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!

Hasselblad XCD 20-35mm f/3.2-4.5 E

Hasselblad XCD 20-35mm f/3.2-4.5 E

I had to see for myself, and it was with bated breath that I waited to get my hands on the new Hasselblad XCD Zoom 20-35 f/3.2 lens. And finally, the UPS truck pulled up in front of our house and there was the lens.

I had waited for months and read everything written about this lens, most of it not that helpful, just a recital of facts about the lens, but little to know real experience. The sole exception was a deep dive by landscape expert Lloyd Chambers in is blog, which was behind a pay wall. Of course, I had to go behind that wall to get real in-depth experience with using the XCD 20-35 Zoom lens out in the wild.

Hasselblad XCD 35-75mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens

And I should mention that Lloyd Chambers at https://diglloyd.com/ has a treasure trove of expert information available on photography, more like a university worth, a college of photographic training. I find this level of coverage almost no where else.

Needless to say, Chambers got right into the new 20-35 lens, warts and all, and then compared it to offerings from the Fujifilm GF 20-35/f4, and the Hasselblad XCD 30mm and 21mm lenses, and spared no one in his analysis of the group.

Chamber’s conclusion, and I quote was “The Hasselblad XCD 20-35/3.2-4.5 at 20mm on a 3D scene like this impresses with a gorgeous rendering with terrific color, sharpness, bokeh. I really want this lens! I can’t get this with the Fujifilm GF 20-35mm f/4.”

I don’t hear that enthusiasm for a lens from Chambers often.

As for me, I am less demanding and the only landscape I am interested in is mid-distanced landscapes and everything nearer.

I am impressed by several things. The fact that the close-focus distance is 12-inches allows me to get really close to a flower or an insect and pull the critter out with a cropped image. And here is an example.

More interesting to me is a quick image from our kitchen that makes clear to me that I’m going to love this lens. And as they say about the earlier Hasselblad zoom (Hasselblad XCD 35-75mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens), which I also have, that it is a ‘Prime Zoom’ meaning it’s a zoom that is of ‘prime’ caliber, and I agree.

In that case, this new zoom is the same, a zoom with pristine or prime sharpness and quality. For sure, it will stay on my X2D and replace a handful of other lenses. And it means I don’t have to change the lens as often out in the field. The X2D is notorious for collecting dust-bunnies by lens changing in the field.

Anyway, tests with the is new Hasselblad XCD Zoom 20-35 f/3.2 I have still to do, but so far: fantastic!


I had hoped it could be this good and it is. I use the XCD 21mm a lot and THAT is an incredible lens. It looks to me that this new zoom is just as good. Wow!
 

Ben730

Active member
Michael
Your opinion of a lens carries much more weight with me than that of Mr. Chambers. If the Hasselblad XCD 20-35
meets your requirements, it is certainly a top lens.

Nevertheless, I have to defend the Fuji GFX 20-35 here. Chamber's conclusion can be confusing.
The Fuji GFX 20-35 is excellent and I'm happy if the same is true of the XCD 20-35.
Mr. Chambers has great difficulties working with the Fuji GFX system, I don't know why.
From what I gather (before the paywall), he whines about problems that I don't share when working.
Maybe the Fuji GFX system is not made for his tests, but simply for professional contract photography.
 

isteveb

New member
It is interesting to further down in his blog that he bemoans the lack of quality control in the mount of the lens. He mentions a 1/2 mm movement in mounting. This is a deal breaker for me. The lens needs to fit snugly onto the camera mount.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
It is interesting to further down in his blog that he bemoans the lack of quality control in the mount of the lens. He mentions a 1/2 mm movement in mounting. This is a deal breaker for me. The lens needs to fit snugly onto the camera mount.
While I don't care for ill-fitting mounts, I have yet to see an image degraded by one. If the looseness is rotational, I don't care at all (lenses having rotational symmetry and all). Does he mean that the lens has fore/aft or tilt/yaw play? That would be bad. (Of course, bad weather/dust sealing would be a big problem if that were supposedly a feature of the system...)
 

peterm1

Active member
I have the same rotational play with my 20-35mm, but also with some other XCD lenses. Never affected anything I could see but of course would have been nice to have a tighter mount...
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Hasselblad XCD 20-35mm f/3.2-4.5 E

I had to see for myself, and it was with bated breath that I waited to get my hands on the new Hasselblad XCD Zoom 20-35 f/3.2 lens. And finally, the UPS truck pulled up in front of our house and there was the lens.

