nazdravanul
Active member
I love mine, not sure when / if Hasselblad will come up with something similar, in the newer lenses!
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
New Hasselblad XCD 20-35/3.2-4.5
- Thread starter MGrayson
- Start date
The Hasselblad zooms are fairly large and heavy. Generally speaking, I dislike zoom lenses. One of the only exceptions is Fuji’s 35-70 which is such a nice lens for hiking, two primes in one and very lightweight. Would love if Hasselblad would create something similar.
At the wide end, I’ll stick to my XCD30 which is fantastic.
At the wide end, I’ll stick to my XCD30 which is fantastic.
rmueller
Well-known member
Doppler9000
Well-known member
The ‘E’ stands for “Exclusive”.
Hasselblad Introduces the XCD 3,2-4,5/20-35E Lens, Its First Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
www.all-about-photo.com
So the mistery unravelled: E stands for excellence. All other XCD non-e lenses are now dead
Hi,
not a critique but a question: Do you shoot 35mm ? if the answer is yes, do you use 35mm zooms or you hate them in general? Do you care to elaborate on why?
Again is personal preference there is nothing to justify, I am just curious, it will be the end of it.
Best regards,
Really? I thought it was "Expensive". Or indeed "Excessively expensive". The transition to Luxury Brand is complete.
Hi,
B&H has it for less than $6000 I guess you are in Europe or something? But yes, it's expensive and that is with the "old leaf" shutter (I know is better than anything thad does not have the Hasselblad name on it). On the other hand, one can see it as the replacement for two lenses.
Let wait and see if the image quality justifies the price. I was hopping for a V lens in the 135 -180 mm range, but it seems I have to wait for that one.
Best regards,
Godfrey
Well-known member
I dunno, it looks like a decent lens. Maybe not as great as a set of premium primes, but convenient for those who don't want to carry so many individual lenses.
But I'm not selling my XCD 21mm or XCD 45P. I might be interested in an XCD 28P ... but I don't use the system enough to spend the money for that at present, and I keep debating whether I should sell the whole system and just use my Leica cameras instead. The M10-R and M10 Monochrom are 40 Mpixel and very nearly the same dynamic range as the 907x/CFVII 50c... and they're all more than I really need. The major reasons I hang onto the 907x/CFVII 50c is that it's the 50th Anniversary Moon Landing edition and I can use the back on my 500CM bodies too... It's more an emotional attachment than an actual need.
I'm happy to admit to the fact that I'm emotionally engaged with anything that smacks of the Apollo space program.
G
But I'm not selling my XCD 21mm or XCD 45P. I might be interested in an XCD 28P ... but I don't use the system enough to spend the money for that at present, and I keep debating whether I should sell the whole system and just use my Leica cameras instead. The M10-R and M10 Monochrom are 40 Mpixel and very nearly the same dynamic range as the 907x/CFVII 50c... and they're all more than I really need. The major reasons I hang onto the 907x/CFVII 50c is that it's the 50th Anniversary Moon Landing edition and I can use the back on my 500CM bodies too... It's more an emotional attachment than an actual need.
I'm happy to admit to the fact that I'm emotionally engaged with anything that smacks of the Apollo space program.
G
Hi,
This one is neither. It's lighter and smaller than Sony's 14-24mm f2.8, but heavier than the Nikon Z 14-24mm f2.8.
Taking into account the image circle, I will say it's ok.
Best regard
tenmangu81
Well-known member
Hi jduncan,
I don't shoot 35mm (except that the 45P is a 24x36 35mm equivalent
). I hate zooms in general. To me (I insist : to me), zooms are a solution of facility. I prefer to "zoom with my feet" and/or compose the picture with what I have mounted on my camera. And, as a matter of fact, I always go out with my camera equipped with only one lens, only one. And I shoot with this lens. Usually, I choose my lens according to the location where I intend to go. But sometimes I am wrong (especially when we decide at the last moment with my wife to go somewhere else and we are already in the bus !!). And sometimes I miss some shoots....The reason for all that, in the end, is that I don't want to walk for long with a heavy kit !!
