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

wattsy

Well-known member
The preview samples are quite interesting and a bit of a mixed bag. I guess we shouldn't read too much into the performance of the lens from a few samples from a photographer of unknown capabilities but, after looking at the RAWs, I'm not exactly blown away by the lens. I don't see any that I'd describe as "B A D" 😂 but at least one looks a bit soft generally (presumably diffraction limited but nonetheless noticeably softer than I would expect to see at F11) and many of the others are simply a bit meh.

Although a zoom, I think most people will end up using this lens for its 20mm capabilities and I don't think (albeit judged from a handful of samples) it is as good as the 21mm.
 
Last edited:

DavidJA

Member
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? Clearly the straightforward comp is the Fuji equivalent. Otherwise a Canon 17ts, a 32 Rodenstock? I don't like shooting super wide but as a working interiors and architectural photographer I have to have the capacity to do so. Given the option I would never shoot wider than 38 on X2D, or 40 on IQ4. But I have to have a wider lens in my bag and this one seems like it might be very convenient at times.

Of course it's all just guessing until we have reliable samples, which I don't think the dpreview samples are.

Cheers,
David

davidagnello.com
 

wattsy

Well-known member
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 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.
 

xoda

New member
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?
Screenshot 2024-09-12 at 1.58.26 AM.jpg
 
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
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!
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
dpreview has some RAW samples online.......gosh the corners are B A D

I don't see conclusively bad corners. I do see what I feel is asymmetry with the lens they were using, the left side looks off. So .... again, test your lens thoroughly to make sure you are satisfied with your copy once you receive it. Or if you purchase through Capture Integration, we'll test your lens for you upon request.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

TechTalk

Well-known member
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
 
Last edited:

wattsy

Well-known member
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.

Screenshot-2024-09-12-at-08.18.40.jpg
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
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
I think it's the reflection in the top row of windows that gives the wavy illusion. Thanks for the guide lines!
 

diggles

Well-known member
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
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.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Sample variation is, IMO, a real problem with recent XCD lenses. dpreview has a decentered zoom. Albrecht Voss has a good one. I've seen good and bad copies of both the 25 and 28, (but admittedly have no experience with the 38, 55, and new 90). I wonder what Roger Cicala thinks, as he has access to many copies of many lenses, and has published data on sample variance in the past.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
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.
 

Doppler9000

Active member
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.
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.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
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.
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).
 
Top