New Hasselblad XCD 20-35/3.2-4.5

[glaiben]

I could be wrong, but I think it is easier to maintain a higher tolerance on a manual focus lens like an Otus than an autofocus one like a Hasselblad XCD mount one.

That makes perfect sense - thanks!

 

[Doppler9000]

Whenever I see people on internet forums who have no direct personal experience with a product jump in to extrapolate from an extremely small number of complaints about that product to a sweeping generalization about the general image quality of a lens or a manufacturer's overall QC, I discount it as it often seems to be based upon wishful thinking rather than statistically significant objective evidence.

Remember, the thousands of purchasers of lenses who have a "good" copy of a lens do not tend to comment here on that. Only the people who have bad copies. This is a common phenomenon with the internet.

it's difficult to know whether their QC issues with the GFX lenses are worse than Hasselblad's, but there sure are an awful lot of complaints circulating on the internet. Try Googling "fuji gfx poor quality control on lenses".

I believe this is what they call a “self own”.

 

[KurtKamka]

Geez .... I'm glad that I'm just a happy idiot who spends absolutely no time pixel peeping into the corners of my photos. The hunt for perfection has to be an endless disappointment. One of the reasons I'm very happy with the X2D is the image stabilization. I can leave home without a tripod, hike wherever I want and not worry that I'll miss any of the many interesting scenes that unfold along the way. Perhaps I'm too easy-going. So far, I've been very pleased with the 135, 90, 55 and 38 lenses that I've used. My 20-35 arrived yesterday.

 

[hcubell]

if you want to say something, please do it directly rather than using an inscrutable term to describe the three quoted passages. What is it you want to say?

 

[Doppler9000]

if you want to say something, please do it directly rather than using an inscrutable term to describe the three quoted passages. What is it you want to say?

I was pointing out the obvious internal contradictions.

 

[hcubell]

I was pointing out the obvious internal contradictions.

Not very effectively. What are the inconsistencies between those statements?

 

[Ai_Print]

Geez .... I'm glad that I'm just a happy idiot who spends absolutely no time pixel peeping into the corners of my photos. The hunt for perfection has to be an endless disappointment.

That’s pretty dismissive of those who need their equipment to perform at a high level when clients are asking for prints as large 36’ feet wide like mine are. Maybe think outside your own frame of mind and be a bit more empathetic?

 

[akaru]

Calm down, kids. I am not particularly emotionally intelligent, so I never pick up on any backstories or hidden messages in comments. I just read them at face value. I can understand the exasperation of the endless pursuit of perfection, as I shoot with that goal. Let’s all try to not read that much into it.

 

[JeRuFo]

That’s pretty dismissive of those who need their equipment to perform at a high level when clients are asking for prints as large 36’ feet wide like mine are. Maybe think outside your own frame of mind and be a bit more empathetic?

But on the other hand you must admit that it is not very empathetic of you to not see that lenses are designed for very different intended use cases. Why would his opinion or use case be less valuable because he doesn't judge a lens by sheer resolution only? Portability, versatility or the fact that you don't have to change lenses in adverse weather conditions can also be important if this allows you to get the shot you seek. Even just liking the way a lens renders can be a fine aspect to judge a lens by. All he was commenting on is that he is happy he doesn't need or feel the need to go through all the rigorous testing.

 

[Doppler9000]

Not very effectively. What are the inconsistencies between those statements?

You started with a thesis that people without direct experience with a product who commented on its defect rate based on online sources were not relaying facts but were instead, expressing “wishful thinking” about those defect rates.

You pointed out that the population addressing products on the internet are likely to be biased toward the negative, as people are more likely to complain than praise.

Then…

You speculated that GF lens defect rates might actually be higher than XCD defect rates.

Was this speculation based on hands-on experience with GF and XCD lenses?

I doesn’t appear so.

What was the source of information that was the basis for your speculation?