Cheers
sjg284
Well-known member
anything gear motivates you to go out & shoot is more important than the relative specsI dunno, it looks like a decent lens. Maybe not as great as a set of premium primes, but convenient for those who don't want to carry so many individual lenses.
But I'm not selling my XCD 21mm or XCD 45P. I might be interested in an XCD 28P ... but I don't use the system enough to spend the money for that at present, and I keep debating whether I should sell the whole system and just use my Leica cameras instead. The M10-R and M10 Monochrom are 40 Mpixel and very nearly the same dynamic range as the 907x/CFVII 50c... and they're all more than I really need. The major reasons I hang onto the 907x/CFVII 50c is that it's the 50th Anniversary Moon Landing edition and I can use the back on my 500CM bodies too... It's more an emotional attachment than an actual need.
I'm happy to admit to the fact that I'm emotionally engaged with anything that smacks of the Apollo space program.
G
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Hmmm... The "XCD 35-75 is great, so the XCD 20-35 should be, too" argument takes a big hit when you look at the MTF charts of the longer zoom.
The almost complete lack of astigmatism (separation of the solid and dashed lines) has a bigger impact on sharpness than one very high solid curve and a low and wavy dashed one.
Aside on MTF charts: There are usually three pairs of curves, for coarse, medium, and finely spaced lines respectively. Each pair has one solid and one dashed curve. The solid one is the MTF (contrast at that line spacing - I know, I know, there's an actual definition, and I'm not going there) for lines radially oriented (think a tiny bit of a very fine Siemens Star). The dashed curve is for lines perpendicular to the radial direction (Think a tiny bit of closely spaced circles concentric around the center of the sensor). The horizontal axis is distance from the center of the sensor.
Why is the solid curve almost always better behaved than the dashed one? Because lenses are rotationally symmetric. If you get one radial line sharp, then all the radial lines should be sharp. On the other hand, concentric circles are always moving to other parts of the lens geometry. It's MUCH harder to design consistency in that direction, so those lines tend to blur more. Now the solid curve will drop as you go to the right because you're drifting into the hard to control zone where the image circle ends. But you still have rotational symmetry.
Matt
(I hope I didn't get sagittal and meridional mixed up again. Happens about 50% of the time )
The almost complete lack of astigmatism (separation of the solid and dashed lines) has a bigger impact on sharpness than one very high solid curve and a low and wavy dashed one.
Aside on MTF charts: There are usually three pairs of curves, for coarse, medium, and finely spaced lines respectively. Each pair has one solid and one dashed curve. The solid one is the MTF (contrast at that line spacing - I know, I know, there's an actual definition, and I'm not going there) for lines radially oriented (think a tiny bit of a very fine Siemens Star). The dashed curve is for lines perpendicular to the radial direction (Think a tiny bit of closely spaced circles concentric around the center of the sensor). The horizontal axis is distance from the center of the sensor.
Why is the solid curve almost always better behaved than the dashed one? Because lenses are rotationally symmetric. If you get one radial line sharp, then all the radial lines should be sharp. On the other hand, concentric circles are always moving to other parts of the lens geometry. It's MUCH harder to design consistency in that direction, so those lines tend to blur more. Now the solid curve will drop as you go to the right because you're drifting into the hard to control zone where the image circle ends. But you still have rotational symmetry.
Matt
(I hope I didn't get sagittal and meridional mixed up again. Happens about 50% of the time
)
Last edited:
nazdravanul
Active member
Yes, exactly! Those 35-75mm MTF charts are squarely in “prime killer“ territory. The 20-35 doesn’t play in that same league!
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Agreed. Some long zooms are superb. My copy of the Fuji GF 100-200 was amazing. The Leica 90-280 is sharp and has beautiful bokeh. But wide is really hard. Wide primes have only recently managed wide-open corner to corner excellence.
I wasn't expecting a miracle with the XCD 20-35, I think that doing any better optically would have made for a much heavier lens. It's probably a very good compromise for those who can't change lenses out in the field.
Matt (who may have been corrupted by the XCD 21 and now even the XCD 25 doesn't feel wide enough!)