Hasselblad 100 on S2

[Stuart Richardson]

I agree...the 100-120mm focal length is lovely on medium format, in the same way that 70-100mm is on 35mm. A long standard lens or a short tele is a very fundamental lens for me. I also made many of my favorite images on the Hassleblad with the 110mm f/2. I always thought of it as a wonderful lens with beautiful bokeh and very sharp stopped down. I was surprised when I tried it on the S2 to compare to the 120mm S...the S was sharper across the frame at 2.5 than the Hasselblad was at f/8!!! It was in focus, just the degree of micro-contrast and freedom from aberrations in the Leica lens lifted the performance to a great degree.
Technical performance is not everything though, and I certainly would not hesitate to use the 110/2 on the Hasselblad.

 

[RVB]

I wonder if there is not something germane to the 120mm focal length in medium format that creates such wonderful images. My autofocus related criticisms aside, I do recognize that the S 120 is a great lens but certainly no more so, at least in my opinion, than was the Contax 120 and in fact, the P1 120 is an excellent lens as well. Granted that the Contax was manual focus, it remains among my favorite all time lenses; fortunately I also had the 140 to do what I am attempting to do (unsuccessfully for the most part, I might ad) with the S120.

Douglas.there was a comparison between Contax and S glass (Both on a Leica S2)on another forum and everyone that commented including the Contax glass owner thought the S glass had slightly better contrast and resolution..

Thats not to say the Contax glass was anything other than very nice..But the S glass had a small advantage..

Rob

 

[RVB]

Huh, I don't really see that much of a benefit to a 100mm f/2 when the 120mm f/2.5 is probably the best lens in the whole system...probably the best lens I have used in any system. 20mm makes a difference, but it is not dramatic in this case.
I would have much rather they did the 45mm as an f/2...seems much more useful to have a fast moderate wide than a fast portrait lens...the depth of field on 100mm at f/2 (or 120mm at f/2.5) is already so thin as to be useful more for atmospheric effects than most general photographic work. 45mm f/2 on the other hand is quite useful for even general images, particularly in low light...
Oh well!

Richard I think this lens will be a success if its a fast focusing lens..the 120 is not good enough for moving subjects such as a fashion shoot,and the extra 2/3rd's of a stop will make a difference in natural light,especially when the new S will have cmos that will allow for this style of shooting..

But I do agree a fast wide would be nice,I would expect an f2 wide to be as least as expensive as a 100mm f2 and Very large ;-)

Rob

 

[RVB]

Hi Marc,
I am glad to hear it is so good. I had been looking for a lens in the 45mm range, but when I saw the size and aperture of the 45mm, I went with the 30-90mm instead. While I loved the utility of the lens and its center performance, mine did not seem to do very well in the corners and edges of the images. It went to Leica and they said they could not find anything wrong with it, so they want to see the body (which is fine with the other lenses). I am printing a book nearby in Karlsruhe in a few weeks, so I am just going to bring my body to the factory and go for a visit. Hopefully I will get a chance to try the 45mm then. If the performance is as good as you say, that's great news, but I have to admit I am still underwhelmed by the size and speed...given how good the 35mm is at 2.5, I was a bit disappointed that they could not make a smaller and faster 45mm. Still, the performance is more important than the size and weight to me in this system, and 2.8 is not exactly slow. If the 30-90 had performed as well as the 35mm or 70mm, that would have been more than enough for me, but unfortunately mine couldn't get tack sharp corners at any focal length or aperture, and that is a problem that is only going to get worse as the bodies increase in resolution. Assuming that is a design feature and not a fault with the camera or body, I will likely sell it and try to find a 45mm...

As for the 120mm, it performs so well for me that the occasional hunting does not bother me so much, but I can understand how someone might want a lens more similar to the 180mm if they were mostly working with quick moving subjects. I am not sure if I just got a great copy, but my 120mm is sharper at 2.5 than most lenses I have used in other systems...that along with the quality of the bokeh, lack of distortion and APO color and close focusing...well, I really don't have anything to criticize. I wind up shooting a lot more with it than I would an equivalent focal length on another system, just because of how well it draws. I have 24 images in my book and 8 of them with were with the 120mm, 10 with the 70mm, 2 with the 35mm, 1 with the 30-90 (at 83mm) and 1 with the M9 and 35mm summilux. Considering how long the 120mm is, I think the fact that 8 of 24 were shot with it is a testament to the quality of the lens...

