Hasselblad X2D and Leica S3 - Update 2: A difficult focus

[Photon42]

30/65 used to be my kit for two years. Then traded the 45p and the 30 plus cash for the new 38V. Minimal focal length, reduced lens weight and the hope to replace two lenses with one was the rationale. For me it worked out so far. The 38 and the X2D are a little like a Leica Q4

 

[FloatingLens]

Kurt (or others) - In FF I like 28mm for groups of people, scenes, landscape etc.

So here is my question - do you find 38 and 55 somewhat too close together?
What's your use case with the 38 and/or the 55?
How do the focal lengths work for you? Does the 55 feel more like a 35 or more like a 50?

My theory on the somewhat unusual focal lengths of the new V lenses is the large cropping potential of the 100c. AoV is wider for added flexibility in post-processing. Just my 2 cents.

 

[steveash]

As someone with the previous generation of both these cameras (X1D and S007) I ended up keeping both. The S I regard as a modern classic, it makes you work to get the best from it but the rewards are there for those who do. The Hasselblad feels more modern, it’s more capable but feels more detached at times. I’m not one for test charts but I’m more than happy with the results from either.

I feel the Leica will age more gracefully than the Hasselblad and right now I see it as a keeper purely for the pleasure of using it.

I expect to replace the X1D with the X2D down the road when the bugs are ironed out and features added. I’m a professional user so not able to be an early adopter Guinea pig for any of my equipment. I might trade the S007 for an S3 as prices continue to fall too. The Leica S4 I see as either a serious contender to the X2D or an irrelevance depending on features and price.

 

[MGrayson]

The XCD 135 works perfectly in the X2D, at least AF at infinity was sharp wide open this morning. What I can't convince myself of is if the 1.7x is any better than cropping and resampling. I don't get "razor sharp" results with it. It could be shallow DoF, too slow shutter speeds, the dreaded 1/8-1/15 second shaking zone, air turbulence over the 1/2 mile to the target, or any number of human errors (or, of course, a substandard 1.7x - got the combo used from B&H).

Has anyone else found the 1.7x worth its weight in ... glass and metal, I suppose. I did some tripod mounted, IBIS off, ES tests, but without focus aids, simply magnified or AF is the best I can do.

Matt

 

[Photon42]

Can you do a test with the TC in a controlled environment indoors? Granted this most probably will not be at infinity, but stlll ...

 

[jng]

The XCD 135 works perfectly in the X2D, at least AF at infinity was sharp wide open this morning. What I can't convince myself of is if the 1.7x is any better than cropping and resampling. I don't get "razor sharp" results with it. It could be shallow DoF, too slow shutter speeds, the dreaded 1/8-1/15 second shaking zone, air turbulence over the 1/2 mile to the target, or any number of human errors (or, of course, a substandard 1.7x - got the combo used from B&H).

Has anyone else found the 1.7x worth its weight in ... glass and metal, I suppose. I did some tripod mounted, IBIS off, ES tests, but without focus aids, simply magnified or AF is the best I can do.

Matt

Hmmm. Atmospheric conditions can be a significant factor, especially as the sun warms the ground and if there's any humidity to speak of, but I assume you were comparing the lens +/- TC at the same time? And did you try boosting the ISO to increase shutter speed? Sorry, just had to ask - channeling my inner experimentalist.

Shooting indoors under a more controlled environment might be useful as @Photon42 suggests, although this may or may not reveal any flaws when shooting at longer focusing distances. If you have a star chart and Soup is not in the mood to be photographed, it might be worth checking that the 135 + 1.7x combo is at least properly centered.

John

 

[MGrayson]

Can you do a test with the TC in a controlled environment indoors? Granted this most probably will not be at infinity, but stlll ...

Ok, this time I used the 135+1.7x on a Multiple Siemens Star target from 45' away. And the 135 from 45' and 26.5' away. All is well. Sharper without the 1.7x, but not much. Certainly enlarging the 135 crops taken at 45' is worse than using the 1.7x. MF on a Siemens chart is slightly better than AF, as you can really see the size of the center fuzzy disk.

I'll spare y'all the pictures, but there's nothing wrong with the optics.

 

[MGrayson]

Hmmm. Atmospheric conditions can be a significant factor, especially as the sun warms the ground and if there's any humidity to speak of, but I assume you were comparing the lens +/- TC at the same time? And did you try boosting the ISO to increase shutter speed? Sorry, just had to ask - channeling my inner experimentalist.

Shooting indoors under a more controlled environment might be useful as @Photon42 suggests, although this may or may not reveal any flaws when shooting at longer focusing distances. If you have a star chart and Soup is not in the mood to be photographed, it might be worth checking that the 135 + 1.7x combo is at least properly centered.

John

I was comparing the distant pics at 200% and not matching magnification. Atmosphere very likely responsible. For the indoor stuff, I used tripod, no IBIS, 2 second delay, and ES. The only sounds were the aperture blades.

