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!
It is high time to grab the old primesdpreview has some RAW samples online.......gosh the corners are B A D
i never understood zoom lenses in the MF realm anywayIt is high time to grab the old primes
I can only speak for myself, David. I am comparing these samples against what I am used to seeing with my existing XCD lenses – in particular, the 21mm F4. It's a largely academic exercise as I hardly ever use the 21mm and have no interest in buying the new zoom but it is interesting to see how the other XCD lenses compare to what I have.I ask this question not as a rebuttal or challenge but truly to understand better. In comparison to what is this lens bad, or inadequate or disappointing?
I would hang on dearly to those fabulous primes if I were you! IQ wise you’re going to get hurt with that zoom, the 21 and 30 seem irreplaceable to me!Curious if there's any advise for someone who already has the 21mm. I was excited by the 20-35, and just put down a (refundable) deposit at my local store. They should get it in within 2-3 days according to their rep.
However, looking at the MTF chart & DP Review samples, I'm a bit concerned it doesn't offer substantially more than my current lens setup (21, 30, 45 + 90). It only manages to replace two lenses, and even then it's a compromise in terms of IQ. Admittedly, I get obsessive about edge details that are often not that important to an image's impact, but the edge of the Capitol steps look wrose than on a sharp 35mm zoom lens, such as the Sony GM 16-35 II.
Should I give up my order?
View attachment 216049
dpreview has some RAW samples online.......gosh the corners are B A D
I think it's the reflection in the top row of windows that gives the wavy illusion. Thanks for the guide lines!The second Albrecht Voss sample is interesting as it shows that, with an appropriate profile (and some skilled post processing), the lens is capable of an impressive rectilinear representation of straight lines. My initial reaction was that there is some wavy moustache-type distortion but it must be an optical illusion because, on inspecting the photograph in Photoshop, all the lines - horizontal and vertical – are suitably true.
View attachment 216055
These examples look pretty damn good. Too bad the Exif data is missing though. It would be nice to see what focal length was used.I don't want to rush into judging lens performance based on the small sample of lenses seen in initial tests or reviews. I'd prefer to take the time to look at a range of many different images from multiple photographers to get a better sense of lens performance.
Albrecht Voss, a 2021 Hasselblad Master in the architecture category, has a couple of images taken with the new XCD 20–35 mm zoom in Hasselblad's sample image gallery. They may be of interest to some. They are compressed JPEG images at full size resolution which you can download...
Albrecht Voss XCD 20–35 zoom Sample 1
Albrecht Voss XCD 20–35 zoom Sample 2
Given the pricing of the Hasselblad lenses, and the higher margins that accrue due to the new DJI/Hasselblad business model, the degree of observed variance seems unacceptable.Exactly the reason I dislike buying lenses - anyones lenses. Sample variations are a real problem and it's always luck of the draw. The only real luck I have had recently is the purchase of my Rodenstock lenses that should be as perfect as possible given the cost.
Victor B.
What experience do you personally have to be able to conclude (a) there is atypical sample to sample variance for XCD lenses compared to the lenses of other manufacturers and (b) the degree of variance is "unacceptable"? My understanding both from the testing I have done of the same XCD lenses side by side and what I read is that all manufacturers' lenses have some degree of sample to sample variances. That's a totally different issue from a lens that is decentered and obviously flawed. I have six XCD lenses and in the case of three lenses, I purchased multiple copies and tested them side by side in the field and with a Siemens star chart, including the recent XCD 25mm f/2.5. There were very subtle differences between the copies, but nothing that would show up in print (other than a print of a star chart).Given the pricing of the Hasselblad lenses, and the higher margins that accrue due to the new DJI/Hasselblad business model, the degree of observed variance seems unacceptable.
Yeah, not really a fan of how this is panning out...Given the pricing of the Hasselblad lenses, and the higher margins that accrue due to the new DJI/Hasselblad business model, the degree of observed variance seems unacceptable.