Richard do you think your 30-90 could be a bad sample..?? I bought one and will be collecting it in a week or so,its in Germany..

I did read a couple of reviews but they were very positive about the performance.I hope I'm not disappointed ,it cost as much as a car.. ;-)

Rob

 

[Stuart Richardson]

It very well could be. But Leica received it in for service and said they could not find anything wrong with it...so they asked for the body. When I am there in the next few weeks, I will find out. But as far as I am concerned, the performance is not acceptable. I am certainly willing to give Leica the benefit of the doubt though!
Here is an example of the problem though:
I am attaching two pictures...one of the whole scene, and one of 100% crop of the left side. This was taken at 83mm at f/9.5...I would rather this be totally sharp, but the left edge is quite blurred. The center is extremely sharp...right edge is not as bad as the left, but not superb.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I am also not sure if that full image is a crop...it may be. I will have to check at the studio tomorrow. But basically the left side is quite soft in comparison to the center, and at an aperture like f/9.5 (it is still a problem wider open or more stopped down) I think any Leica S lens should be more or less uniformly sharp across the frame. We will see though if the body is the problem or the lens...if it is the body, then it is very odd, as it is fine with all the other lenses.

 

[RVB]

I am also not sure if that full image is a crop...it may be. I will have to check at the studio tomorrow. But basically the left side is quite soft in comparison to the center, and at an aperture like f/9.5 (it is still a problem wider open or more stopped down) I think any Leica S lens should be more or less uniformly sharp across the frame. We will see though if the body is the problem or the lens...if it is the body, then it is very odd, as it is fine with all the other lenses.

Asymmetrical blur sounds like a faulty lens,I will have mine soon and will test with an aperture series as soon as i can..

I know Guy has used this lens at the Acadia workshop and he said it was stellar.."Leica S with 30-90 zoom. I will figure out the best way to process these images. I shot all day with it and i do not use Lightroom and bringing them into C1 and i will build a nice style to handle them but it does look nice and a fun cam to shoot. Oh my muscles are much better with it too. A little heavy with that zoom but that lens is a major sweet heart. Shot at ISO 400" "

"Very dangerous kit. That is for sure. That 30-90 is just killer" "

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/4730-fun-mf-images-271.html



This post was from Joe Colson who also owns this system.."I shoot with an S and just got back from the San Juan Mountains in Colorado (Ouray, Ridgeway, etc.). The lenses I used were the 30-90mm znd the 180mm. The 30-90mm is a dream lens - sharp corner to corner, brilliant micro-contrast - and virtually eliminated my need to carry the 35mm and 70mm." >> http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/48720-new-firmware-leica-s-leica-s2.html

Since Joe Colson uses it on a regular basis he would be a good person to check with!

Rob

 

[fotografz]

Actually, this is the first I've heard any complaint about the S Zoom. Most rave about the corner performance. It seems like your lens is de-centered or something. I think I would shoot some very specific tests in more controlled conditions (the dreaded brick wall), and send the results along with the lens back to Leica. I sure the heck wouldn't let them monkey around with your camera if all the other lenses are stellar on it.

Leica can have the ocassional lazy tech people just like other companies. How many times have we sent lenses in only to come back with issues and then have to be sent back again? I had a M50/1.4 ASPH that took three trips to get right.

I skipped this S Zoom lens because of the slow max aperture for what and how I shoot, but more importantly because it doesn't come in a CS version.

I had the Hasselblad mid-zoom which is also quite good with DAC applied, and it is a leaf-shutter lens. Unfortunately, I had sold it before the H to S adapter became available. I also found that H zoom was to slow in max aperture for my applications (the closest I ever get to doing landscape photography is environment portraits using a monopod).

- Marc

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Mine is extremely sharp on center, has few aberrations, lovely bokeh, focuses quickly, handles well. In all aspects except one it is a superb lens. Mine just isn't sharp in the corners and edges. Leica received it and said they couldn't find anything wrong with it, so I have to take them at their word. Based on my past experience with them, I am sure that they will look harder once they have my camera body and find a way to resolve the issue.

