Hasselblad xcd 55v lens

[areallygrumpyoldsod]

I am happy with my 55V, 38V ans 28P and 4 other X lenses plus a bunch of HC/HCD -- perhaps some folk are over thinking this. H has never issued a weak product. I have no reason to consider the new V lenses or P weak at all.

 

[nazdravanul]

I am happy with my 55V, 38V ans 28P and 4 other X lenses plus a bunch of HC/HCD -- perhaps some folk are over thinking this. H has never issued a weak product. I have no reason to consider the new V lenses or P weak at all.

Good for you, keep on enjoying them!

 

[hcubell]

Your assessment of the IQ of the 55V lens is actually consistent with the way Hasselblad advertises it on the H website: "an outstanding option for full or half-length portraits and ideal for shooting documentary, still life, or daily photography." The absence of landscape photography is notable.
And thanks for taking the time to post your files. I do not own the 65mm XCD lens, but all of the reports that I have seen on this lens have been glowing. The only issue is the weight.

 

[SrMphoto]

If one subscribes to diglloyd, like I have (on and off) for 10+ years, one finds out all sorts of nonsense:
- that the X2d doesn’t have stopped down focusing - FAKE
- that the 38V is a messed up design, offering no more compelling results than a Fuji GF 35-70 - FAKE, again.
The 38 smokes everything Fuji has from 30 to 75, just like the XCD 65 smokes everything fuji has to offer between 45 to 80.
My own direct testing / experience.
Diglloyd is no longer on top of his game, like he used to be back in the Zeiss days. Now he can be all over the place with his reviews, unfortunately.
And if one has to stack 2 xcd 55 frames to get decent f8 sharpness, that can be obtained by just 1 xcd 65 shot then the 65 is clearly the better landscape option. Vignetting and especially distortion are also worse on the 55 compared to the 65, according to official Hasselblad data.
The 55 looks like a really nice documentary / travel / portrait lens, but for landscape it doesn’t look like the right option.

I am also very critical of Lloyd's work, though occasionally, he has some useful insights. In my book, he is often wrong when he writes negatively about something.
The nice thing about his subscription-only articles is that I can download full size JPEGs of his tests.

 

[SrMphoto]

Comparison images from the 38V, 45P, 55V and 65 2.8 are uploaded. I only uploaded the set from F4 and F8. The focus point is the bottom 25% of the frame from center. There is a zip file if that works if better for you and the corresponding jpegs are included in each sub folder. Hopefully you can tell where the issues are, it's super obvious, especially in the case that the 45P wide open crushes the 55V at even F8.

HASSELBLAD 55V TESTS

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Thank you for uploading the files.
I do not see much difference on my laptop (Macbook Air M2) in the bottom left and right corners at f/8 and between 65 and 55 (looking at the raw files in LrC, with Auto applied).

 

[Ai_Print]

Thank you for uploading the files.
I do not see much difference on my laptop (Macbook Air M2) in the bottom left and right corners at f/8 and between 65 and 55 (looking at the raw files in LrC, with Auto applied).

Really? When one considers how soft the corners are in the first photo I posted of the semi distant landscape, that's softer than any lens I own in any format, 35mm to 8x10".

To me the lower left still looks pretty soft compared to the 65 on the F8 set.

55mm @F8 Lower Left



65mm @F8 Lower Left



I spent about an hour on images from the 55V at F11 this afternoon in what would be actual shooting distances and angles and I think I can work with it if I really want to keep it and honestly, I do. But I am still keeping my 45P and especially the 65mm as it is really the best landscape / aerial lens I have for the X system.

 

[Ai_Print]

I am happy with my 55V, 38V ans 28P and 4 other X lenses plus a bunch of HC/HCD -- perhaps some folk are over thinking this. H has never issued a weak product. I have no reason to consider the new V lenses or P weak at all.

Well you know that is you and is subjective, right? Curvature of field that pigeon holes one into using diffractive apertures in a landscape scene is not exactly considered and optical "strength" sir.

