Hasselblad 24mm (or 25mm) f2.5V and 135mm f2.5V

[MGrayson]

Looks like a nice lens, one that I would have already pre-ordered from @Steve Hendrix if I didn't already own the "legacy" XCD 4/21 and XCD 3.5/30 (both purchased used from two trusted GetDPI forum members). But who knows - if its performance is comparable in the field, the 25-V might be a good compromise as I often debate whether to take the 21 (a little wide) or the 30 (not quite wide enough) when aiming to pack light. The intermediate focal length may prove to be just right or "not too."

From the published MTF charts the XCD 25-V looks to be quite sharp across the field when stopped down to f/5.6, already showing signs of diffraction on center. Comparing these data with the XCD 21 and XCD 30 - both outstanding optics - takes a bit of imagination, given the different focal lengths and apertures at which the tests were performed (assuming, of course, that these represent actual measurements, which Hasselblad was known to publish for the previous legacy Zeiss lenses). I'm guessing that one will need to split hairs to discern any appreciable difference in sharpness when stopped down to f/8-f/11. Looking forward to seeing some real world images with the new lens...

John,

As a long-time user of both the XCD 21/4 and the Leica S 24/3.5, I can attest that the focal lengths are *very* different. Sure, you keep a heck of a lot of pixels cropping from the 21mm FoV to a 24mm, but using the 21mm is an exercise in "I wasn't expecting THAT" during composition. The results can be wonderful, but are almost universally a bit abstract.

Here are images taken with each lens.

Hasselblad XCD 21

Banff


Central Park
Some images just need the ultra-wide




Leica S 24
From the same place as the above


Candids don't look outrageous.


Sigh. Our self-justifications are endless.

Best,

Matt

 

[MGrayson]

On a side note, I still think that software distortion correction needs interpolation and will thus reduce the effective lens resolution.
Would be interesting to see a corrected set of MTFs charts which take into consideration the effect of the distortion correction.

I know this is just a nerdy consideration. Nobody seems to care, as probably software distortion correction makes no meaningful difference on the lens performances nowadays. But just sayin out of curiosity...

Distortion correction looks a lot better than corner smearing from sagittal/tangential differences (my opinion only).

Matt

 

[jng]

On a side note, I still think that software distortion correction needs interpolation and will thus reduce the effective lens resolution.
Would be interesting to see a corrected set of MTFs charts which take into consideration the effect of the distortion correction.

I know this is just a nerdy consideration. Nobody seems to care, as probably software distortion correction makes no meaningful difference on the lens performances nowadays. But just sayin out of curiosity...

Right, although as you mention the degradation may be academic and negligible for most use cases. Note that many if not most of the modern designs rely on pretty aggressive software corrections, which have become quite advanced and (I'm speculating) have freed up lens designers to make different compromises in terms of correcting optical aberrations that can be easily handled after the fact by software.

Mostly out of laziness, I leave the lens corrections on as a default when processing files in Phocus (although I typically reduce the vignetting correction when not stitching, as I find it gives an unnatural feel at 100%), with no untoward effects on sharpness that I can detect. YMMV, of course!

John

 

[mristuccia]

Distortion correction looks a lot better than corner smearing from sagittal/tangential differences (my opinion only).

Matt

You have a good point on this.
Still, it seems to me just like giving up on addressing the core issue, which is real optical optimization. It always sounds like taking a shortcut.
Anyway, the key of all engineering work is finding the best compromise, at the target price.

 

[anyone]

Perfect optics also come with different side effects. I’m just thinking of the weight of the 40 IF vs XCD45p.

 

[jng]

John,

As a long-time user of both the XCD 21/4 and the Leica S 24/3.5, I can attest that the focal lengths are *very* different. Sure, you keep a heck of a lot of pixels cropping from the 21mm FoV to a 24mm, but using the 21mm is an exercise in "I wasn't expecting THAT" during composition. The results can be wonderful, but are almost universally a bit abstract.

Here are images taken with each lens.

Hasselblad XCD 21

Banff


Central Park
Some images just need the ultra-wide




Leica S 24
From the same place as the above


Candids don't look outrageous.


Sigh. Our self-justifications are endless.