If it does turn out that this is the nature of the lens, then I can only think that the reason you haven't heard it is that there are vanishingly few of these lenses in the world and probably even fewer who use them on a tripod focused at near infinity with the intention of getting everything sharp from corner to corner. Unlike many other places, Iceland has a lot of detail in the distances...there are not many trees, vegetation or buildings in the foreground and very little pollution or haze, so a landscape image will more often have everything at a medium/long distance with very fine detail visible. It is brutal on lenses, and with a camera like the S2, the difference between unsharp and sharp is very obvious.
It's my hope and belief that this is just a technical problem, but we'll see!

 

[RVB]

Mine is extremely sharp on center, has few aberrations, lovely bokeh, focuses quickly, handles well. In all aspects except one it is a superb lens. Mine just isn't sharp in the corners and edges. Leica received it and said they couldn't find anything wrong with it, so I have to take them at their word. Based on my past experience with them, I am sure that they will look harder once they have my camera body and find a way to resolve the issue.

If it does turn out that this is the nature of the lens, then I can only think that the reason you haven't heard it is that there are vanishingly few of these lenses in the world and probably even fewer who use them on a tripod focused at near infinity with the intention of getting everything sharp from corner to corner. Unlike many other places, Iceland has a lot of detail in the distances...there are not many trees, vegetation or buildings in the foreground and very little pollution or haze, so a landscape image will more often have everything at a medium/long distance with very fine detail visible. It is brutal on lenses, and with a camera like the S2, the difference between unsharp and sharp is very obvious.
It's my hope and belief that this is just a technical problem, but we'll see!

Stuart,If you haven't come across this already it's worth a read. Joseph Holmes - News: Medium Format Problems

This is god advice.."Photographers -- expect trouble and look for it. Make wide aperture test shots at infinity and examine the results. Check to see that all four corners and the middle are sharp, and more or less equally so. Expect to have trouble focussing your M.F. digital cameras -- simply because the precision required is so extreme."

Rob

 

[RVB]

Mine is extremely sharp on center, has few aberrations, lovely bokeh, focuses quickly, handles well. In all aspects except one it is a superb lens. Mine just isn't sharp in the corners and edges. Leica received it and said they couldn't find anything wrong with it, so I have to take them at their word. Based on my past experience with them, I am sure that they will look harder once they have my camera body and find a way to resolve the issue.

If it does turn out that this is the nature of the lens, then I can only think that the reason you haven't heard it is that there are vanishingly few of these lenses in the world and probably even fewer who use them on a tripod focused at near infinity with the intention of getting everything sharp from corner to corner. Unlike many other places, Iceland has a lot of detail in the distances...there are not many trees, vegetation or buildings in the foreground and very little pollution or haze, so a landscape image will more often have everything at a medium/long distance with very fine detail visible. It is brutal on lenses, and with a camera like the S2, the difference between unsharp and sharp is very obvious.
It's my hope and belief that this is just a technical problem, but we'll see!

Stuart,I finally received mine yesterday..and from the test shots I've made so far I would agree with you that its very sharp centrally but unable to match the primes at the edges and corners...

I'll keep it though for the versatility,its also very sharp wide open..like every other S lens..

Rob

 

[rsmphoto]

Just saw this thread. I use a VE 30-90 non-stop with a 24mm for when I need something a bit wider.
Here is a recent shot (nothing as exotic as Iceland, but it should help with the discussion) done with the 30-90 VE @ 30mm @ ƒ11 on an S with 100% crops for your perusal.... no complaints here.

Richard

 

[RVB]

Just saw this thread. I use a VE 30-90 non-stop with a 24mm for when I need something a bit wider.
Here is a recent shot (nothing as exotic as Iceland, but it should help with the discussion) done with the 30-90 VE @ 30mm on an S with 100% crops for your perusal.... no complaints here.

Richard

Richard these are all edge crops I presume,what apertures did you use? They look good,I'll do a few more later and with a Prime for comparison,It is a great lens but I find the primes to be a little better which is not really a surprise.

I'll post some shots as soon as I get a chance..what the zoom gives up in absolute IQ is compensated by versatility.