As for Soup, this was 1/10 second before he bit me.


Can't wait for focus peaking, myself...

 

[MGrayson]

Look, I *know* I said "real world". But once you start shooting a test chart... Now these are NOT meant to show how sharp the different combinations of lenses and extenders are - for one thing, the sensor out-resolves the laptop at some point, so who knows what we're seeing - other than bad technique. First, the iPhone pic from the camera position


Each tile is about 1000px square. We have, first row:XCD 135, XCD 135+1.7x, Zeiss 250SA, second row: Zeiss 350SA, Zeiss 350SA+APO1.4x, Zeiss 350SA+2x Mutar


Real world. I promise.

 

[jng]

Look, I *know* I said "real world". But once you start shooting a test chart... Now these are NOT meant to show how sharp the different combinations of lenses and extenders are - for one thing, the sensor out-resolves the laptop at some point, so who knows what we're seeing - other than bad technique. First, the iPhone pic from the camera position


Each tile is about 1000px square. We have, first row:XCD 135, XCD 135+1.7x, Zeiss 250SA, second row: Zeiss 350SA, Zeiss 350SA+APO1.4x, Zeiss 350SA+2x Mutar


Real world. I promise.

OK, so what's your take on 135+1.7x vs 250 SA. Just asking for a friend (who can't quite tell from the files as posted).

 

[MGrayson]

OK, so what's your take on 135+1.7x vs 250 SA. Just asking for a friend (who can't quite tell from the files as posted).

As it stands now, I find it too hard to focus a long lens manually on the X2D. The magnified live view is not magnified enough, and there are no other focus assists. The 250 SA is easy to focus on a Leica S or X1D, but again, only if it's on a tripod since there is no IBIS. Of course, I don't have an easy time focusing the 135+1.7x on the X2D, either. My copy of the 250SA is not the latest 2 blue stripe version, so it may not be as smooth focusing or have the best optical formula. Given the Leica S 180 (and now the XCD 135+1.7x), I put the big bucks in the 350 SA, which has no competition.

I'll try to do a "real world" comparison of the two lenses. It's a good question!

 

[jng]

As it stands now, I find it too hard to focus a long lens manually on the X2D. The magnified live view is not magnified enough, and there are no other focus assists. The 250 SA is easy to focus on a Leica S or X1D, but again, only if it's on a tripod since there is no IBIS. Of course, I don't have an easy time focusing the 135+1.7x on the X2D, either. My copy of the 250SA is not the latest 2 blue stripe version, so it may not be as smooth focusing or have the best optical formula. Given the Leica S 180 (and now the XCD 135+1.7x), I put the big bucks in the 350 SA, which has no competition.

I'll try to do a "real world" comparison of the two lenses. It's a good question!

Matt,

Have you tried manually focusing these lenses using 100% magnified view in the viewfinder itself? I found that it gives a much crisper (and I think larger?) image than the rear LCD, which makes focusing quite a bit easier for me. I find that enabling IBIS helps a lot as well (keeps the image from jumping around), and mostly leave it on when shooting on a tripod.

The focusing helicoids of the CFe/CFi variants are indeed butter smooth, which certainly helps focusing. Other than somewhat better light baffling and upgraded shutters, however, with few exceptions the optical formulae of the C/CF/CFe/CFi lenses are the same.

John

 

[MGrayson]

Matt,

Have you tried manually focusing these lenses using 100% magnified view in the viewfinder itself? I found that it gives a much crisper (and I think larger?) image than the rear LCD, which makes focusing quite a bit easier for me. I find that enabling IBIS helps a lot as well (keeps the image from jumping around), and mostly leave it on when shooting on a tripod.

The focusing helicoids of the CFe/CFi variants are indeed butter smooth, which certainly helps focusing. Other than somewhat better light baffling and upgraded shutters, however, with few exceptions the optical formulae of the C/CF/CFe/CFi lenses are the same.

John

You’re right. I just seldom use the viewfinder. But I noticed today how much clearer it was. Guess I’ll get in the habit… I even set it for my no-glasses vision. That works better on the X2D than any other EVF I’ve looked through.

 

[MGrayson]

Comparing the XCD 135/2.8 + 1.7x with the Zeiss 250/5.6 SA on the X2D. Preliminary report based on chasing Soup around the apartment in the morning sun.

The XCD lens has the advantages of AF and leaf shutter. The disadvantage, and it's a big one, is the focus by wire. It is MUCH easier to MF the Zeiss (through the viewfinder, as @jng suggested) because one can rock back and forth over the desired focal distance, and do it quickly. With focus by wire, the nonlinear response makes this (for me, anyway) very difficult. MAYBE I could get used to it, but right now it takes a long time to get there. AF, on the other hand, loves eyebrows, whiskers, nearby furniture and tree branches. So focus speed - so far - goes to the Zeiss.