Best,

Matt

Gee, thanks, Matt. You're really not helping me here! Indeed I've been waffling all morning between "this new lens won't add range to my kit and won't replace the 21 and 30" to "ooooo, what a shiny new piece of kit, I can *add* it the kit and use the 25 when I don't want to haul along both the 21 and the 30." For most all of my compositions, I appreciate the wider field of view not so much for covering greater expanses of landscapes but more for introducing perspective with foreground elements. Alas, I'm afraid that if I succumb to this festering case of GAS, there will be three wides in my kit, not one. If there's an odd lens out among the three, it may be the 30, but it may be too nice of a lens to part with...

Distortion correction looks a lot better than corner smearing from sagittal/tangential differences (my opinion only).

Matt

And the good news, at least from a theoretical point of view, is that at least when stopped down a bit, there's not much difference between the sagittal and tangential curves for any of the three lenses (21, 25V and 30).

In terms of practice, I don't detect any smearing with the XCD21 or XCD30, or for that matter any of my lenses in the kit, which also includes the XCD55V (which has been found by some to be subpar compared to the XC65) and the original XCD90.

John

 

[FloatingLens]

Perfect optics also come with different side effects. I’m just thinking of the weight of the 40 IF vs XCD45p.

Not really the same image circle, but it‘s crazy! Also comparing XCD4/45P and CFi 4/50 for example. Brought the 50 with adapter once instead and immediately regretted it.

 

[jng]

Perfect optics also come with different side effects. I’m just thinking of the weight of the 40 IF vs XCD45p.

Agreed. Although there's no free lunch - while still stellar even by today's modern optical standards, the 40 IF introduces quite a bit of mustache distortion (not to mention a wee bit of LoCA if you pixel peep @ 100%). And it's a beast!

John

 

[FloatingLens]

I think the XCD25 makes for a nice replacement of the XCD21 that I revere.

 

[jng]

Not really the same image circle, but it‘s crazy! Also comparing XCD4/45P and CFi 4/50 for example. Brought the 50 with adapter once instead and immediately regretted it.

I once did a back-to-back comparison of the 40 IF with the original XCD 3.5/45 on the 50 Mp 44x33 X1D; sharpness was comparable edge to edge. I previously owned a CF 4/50 FLE, which showed (I think) pretty significant field curvature on the full frame 54x40 sensor - a "feature" to bring foreground elements into focus without focus stacking or tilt, but otherwise a pretty big "bug." I moved it along when I picked up the 40 IF, which sadly I sold when I went down the tech cam rabbit hole...

John

 

[jng]

You have a good point on this.
Still, it seems to me just like giving up on addressing the core issue, which is real optical optimization. It always sounds like taking a shortcut.
Anyway, the key of all engineering work is finding the best compromise, at the target price.

True! Although at the end of the day, I am more interested in the performance coming out of the raw converter than what can be seen on the optical bench.

 

[MGrayson]

Gee, thanks, Matt. You're really not helping me here! Indeed I've been waffling all morning between "this new lens won't add range to my kit and won't replace the 21 and 30" to "ooooo, what a shiny new piece of kit, I can *add* it the kit and use the 25 when I don't want to haul along both the 21 and the 30." For most all of my compositions, I appreciate the wider field of view not so much for covering greater expanses of landscapes but more for introducing perspective with foreground elements. Alas, I'm afraid that if I succumb to this festering case of GAS, there will be three wides in my kit, not one. If there's an odd lens out among the three, it may be the 30, but it may be too nice of a lens to part with...


And the good news, at least from a theoretical point of view, is that at least when stopped down a bit, there's not much difference between the sagittal and tangential curves for any of the three lenses (21, 25V and 30).

In terms of practice, I don't detect any smearing with the XCD21 or XCD30, or for that matter any of my lenses in the kit, which also includes the XCD55V (which has been found by some to be subpar compared to the XC65) and the original XCD90.

John

John,

I never considered the 30 a wide. The 28 barely qualifies. .

The reason that the XCD lenses have no smearing (except for my first bad copy of the 28P) is because they don't have to worry about distortion. I think the Leica Q's miraculous lens (a 28mm f/1.7 Macro? Ridiculous!) works the same way.

Matt

 

[rdeloe]

The reason that the XCD lenses have no smearing (except for my first bad copy of the 28P) is because they don't have to worry about distortion. I think the Leica Q's miraculous lens (a 28mm f/1.7 Macro? Ridiculous!) works the same way.