 

[Paratom]

did you consider it might be also some field curvutare in play? Would be in teresting to see how the corners look if you focus a little bit closer or further.

 

[Ai_Print]

did you consider it might be also some field curvutare in play? Would be in teresting to see how the corners look if you focus a little bit closer or further.

I have played around with that a fair bit this afternoon, it does not really help at all until past F8 where I can fudge it a bit in post. At F11 by using an increase in overall sharpening to overcome the loss due to diffraction and then a touch of localized sharpening in the corners, it starts to work as a landscape lens. With the 65 it is on solid footing with no voodoo needed once past 5.6 at any distance.

 

[jng]

This reminds me of half-joking conversations I would have with the contractors working on my house: So you want the job done fast, cheap and high quality? Pick two! Perhaps the same can be said for this latest generation of lenses from Hasselblad: compact, responsive (i.e., fast focusing and quiet shutter operation), and sharp across the entire image field - pick two! Seriously, though - with the latest AI-enabled tools, raw and post-processing must figure into the compromises inherent in any lens design (the most obvious cases being light fall off and distortion).

I purchased the 55V for its compactness and responsiveness, great for travel as well as the occasional environmental portrait (the latter shot mostly wide open). Used within its limits, I'm more than happy with its performance for landscape, but then again I have yet to print large using this lens. YMMV, of course.

OP's experience perhaps shouldn't be too much of a surprise considering the published MTF charts, which don't tell the whole story about how a lens will perform but is a good place to start if you don't like surprises. The bottom line is that in terms of image quality the original XCD lineup is stellar, so the bar has been set pretty high.

John

P.S. While critically evaluating a few lenses for my Cambo/IQ4 150 recently, I learned - somewhat to my surprise - that images that looked razor sharp on my Macbook screen showed some pretty obvious flaws when viewed on a 27" monitor (all at 100%). Something to keep in mind if pixel-peeping or printing really large is the goal.

 

[hcubell]

I have played around with that a fair bit this afternoon, it does not really help at all until past F8 where I can fudge it a bit in post. At F11 by using an increase in overall sharpening to overcome the loss due to diffraction and then a touch of localized sharpening in the corners, it starts to work as a landscape lens. With the 65 it is on solid footing with no voodoo needed once past 5.6 at any distance.

How are you sharpening the files for your comparison? I used Topaz Sharpen AI on the f8 raw files, and, frankly, the differences between the 38 and the 65 were quite subtle to the point where I doubt I would notice the difference in large prints. Moreover, the differences would likely disappear altogether at f/11 and f/16. I almost never shoot landscapes at wider apertures. IMO, diffraction is overrated as a significant issue at f11 and even f/16, given the effectiveness of Sharpen AI.

 

[Ai_Print]

How are you sharpening the files for your comparison? I used Topaz Sharpen AI on the f8 raw files, and, frankly, the differences between the 38 and the 65 were quite subtle to the point where I doubt I would notice the difference in large prints. Moreover, the differences would likely disappear altogether at f/11 and f/16. I almost never shoot landscapes at wider apertures. IMO, diffraction is overrated as a significant issue at f11 and even f/16, given the effectiveness of Sharpen AI.

The 38 is reasonably good, it is actually the 55 I have been trying to tame. There are a few instances in which I shoot at F4 to F5.6 long distance landscapes across a valley or canyon and certainly aerials qualify as that. As it stands right now, I am going to work the heck out of the 55V on a project tomorrow to get more than usable images and then make the call. I agree with you on the use of tools post exposure, but I really like to start with as perfect an image as possible. No matter what, I am keeping the 65mm that sucker just flat out delivers.

 

[SrMphoto]

Well you know that is you and is subjective, right? Curvature of field that pigeon holes one into using diffractive apertures in a landscape scene is not exactly considered and optical "strength" sir.