“it's difficult to know whether (Fuji’s) QC issues with the GFX lenses are worse than Hasselblad's, but there sure are an awful lot of complaints circulating on the internet. Try Googling "fuji gfx poor quality control on lenses".

So, following your logic, your speculation on the defect rates on GF lenses, which is based on what you have gleaned from the internet, reflect a negative reporting bias and your wishful thinking.

 

[Ai_Print]

But on the other hand you must admit that it is not very empathetic of you to not see that lenses are designed for very different intended use cases. Why would his opinion or use case be less valuable because he doesn't judge a lens by sheer resolution only? Portability, versatility or the fact that you don't have to change lenses in adverse weather conditions can also be important if this allows you to get the shot you seek. Even just liking the way a lens renders can be a fine aspect to judge a lens by. All he was commenting on is that he is happy he doesn't need or feel the need to go through all the rigorous testing.

I was not talking about the 20-35 that he just got, I was talking about the other lenses he already owns, some of them I spent money on and had to return because they were poor examples of those lenses. For example, I now have a well centered 55mm 2.5V, so at least it shows image quality falloff in a more controlled manner in the corners and with that, I can use it on a lot of commercial jobs and some fine art commissions if it is used in a way I am aware of what it is giving me. But the first two I dealt with were terrible and this has not a thing to do with being a “Pixel Peeper” or being in a place of “endless disappointment” as he put it which I though to be the rather high and mighty and dismissive comment.

I have zero need for a lens as wide as the new 20-35 in this particular format, so it’s no skin off my back. But a newer V type in the 35-75 range would be great, more along the range of the Fuji 45-100, even better. If I am going to spend many hours on planning, travel, in the field production, thousands of dollars on logistics alone and fill up my storage with 100MP files, I want and need better Q/C from Hasselblad than the three rejects I got in the standard 35-75 XCD I received this year.

 

[Doppler9000]

Calm down, kids. I am not particularly emotionally intelligent, so I never pick up on any backstories or hidden messages in comments. I just read them at face value. I can understand the exasperation of the endless pursuit of perfection, as I shoot with that goal. Let’s all try to not read that much into it.

Okay, Dad.

It seems you are confusing a pointless pursuit of perfection with the legitimate desire to get products that are within a useful specification, and not defective.

 

[davidrm]

Geez .... I'm glad that I'm just a happy idiot who spends absolutely no time pixel peeping into the corners of my photos. The hunt for perfection has to be an endless disappointment. One of the reasons I'm very happy with the X2D is the image stabilization. I can leave home without a tripod, hike wherever I want and not worry that I'll miss any of the many interesting scenes that unfold along the way. Perhaps I'm too easy-going. So far, I've been very pleased with the 135, 90, 55 and 38 lenses that I've used. My 20-35 arrived yesterday.

I’m glad it’s not just me!

This thread is terrifying! All my lenses must be terrible but I’m too stupid to realise! Actually the only time I did have serious concerns about a lens, the softness in corners turned out to be me over-estimating just how much IBIS can do at ultrawide angles

 

[JeRuFo]

I was not talking about the 20-35 that he just got, I was talking about the other lenses he already owns, some of them I spent money on and had to return because they were poor examples of those lenses. For example, I now have a well centered 55mm 2.5V, so at least it shows image quality falloff in a more controlled manner in the corners and with that, I can use it on a lot of commercial jobs and some fine art commissions if it is used in a way I am aware of what it is giving me. But the first two I dealt with were terrible and this has not a thing to do with being a “Pixel Peeper” or being in a place of “endless disappointment” as he put it which I though to be the rather high and mighty and dismissive comment.

I have zero need for a lens as wide as the new 20-35 in this particular format, so it’s no skin off my back. But a newer V type in the 35-75 range would be great, more along the range of the Fuji 45-100, even better. If I am going to spend many hours on planning, travel, in the field production, thousands of dollars on logistics alone and fill up my storage with 100MP files, I want and need better Q/C from Hasselblad than the three rejects I got in the standard 35-75 XCD I received this year.