I had waited for months and read everything written about this lens, most of it not that helpful, just a recital of facts about the lens, but little to know real experience. The sole exception was a deep dive by landscape expert Lloyd Chambers in is blog, which was behind a pay wall. Of course, I had to go behind that wall to get real in-depth experience with using the XCD 20-35 Zoom lens out in the wild.

Hasselblad XCD 35-75mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens

And I should mention that Lloyd Chambers at https://diglloyd.com/ has a treasure trove of expert information available on photography, more like a university worth, a college of photographic training. I find this level of coverage almost no where else.

Needless to say, Chambers got right into the new 20-35 lens, warts and all, and then compared it to offerings from the Fujifilm GF 20-35/f4, and the Hasselblad XCD 30mm and 21mm lenses, and spared no one in his analysis of the group.

Chamber’s conclusion, and I quote was “The Hasselblad XCD 20-35/3.2-4.5 at 20mm on a 3D scene like this impresses with a gorgeous rendering with terrific color, sharpness, bokeh. I really want this lens! I can’t get this with the Fujifilm GF 20-35mm f/4.”

I don’t hear that enthusiasm for a lens from Chambers often.

As for me, I am less demanding and the only landscape I am interested in is mid-distanced landscapes and everything nearer.

I am impressed by several things. The fact that the close-focus distance is 12-inches allows me to get really close to a flower or an insect and pull the critter out with a cropped image. And here is an example.

More interesting to me is a quick image from our kitchen that makes clear to me that I’m going to love this lens. And as they say about the earlier Hasselblad zoom (Hasselblad XCD 35-75mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens), which I also have, that it is a ‘Prime Zoom’ meaning it’s a zoom that is of ‘prime’ caliber, and I agree.

In that case, this new zoom is the same, a zoom with pristine or prime sharpness and quality. For sure, it will stay on my X2D and replace a handful of other lenses. And it means I don’t have to change the lens as often out in the field. The X2D is notorious for collecting dust-bunnies by lens changing in the field.

Anyway, tests with the is new Hasselblad XCD Zoom 20-35 f/3.2 I have still to do, but so far: fantastic!


I had hoped it could be this good and it is. I use the XCD 21mm a lot and THAT is an incredible lens. It looks to me that this new zoom is just as good. Wow!

Typically what we hope for with modern, quality zoom lenses is that they approach the performance of prime lenses. Perhaps not a fair expectation, but zoom lenses have come a long way. I don't understand what problem Lloyd Cambers would have with the Fuji GF 20-35 lens, in our testing it is - remarkably - as sharp or sharper than the 23mm and 30mm prime lenses.

In the case of the Hasselblad 20-35 zoom, I strongly feel that some people got off on the wrong foot with this lens, being concerned about some early samples. In our testing, we see no obvious advantage for the 25V and 30 XCD prime lenses vs the 20-35 zoom (at the time of our testing, we did not have a 21mm). I consider it a remarkable achievement, given the compact size and light weight.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

Hel

Member
I would like to work with some test images in Phocus.

HB quote: " To get the best results from the RAW files, we strongly suggest opening them in our free imaging software, Phocus."

Unfortunately, only jpegs are available in HB´s Sample Images Gallery...:unsure:
 

isteveb

New member
From my viewpoint the lens quality is not limited to whether or not the images are impacted by faulty mounting to the camera. It's an expensive lens and you should expect to get a lens that mounts securely, snugly, AND has great image quality. This is especially true for a $6K lens. Hasselblad (DJI) needs to come up with some kind of methodology to test the lens quality before it comes off the production line. The manufacturing process clearly has inconsistencies in the automation (or people if hand built). I don't "roll the dice" and see if I received a good copy or not. That has been a theme of late with some of their lenses based of comments in various topics on this forum. Will I get a good copy or not?
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
From my viewpoint the lens quality is not limited to whether or not the images are impacted by faulty mounting to the camera. It's an expensive lens and you should expect to get a lens that mounts securely, snugly, AND has great image quality. This is especially true for a $6K lens. Hasselblad (DJI) needs to come up with some kind of methodology to test the lens quality before it comes off the production line. The manufacturing process clearly has inconsistencies in the automation (or people if hand built). I don't "roll the dice" and see if I received a good copy or not. That has been a theme of late with some of their lenses based of comments in various topics on this forum. Will I get a good copy or not?
On some level, you "roll the dice", as you put it, every time you buy a lens from any manufacturer. There's the matter in cases of automation, what tolerance the manufacturer sets for a passing lens. On lower cost lenses, as a consumer I would yes, expect a larger tolerance, hence the price point. On higher cost lenses, I would expect a stricter tolerance, hence the price point. When hands-on testing is more heavily involved with human beings, they're not perfect, any quality employee can have a bad day, a bad morning.