Rob

 

[Stuart Richardson]

It's still quite good at 30mm to 65mm or so. Try it at 80 or 90mm at longer distances...that's where mine has the most trouble at least. Mine came back from service and is better but it is still not quite good enough for me to use without reservation. Leica saw both it and the body and said both were perfect, so it is not an issue of the lens itself, rather the particular optical formula. As Rob said, it is a compromise, but I am slightly more surprised about it than Rob, as in Leica's marketing for the lens, they say that the lens is as good as the primes, only slower. That might be true on center, but it is not true across the frame. I should have looked closer at the MTF, as it is clear on their charts.
That said, it is an extremely useful lens, very nice to work with, and excellent in every way except this one. It is just better suited to applications where corners and edges are less important than versatility...in my application it tends to be the opposite! So if I did it all over I would have just gotten the 45mm. But selling the 30-90 would mean losing a lot of money, and it does give me coverage between 35 and 70 and 70 and 120, which I would not otherwise have. But in general, if I can bring along and shoot with the 35mm, 70mm or 120, I will reach for those first over the zoom.

Here are two from a few days ago with the fixed lens though.

 

[rsmphoto]

Richard these are all edge crops I presume,what apertures did you use? They look good,I'll do a few more later and with a Prime for comparison,It is a great lens but I find the primes to be a little better which is not really a surprise.

I'll post some shots as soon as I get a chance..what the zoom gives up in absolute IQ is compensated by versatility.

Rob

Rob, shot at ƒ11. Yes, they are edge and corner crops. The full image is the first image posted in the group. I'll see what I can come up with for a longer focal length sample....

Richard

 

[RVB]

Rob, shot at ƒ11. Yes, they are edge and corner crops. The full image is the first image posted in the group. I'll see what I can come up with for a longer focal length sample....

Richard

From what I have seen of far f11 is the best aperture.. some slight signs of diffraction but the extra DOF helps improves the edges..

Rob

 

[RVB]

It's still quite good at 30mm to 65mm or so. Try it at 80 or 90mm at longer distances...that's where mine has the most trouble at least. Mine came back from service and is better but it is still not quite good enough for me to use without reservation. Leica saw both it and the body and said both were perfect, so it is not an issue of the lens itself, rather the particular optical formula. As Rob said, it is a compromise, but I am slightly more surprised about it than Rob, as in Leica's marketing for the lens, they say that the lens is as good as the primes, only slower. That might be true on center, but it is not true across the frame. I should have looked closer at the MTF, as it is clear on their charts.
That said, it is an extremely useful lens, very nice to work with, and excellent in every way except this one. It is just better suited to applications where corners and edges are less important than versatility...in my application it tends to be the opposite! So if I did it all over I would have just gotten the 45mm. But selling the 30-90 would mean losing a lot of money, and it does give me coverage between 35 and 70 and 70 and 120, which I would not otherwise have. But in general, if I can bring along and shoot with the 35mm, 70mm or 120, I will reach for those first over the zoom.

Here are two from a few days ago with the fixed lens though.

Stuart I would keep it as its still excellent and we can crop for sharper edges if needed,also when your in an environment where changing glass is a problem due to weather,dust or sand etc the Zoom is a great asset...

I will try and do more shots soon across the focal range... so far I tired 30mm,65mm and 90mm

Rob

 

[RVB]

Here are screen grabs from the 70mm vs the VE @70mm..

The prime is in an different league.. both files are dng with no adjustments . SOC..

these uploads have been resized too much so I am posting the RAW files..

https://www.hightail.com/download/UlRRb24zQzM1bmptcXRVag

This is the best way as you can sharpen them as you prefer...



Rob

 

[rsmphoto]

Thanks for those Rob.

I have to say the difference you demonstrate is pretty dramatic, but I've not experienced the that level of softness at the edges in any of my shots since owning the lens. Granted I shoot at ƒ11 exclusively.

One more recent sample... Infinity, 50mm@ƒ11

Sorry I don't shoot the VE at the long lengths that often.

 

[RVB]

Thanks for those Rob.

I have to say the difference you demonstrate is pretty dramatic, but I've not experienced the that level of softness at the edges in any of my shots since owning the lens. Granted I shoot at ƒ11 exclusively.

One more recent sample... Infinity, 50mm@ƒ11

Sorry I don't shoot the VE at the long lengths that often.

I'm considering returning it to have it checked again.. I'll run a few more shots at the wider focal lengths and see how it performs,but the primes remain my first choice.

It could be sample variation ... Zooms are more complex than primes and more likely to have tolerance issues or decentered elements and yours does seem to perform better than mine or Stuarts.

Rob