MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
John,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...
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