With all that said, in our experience with Hasselblad lenses, the vast majority of them that are received by us are good copies. We see no notable increase in instances of poor copy lenses with Hasselblad relative to other manufacturers.

Nevertheless, we highly recommend testing any lens from any manufacturer that you purchase (to the best of your abilities) as soon as you receive it, especially if it is purchased from a source that offers no individual copy testing. The ultimate goal, after all is for you to arrive at a quality copy of a lens.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

Ben730

Active member
It is difficult for me to understand why a lens mount can have play.
I thought it would be relatively easy to manufacture accurately.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that there are now several high-quality super wide-angle zooms for medium format.
I can still remember when the Nikkor 14-24 mm F2.8 came onto the market
and equaled or surpassed all fixed focal lengths in this range in terms of sharpness.
Then came Canon with a masterpiece (11 - 24 mm F4) and shortly afterwards many other manufacturers.
In the meantime, you can expect a sharp super wide-angle zoom for small format as a normal standard.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I just bought this lens and my first impressions are quite good. Impressing that this lens is not heavier or bigger than for example the FF Leica 16-35.

One thing is strange though and that it seems to have a noise when manual focusing.
 

JaapD

Member
Why a lens mount can have play? It’s most certainly not through the manufacturing process. These days the milling machines manufacturing the lens mount have incredibly small tolerances, far less than the play that we’re talking about here.
I think we’ll have to look for answers at the R&D department as it can only be ’by design’, for reasons that we seem to be unaware of (could it be due to compatibility against older camera designs?). We should be assured that designs and prototypes first get heavily validated before going into series production.
Apart from this there always will be manufacturing tolerances, verified against pass/fail criteria by test equipment, unaffected by a previously mentioned bad day of a quality engineer (apart from a few low volume niche manufacturers that still test & release manually).
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
While I dont like play, still I would say it doesnt matter if there is someplay in the rotation as long a the distance between sensor and lens is fine. So I am personally not really nervous about this.
 

ThoDi

Member
I had mine with me for 2 weeks in Florida and New York and am very happy with the lens. The image quality is really very, very good. It may well become my favorite lens for the X2D.
 

jduncan

Active member
Thank God, Lloyd apparently approves this lens. This should help Hasselblad sales as all his followers line up to buy.

Paul
Hi,
Why the sarcastic tone? As you may know, I have my reservations with Lloyd too, but going from that to these harsh comments for the people who like him
seem unwarranted and not constructive, as nobody is debating the quality of the lens.

Best regards,
 

jduncan

Active member
Michael
Your opinion of a lens carries much more weight with me than that of Mr. Chambers. If the Hasselblad XCD 20-35
meets your requirements, it is certainly a top lens.

Nevertheless, I have to defend the Fuji GFX 20-35 here. Chamber's conclusion can be confusing.
The Fuji GFX 20-35 is excellent and I'm happy if the same is true of the XCD 20-35.
Mr. Chambers has great difficulties working with the Fuji GFX system, I don't know why.
From what I gather (before the paywall), he whines about problems that I don't share when working.
Maybe the Fuji GFX system is not made for his tests, but simply for professional contract photography.
Hi,
Maybe you are correct and he got a bad copy of the Fuji, or you got a fantastic one, or maybe the XCD is really that good.
In any case, his comments about the Fuji are irrelevant (for the most part), even if the XCD 20-35 is a thousand
times better than the Fuji is just one part of a system that includes the cameras the software the prices, etc.
Only people having both systems and deciding between the two lenses are going to be impacted.

Best regards,
 
Top