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

[MGrayson]

Well, I like the focal length, and there aren't many alternatives. A Phase One XC and cropping is one possibility .

A few more with just the 25/2.5V

This was focused on the people between the kid and the softball diamond. Even at 1/160 second, a running child gives motion blur.


And two crops:





And to show that one can, in fact, focus on a dog.




Matt

 

[davidrm]

The more I read about the V lenses, the more smug/secure I feel about my collection of XCD lenses (well, I do have the 28P but I’m not really sure where that one fits in. Either way, it’s great).

I beginning to suspect that the sweet spot is actually the X1DII and a set of pre- V lenses…

 

[TechTalk]

The more I read about the V lenses, the more smug/secure I feel about my collection of XCD lenses (well, I do have the 28P but I’m not really sure where that one fits in. Either way, it’s great).

I beginning to suspect that the sweet spot is actually the X1DII and a set of pre- V lenses…

Naturally, the sweet spot for lens selection is different from one photographer to another. It's only important that your personal lens choices and resulting images satisfy you and your needs.

I suspect there are quite a number of photographers who are quite happy with their X2D 100C, XCD V Series lenses, and the images they are able to create with them.

 

[vjbelle]

It's always about the lens.... The camera can only record what the lens delivers. I fail to understand why camera manufacturers can't figure out that ultimately a good camera without a good lens is really crippled - especially at this price point.

Victor B.

 

[TechTalk]

I fail to understand why camera manufacturers can't figure out that ultimately a good camera without a good lens is really crippled - especially at this price point.

I'm of the general impression that camera manufacturers are often far more passionate and knowledgeable about photography and the equipment they produce to help photographers create images than that for which they are given credit by some of their critics — at any given price point.

 

[jng]

I currently own the XCD 21, XCD 30, XCD 90, and XCD 55-V. I previously owned the XCD 45 but sold it not because of any quality issues (quite the contrary) but because it split the difference too closely between the 30 and 55. I have zero complaints about any of the lenses in my kit, including the 55V, which seems to be the Rodney Dangerfield of the lineup. I've also seen some lovely images from Hans Strand using some of the often-maligned XCD P-series lenses. I have yet to find a situation where my abilities exceeded the capabilities of my gear, whether it's the "little" Hasselblad or my more serious Cambo/IQ4 setup. But that's just me. YMMV, of course!

John

 

[TechTalk]

...Was really looking forward to this lens for nightscapes, but if there’s bad coma and the edges are soft it has me wondering.

According to some initial reviews, coma is quite well controlled and the XCD 25V is well suited for nighttime sky photography. Below you'll find comments and some sample nightscape images specifically related to coma performance...

Photography Life (Verdict): "The Hasselblad XCD 25mm f/2.5 V lives up to its promise. It’s a highly capable lens for Milky Way photography thanks to the bright maximum aperture, wide focal length, and minimal levels of coma. It also makes a great general-purpose wide lens with impressive sharpness and excellent flare performance."

Photography Life (Optical Performance): Coma

"Related to sharpness is coma, a lens aberration that can make dots of light in the corner of a photo look like smears. Coma isn’t usually visible in everyday photography, but for something like Milky Way photography, it can be a factor. Since the Hasselblad 25mm f/2.5 V is geared toward Milky Way photography, I was eager to put its coma performance to the test."

"Shown below are extreme crops from the top-right corner of the Hasselblad X2D with the 25mm f/2.5 V. I cropped the X2D’s 100-megapixel sensor down to 1262 × 946 pixels and didn’t do any resizing; these are direct excerpts from the image, with Lightroom’s default sharpening and noise reduction applied. First, here’s the original image and the crop box for reference:" [see link above for sample images]

"There’s hardly any coma here at all, even at f/2.5 – an excellent result! While I see a very slight improvement at f/2.8, there doesn’t seem to be a further improvement at f/3.2, just a little extra noise. To me, this is a lens to shoot at either f/2.5 or f/2.8 when photographing the Milky Way."

PetaPixel: "There aren’t many lenses intended for night photography on the Hasselblad medium format system. But this 25mm is the closest we’ve got so far, and I wanted to shoot some night scenes. At f/2.5, there was almost no Coma in the corners, but there was some Sagittal Astigmatism, which creates a bat-wing look to highlight the edges of the frame. It wasn’t terrible, though, and by f/4, the Coma and SA essentially go away. This is not a perfect astrophotography lens, but it’s the best we’ve seen from Hasselblad."

"So you have a lens with some of the nicest bokeh you’ll get, a usable f/2.5 aperture, and sharpness as well. If you want a fast wide-angle with excellent optics and the versatility to shoot nightscapes, look no further."

If you would like to see some additional samples there are some XCD 25V night sky sample images at the Hasselblad website like this image and this.

Personally, regardless of what I find written about a lens, I would want to test it myself with my own subjects and under conditions typical of my own use.

 

[MGrayson]

So how much coma is too much? There are finally some stars visible, and that left side is showing its oddities. I mean, the first day's shots didn't magically get better - I just found that for what I usually do, it didn't matter. Now I don't do astro, but the reviews of this lens's aberration-free wide open imaging had me curious. What will show up at night?

These are ISO 100, 8 second exposures, lifted 2 to 5 stops depending on the light pollution in that part of the sky. This is near the center, so focus seems pretty good. 1100 pixel wide crop, btw, so this is something like 200%, depending on your monitor.


This is bottom center. Doesn't look too terrible.


And bottom left.


Whatcha think? Is this a lot of coma? A little? I'm not being facetious. I mean, it doesn't look great, but how bad is it?

I don’t mean this as a comment on this model lens in general. I think it’s my copy.

Matt

 

[jng]

So how much coma is too much? There are finally some stars visible, and that left side is showing its oddities. I mean, the first day's shots didn't magically get better - I just found that for what I usually do, it didn't matter. Now I don't do astro, but the reviews of this lens's aberration-free wide open imaging had me curious. What will show up at night?

These are ISO 100, 8 second exposures, lifted 2 to 5 stops depending on the light pollution in that part of the sky. This is near the center, so focus seems pretty good. 1100 pixel wide crop, btw, so this is something like 200%, depending on your monitor.


This is bottom center. Doesn't look too terrible.


And bottom left.


Whatcha think? Is this a lot of coma? A little? I'm not being facetious. I mean, it doesn't look great, but how bad is it?

Matt

Bottom and bottom-left are definitely showing some unpleasantness on top of quite minor star trails from the 8s exposure. None of this will really matter except at extreme magnification/enlargement. TBH I would be more concerned about field curvature @ maximum aperture than about any residual coma. Stopping down might improve things but at the expense of exposure times (=> star trails) or ISO (=> noise). At the end of the day, I suppose it all boils down to what one is willing to compromise on and how picky one is.

John

 

[MGrayson]

Bottom and bottom-left are definitely showing some unpleasantness on top of quite minor star trails from the 8s exposure. None of this will really matter except at extreme magnification/enlargement. TBH I would be more concerned about field curvature @ maximum aperture than about any residual coma. Stopping down might improve things but at the expense of exposure times (=> star trails) or ISO (=> noise). At the end of the day, I suppose it all boils down to what one is willing to compromise on and how picky one is.

John

Thanks John.

I don’t see evidence of field curvature in this image! Aside from coma and astigmatism, the focus is pretty good.