In what respect to do they not have to worry about distortion? The new 25mm has consideration distortion per Hasselblad's data. Do you mean don't worry because Phocus sorts it out?

 

[MGrayson]

In what respect to do they not have to worry about distortion? The new 25mm has consideration distortion per Hasselblad's data. Do you mean don't worry because Phocus sorts it out?

Yes, as does LR. The whole imaging pipeline has optical and electronic steps. They've just moved geometric distortion control from the glass to the silicon. Lenses with flat fields and no distortion are wonderful, but have other compromises, e.g., the SK 35XL issues with the latest Hasselblad back. I think the "fix geometry in software" is one of the best design tradeoffs in years. Lenses get smaller and have fewer other aberrations.

 

[rdeloe]

Yes, as does LR. The whole imaging pipeline has optical and electronic steps. They've just moved geometric distortion control from the glass to the silicon. Lenses with flat fields and no distortion are wonderful, but have other compromises, e.g., the SK 35XL issues with the latest Hasselblad back. I think the "fix geometry in software" is one of the best design tradeoffs in years. Lenses get smaller and have fewer other aberrations.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought for a sec that we were looking at the same distortion profile and seeing two very different lenses.

Totally agree. The vast majority of the market is going to think that "smaller, lighter, cheaper and makes great looking images" is plenty good.

 

[jduncan]

View attachment 212742View attachment 212743View attachment 212744View attachment 212745

Hi,
Nice. I love they are moving, it was painful when they dropped the H but they are trying to keep the X alive.
I hope they fixed the production issues and all the lenses become available.

It's pretty Nice. I hope the sum of Fuji and Hasselblad plus other commercial Applications like cinema cameras is enough for Sony to continue to invest on the sensors.
This is proving to be a pretty good year for Medium Format with Fuji, Hasselblad and maybe even Leica pushing the ball forward.
We needed it after such gloomy years.

Best regards,

 

[asnapper]

Another review of sorts for the lens.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Looks like a nice lens, one that I would have already pre-ordered from @Steve Hendrix if I didn't already own the "legacy" XCD 4/21 and XCD 3.5/30 (both purchased used from two trusted GetDPI forum members). But who knows - if its performance is comparable in the field, the 25-V might be a good compromise as I often debate whether to take the 21 (a little wide) or the 30 (not quite wide enough) when aiming to pack light. The intermediate focal length may prove to be just right or "not too."

From the published MTF charts the XCD 25-V looks to be quite sharp across the field when stopped down to f/5.6, already showing signs of diffraction on center. Comparing these data with the XCD 21 and XCD 30 - both outstanding optics - takes a bit of imagination, given the different focal lengths and apertures at which the tests were performed (assuming, of course, that these represent actual measurements, which Hasselblad was known to publish for the previous legacy Zeiss lenses). I'm guessing that one will need to split hairs to discern any appreciable difference in sharpness when stopped down to f/8-f/11. Looking forward to seeing some real world images with the new lens...

John

I have some good news - what I said earlier about "waiting a bit" was spoken in error. We have 10 on the way to us, 2 are pre-sold, but if anyone would like one of the new Hasselblad 25mm V lenses from Capture Integration, we should be able to ship by next Tuesday. The next 8 are available.

https://digitalback.com/products/hasselblad-xcd-2-5-25v-lens-20-downpayment-on-3-699


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[GeorgeBo]

-1

I have some good news - what I said earlier about "waiting a bit" was spoken in error. We have 10 on the way to us, 2 are pre-sold, but if anyone would like one of the new Hasselblad 25mm V lenses from Capture Integration, we should be able to ship by next Tuesday. The next 8 are available.

https://digitalback.com/products/hasselblad-xcd-2-5-25v-lens-20-downpayment-on-3-699


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[vjbelle]

Yes, as does LR. The whole imaging pipeline has optical and electronic steps. They've just moved geometric distortion control from the glass to the silicon. Lenses with flat fields and no distortion are wonderful, but have other compromises, e.g., the SK 35XL issues with the latest Hasselblad back. I think the "fix geometry in software" is one of the best design tradeoffs in years. Lenses get smaller and have fewer other aberrations.

But those electronic steps steal resolution! This seems to be the approach to smaller pixel dimensions in the future that will require wider apertures to eliminate the effects of diffraction but all at the cost of resolution. I, for one, would rather have slower lenses with less distortion at a possible cost of being slightly heavier.

Victor B.