I do not believe that on MF diffraction deteriorates IQ significantly until above f/11 (or f/16?) on MF. Especially in landscapes, haze and lack of DOF often cause more issues than diffraction. In the examples posted, I would rather shoot at f/8 or above. IMO, f/5.6 on 55mm creates a too-shallow DOF for landscapes.

 

[JaapD]

You certainly have a valid point there. However, going from f/5.6 to f/11 you’ll roughly loose 33% MTF due to diffraction. With f/16 you’ll go to 50%. Then what is the point of using such a high resolution 100MPix camera in the first place? You could achieve similar results with let’s say a Nikon Z7 and upsampling.

Cheers,
JaapD.

 

[areallygrumpyoldsod]

Comparison images from the 38V, 45P, 55V and 65 2.8 are uploaded. I only uploaded the set from F4 and F8. The focus point is the bottom 25% of the frame from center. There is a zip file if that works if better for you and the corresponding jpegs are included in each sub folder. Hopefully you can tell where the issues are, it's super obvious, especially in the case that the 45P wide open crushes the 55V at even F8.

HASSELBLAD 55V TESTS

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Thanks for these images but I am a little confused as to what you were focussing "on" -- or more precisely what focus distance your lenses were set to. AND how this impacted these images.
Looking at the images in both RAW digger (to see what EXIF data is easy to see) and then when I process the 3FR files for f/8 in DxO Pure Raw 3 the focus distance appears (see below). In no case is this the focus you used same as the hyperfocal distance (HFD) for this lens, aperture and sensor - also shown below the focus setting appears to have been significantly nearer. As a result the far elements of all images are soft for the 55 and 65 AND I would say that given how close you were focusing there are issues with the other 2 as well. The Hyperfocal distance shown in [] comes from RAW digger and the other distances from DOFSimulater.net for a GFX100 (which has the same circle of confussion as an X2D 0.0369mm).
Focus distance Hyperfocal distance and min distance to reasonable focus FAR distance Simulated optimal aperture
38V 1.81m [ 4.58m] 4.90m with min >2.45m far ∞ optimal f/10.4
45P 2.14m [ 6.55m] 6.87m with min >3.43m far ∞ optimal f/12.3
55V 2.62m [ 9.84m] 10.26m with min >5.13m far <320m optimal f/15.1
65 3.10m [13.79m] 14.33m with min >7.16m far <33m optimal f/17.8

Note -- it is quite possible DxO PR3 has wrongly interpreted the subject distance -- but it has worked for me in the past.

Had you chosen f/11 or f/16 then the HFD for the 38mm would have reduced to 3.56m(>1.78m) and 2.45m (>1.22m) then front to back and edge to edge would have almost all have been in focus.

I cannot draw any conclusions from these test shots at all - other than nice view.

If you look at Jim K's tests and comparisons of the X2D-100C 38V and he has performed many - you will see he shows there is:
Light fall off -- "The XCD 38 has substantially more light falloff than the GF 45" SEE
Field Flatness - "It’s hard to see because of the falloff in sharpness of the XCD 38 wide open off axis, but it appears that the focal plane of the 38 is pretty darned flat. SEE
Foliage and edge crops - "Overall, the only important differences are in the f/2.8 shots, where the XCD falls short of the GF lens. Based on the price of the XCD lens, I am disappointed." SEE "
Jims comparison with the Leica M is also illuminating SEE

There are many other tests as well - not yet of the 55V and we cannot see his testa of the 90V either.

Owning a X2D-100C and the 28P, 38V and 55V; waiting patiently for 90V (and also owning a bunch of XCD and HC/HCD lenses and adapters/tools) - my conclusion about these new lenses is the same as Daran Wu - where in relation to the 55V he states: "I think the new Hasselblad lenses are designed to make sacrifices in optics in order to be more lightweight and have a large aperture. If we want to make real physical improvements, the size and weight of the lenses would likely increase significantly."
It seems to me that H has made design choices to balance size, weight, cost and optical performance and their choices work for me -- they may not work as well for others.
Its your work - make your artistic choices and choose the gear that works best OR buy some gear and work out the artistic choices that can be best served when using it.
Some artistic choices require very expensive gear and potentially different systems to realise other choices do not.

