma still dont have is creativity.
Thay are still more or less a copy company.
Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony develope new lenses, new designs, they are creative.
Sigma looks what they do and try to make the best copy of these lenses, zeiss develope Otus- Sigma made "poor -man otus copy" with AF ( Art line), Sony very compact G-master 1,2-50 mm gets now a very good copy with the new Sigma 1,2-50 mm...
Anyway Fuji makes also very solid lenses with very good end control. never see a bad copy here.
When we talk about hasselblad lenses so there are no real hasselblad lenses.
Hasselblad has to trust the lens maker that they make a good end control.
With Zeiss and fuji this was not a big problem, as they stay for highest quality. The new lens maker for hasselblad is not so known but very interesting indeed.
Lets see what new hasselblad lenses will come in the future...

 

[Doppler9000]

I found always that canon Red line had a very good end control. I never get a bad copy.
Nikon- even the cheap lenses was also always very good.
Sony with the new G-master lenses have also a real high standart - some of them are the most innovating modern lenses- what i hate is that they use plastic even at the best lenses.
Sigma start with the second generation of the Art lenses to be also a premium lens maker.The fist art generation was opticly not bad, but has AF problems.
This was not the case in the next generation.
When I would compare the newest Sigma Art lenses for Sony with G-master ( for example the new 1,2-50 mm) so Sigma make better build lenses, with same optical performance, for cheaper price. Maybe Sony AF is little faster.
So now you get also from Sigma very good products with very good end control.
What Sigma still dont have is creativity.
Thay are still more or less a copy company.
Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony develope new lenses, new designs, they are creative.
Sigma looks what they do and try to make the best copy of these lenses, zeiss develope Otus- Sigma made "poor -man otus copy" with AF ( Art line), Sony very compact G-master 1,2-50 mm gets now a very good copy with the new Sigma 1,2-50 mm...
Anyway Fuji makes also very solid lenses with very good end control. never see a bad copy here.
When we talk about hasselblad lenses so there are no real hasselblad lenses.
Hasselblad has to trust the lens maker that they make a good end control.
With Zeiss and fuji this was not a big problem, as they stay for highest quality. The new lens maker for hasselblad is not so known but very interesting indeed.
Lets see what new hasselblad lenses will come in the future...

Sigma pushed the limit on weight-be-damned, fast, well-corrected lenses, but I take your point.

More recently, the “I Series” lenses, which are premium, slower, compact primes are interesting.

 

[bab]

MTF for Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM

 

[Godfrey]

Roger Cicala’s team at Lens Rentals runs MTF tests on more lenses than anyone else in the world, I suspect. They test at least ten copies of each lens model and analyze the variances, and concluded IIRC, Canon was the tightest. Their podcasts, sadly discontinued, are very entertaining and informative, by the way.

Sigma, and the lenses they are making today, bear little resemblance to the Sigma you know. They make some of the best-corrected lenses, period, and the pricing is well below the competition.

Sigma Art Lens MTFs

.... but they don't seem to make many (any?) in Leica M RF mount... ???
I have only Leica M, Hasselblad X and V system bodies. Don't see any Sigmas to use on them. Not about to change out my entire systems...

G