Another big difference - close focus. The XCD gets to something ridiculous like 1 meter. The Zeiss gets to 3 meters.

As for IQ, that gets theological, and I don't discuss religion or politics. Anyway, pictures when I have something that isn't Soup or test charts.

 

[MGrayson]

Long story short - the XCD 135+1.7x on the X2D makes a perfectly lovely and sharp image when it is focused correctly. That means either that AF has done its job, or the photog has done it manually. Unfortunately, the AF will look for any opportunity to choose what you don't want. I *could* not get it to focus on a duck. Why? Ducks sitting still in still water. One blur after another. It's a mystery. (Insert HAL saying "these things have come up in the past, and they've always been attributable to Human error.")

The Zeiss 250/5.6 SA is - I'm not sure it's less sharp, but it has less contrast. To get the same "look", you have to add back some bite, and then the image is noisier. We're talking twigs 1,000 feet away. As mentioned earlier, manual focus is easier.

But the important statistic - the keeper tally heavily favored the Zeiss. If I could get better at manual focus with the XCD lens, it would have been much closer.

First some 250/5.6

Lamp stuck on.


Tight crop to show off focus. It was a bit of a production to switch lenses, so I don't have a lot of images taken with both - only distant air-distorted buildings.


Reflection of Fifth Avenue with Ducks!


And, of course, Soup


And from the XCD 135+1.7x


Matt

 

[jng]

Long story short - the XCD 135+1.7x on the X2D makes a perfectly lovely and sharp image when it is focused correctly. That means either that AF has done its job, or the photog has done it manually. Unfortunately, the AF will look for any opportunity to choose what you don't want. I *could* not get it to focus on a duck. Why? Ducks sitting still in still water. One blur after another. It's a mystery. (Insert HAL saying "these things have come up in the past, and they've always been attributable to Human error.")

The Zeiss 250/5.6 SA is - I'm not sure it's less sharp, but it has less contrast. To get the same "look", you have to add back some bite, and then the image is noisier. We're talking twigs 1,000 feet away. As mentioned earlier, manual focus is easier.

But the important statistic - the keeper tally heavily favored the Zeiss. If I could get better at manual focus with the XCD lens, it would have been much closer.

First some 250/5.6

Lamp stuck on.


Tight crop to show off focus. It was a bit of a production to switch lenses, so I don't have a lot of images taken with both - only distant air-distorted buildings.


Reflection of Fifth Avenue with Ducks!


And, of course, Soup


And from the XCD 135+1.7x


Matt

Matt,

I'm not surprised that you find the 135+1.7x to have more contrast (micro-contrast?) than the 250 SA. Perhaps this underlies the impression of the more clinical rendering of the modern lens designs. Also, the SA lacks multicoating even of that era, so depending on conditions will give a less contrasty image. In any case, I find that adding a touch of clarity when processing the raw files can help when that "bite" is lacking, but not so much that I ruin that Zeiss magic. YMMV, as always.

John

 

[MGrayson]

Matt,

I'm not surprised that you find the 135+1.7x to have more contrast (micro-contrast?) than the 250 SA. Perhaps this underlies the impression of the more clinical rendering of the modern lens designs. Also, the SA lacks multicoating even of that era, so depending on conditions will give a less contrasty image. In any case, I find that adding a touch of clarity when processing the raw files can help when that "bite" is lacking, but not so much that I ruin that Zeiss magic. YMMV, as always.

John

Clarity or Texture is how I add bite. I usually find that the image doesn't need it. I love the soft but detailed rendering of the Zeiss SA's and most Leica lenses over 5 years old.

I love the lamp details and specular highlight... Which means it's probably the sun lighting it up. Unsharpened Zeiss...



M

 

[dj may]

@MGrayson , very interesting saga.

 

[FloatingLens]

Clarity or Texture is how I add bite. I usually find that the image doesn't need it. I love the soft but detailed rendering of the Zeiss SA's and most Leica lenses over 5 years old.

I love the lamp details and specular highlight... Which means it's probably the sun lighting it up. Unsharpened Zeiss...



M

The out-of-focus areas are also very characteristic of the Superachromat rendering. (busy but neutral)

Thanks, Matt!

 

[Paratom]

The XCD 135 works perfectly in the X2D, at least AF at infinity was sharp wide open this morning. What I can't convince myself of is if the 1.7x is any better than cropping and resampling. I don't get "razor sharp" results with it. It could be shallow DoF, too slow shutter speeds, the dreaded 1/8-1/15 second shaking zone, air turbulence over the 1/2 mile to the target, or any number of human errors (or, of course, a substandard 1.7x - got the combo used from B&H).

Has anyone else found the 1.7x worth its weight in ... glass and metal, I suppose. I did some tripod mounted, IBIS off, ES tests, but without focus aids, simply magnified or