The Phase One XT, IQ4 150 (A or C) and both the Rodenstock HR 23mm f/5.6 AND Rodenstock HR 32mm f/4 Tilt lenses keep coming to mind for some reason. It is not like we cannot use other XCD or adapt other lenses to the X2D.

 

[SrMphoto]

Really? When one considers how soft the corners are in the first photo I posted of the semi distant landscape, that's softer than any lens I own in any format, 35mm to 8x10".

To me the lower left still looks pretty soft compared to the 65 on the F8 set.

55mm @F8 Lower Left

View attachment 206780

65mm @F8 Lower Left

View attachment 206781

I spent about an hour on images from the 55V at F11 this afternoon in what would be actual shooting distances and angles and I think I can work with it if I really want to keep it and honestly, I do. But I am still keeping my 45P and especially the 65mm as it is really the best landscape / aerial lens I have for the X system.

Thank you again for sharing the raw and jpeg's, so that everybody interested can evaluate the differences! The key to effective use of lenses is to know their strengths and weaknesses. The new lenses introduce certain compromises that one should be aware
I am also keeping my 45p and 65.

 

[SrMphoto]

You certainly have a valid point there. However, going from f/5.6 to f/11 you’ll roughly loose 33% MTF due to diffraction. With f/16 you’ll go to 50%. Then what is the point of using such a high resolution 100MPix camera in the first place? You could achieve similar results with let’s say a Nikon Z7 and upsampling.

Cheers,
JaapD.

Those MTF numbers are valid only for the very thin focal plane. The longer the distance from the focal plane, the better the sharpness with closed aperture. That is the classic landscape photography conundrum.

 

[Paratom]

Talking about compromises...The new lenses are considerable more expensive than the earlier ones - so I think for a 4k prime we could hope for good corner performance. I know Leica M lenses are not AF and for a smaller sensor, but they show that good performance can be achieved in a small size.
Anyway I appreciate the size handling and speed of the new lenses, but have not shot landscapes yet so I can not judge how good my sample works.

 

[Ai_Print]

Had a good time using the 38V and 55V lenses today, just such a pleasure to use the way they are setup. It was a gorgeous day of fresh snow capped peaks, rich fall colors in the Rockies. I just used the lenses as I would any other lens, logical placements of focus to get good landscapes and scenes.

I looked through the images and while I felt like I got some of the corners in check and the feel of the images were good, they just did not have that micro-bite that makes the X2D worth buying that I get with my 45 and 65. So I quickly went out tonight with the 38,45,55 and 65 and found a good flat perspective scene to make some images of. Focus point is in the lower third, F4, F5.6, F8 and F11:

Dropbox - File Deleted - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com

Imagine you are driving along and you see a heard of Elk in a stand of Scrub Oaks and trees across a narrow valley. You run through your lenses and fill the frame with the scene, but loosely because you like the feel of the landscape. It's an easy one to tackle from a DOF standpoint, basically point and shoot. There were no Elk but this is the kind of scene you might find if you were on a trip overseas and had only a couple lenses to do all kinds of shots for you but you really wanted to get this one good.

Given the results of these images, which lens would you want?

 

[JaapD]

The longer the distance from the focal plane, the better the sharpness with closed aperture.

I wish that was true, then we could all take sharp images at f/32. My version of your statement would sound "The longer the distance from the focal plane, the better the sharpness with closed aperture, until diffraction kicks in"
Diffraction is about the circle of confusion as projected of the sensor. Its loss of sharpness is only dependent on F-stop in relation to the pixel size. The by you mentioned 'distance' is not part of the calculation.

Again, I surely wish you were right, then it would make my life so much easier and I create all my landscape shots with fully closed aperture. And there was no need to do focus stacking either. But there is no free lunch....

Cheers,
JaapD.