And you are being rather dismissive of him being content with his lenses. Both are perfectly reasonable ways to treat a purchase or as an approach to photography. We all have our use cases.

 

[Ai_Print]

And you are being rather dismissive of him being content with his lenses. Both are perfectly reasonable ways to treat a purchase or as an approach to photography. We all have our use cases.

No, I am not. If he would have just said he was fine with his lenses and left it at that it would have represented his case better.

Also consider that if he would have got one or more of the reject lenses I got, his opinion overall might be different? It’s entirely possible he got optimally assembled and collimated lenses in every one he bought, that’s where the needlessly dismissive stance comes in…

I have said all I need to, I am not interested in the new 20-35. I hope people who buy it get to enjoy it in the manner they are seeking out of their purchase.

 

[hcubell]

You started with a thesis that people without direct experience with a product who commented on its defect rate based on online sources were not relaying facts but were instead, expressing “wishful thinking” about those defect rates.

You pointed out that the population addressing products on the internet are likely to be biased toward the negative, as people are more likely to complain than praise.

Then…

You speculated that GF lens defect rates might actually be higher than XCD defect rates.

Was this speculation based on hands-on experience with GF and XCD lenses?

I doesn’t appear so.

What was the source of information that was the basis for your speculation?

“it's difficult to know whether (Fuji’s) QC issues with the GFX lenses are worse than Hasselblad's, but there sure are an awful lot of complaints circulating on the internet. Try Googling "fuji gfx poor quality control on lenses".

So, following your logic, your speculation on the defect rates on GF lenses, which is based on what you have gleaned from the internet, reflect a negative reporting bias and your wishful thinking.

You need to read more carefully. I was NOT suggesting that Fuji's QC on its cameras and lenses was any worse than Hasseblad's. I have absolutely no idea. It may be worse. It may be better. My only point was that, in agreement with Steve Hendrix' post, Hasselblad, as one of the two significant players in the medium format digital market, is not at all unique in terms of having QC issues with its lenses, as there are a number of posts on the internet by buyers with first hand experience With Fuji GFX lenses who also report QC issues. To read your comments in a thread about a new Hasselblad lens, one would think that Hasselblad was unique.
What I always find so weird is that most of the hand wringing about Hasselblad on Internet forums is posted by people who don't own their cameras and lenses. But, then again, I understand literally where you are coming from. I think you are a Moderator at the Medium Format Forum at DPReview, where snarky comments about Hasselblad are a way of life for many of the regulars and the Moderators are among the cheerleaders.

 

[akaru]

It seems you are confusing a pointless pursuit of perfection with the legitimate desire to get products that are within a useful specification, and not defective.

Maybe you need to read a bit more into it.

I think that at the prices we are talking about, the lenses should be as close to their own perfect form as possible. I also know that one bump in a bag, shipping etc. can make any out of the factory conditions moot.

That’s pretty dismissive of those who need their equipment to perform at a high level when clients are asking for prints as large 36’ feet wide like mine are. Maybe think outside your own frame of mind and be a bit more empathetic?

If you’re printing 36 feet wide, then an off-center lens isn’t going to make much of a difference anyway, is it?

 

[Ai_Print]

If you’re printing 36 feet wide, then an off-center lens isn’t going to make much of a difference anyway, is it?

Ummm...as you are enlarging the image, it makes an enormous difference.

In this case, the mural is 36' feet wide by 4.5' feet tall and is in a narrow hallway of a ski area, so it has a fairly close viewing distance. It is also stitched so corner performance is pretty important.

 

[Doppler9000]

You need to read more carefully. I was NOT suggesting that Fuji's QC on its cameras and lenses was any worse than Hasseblad's.

it's difficult to know whether (Fuji’s) QC issues with the GFX lenses are worse than Hasselblad's, but there sure are an awful lot of complaints circulating on the internet. Try Googling "fuji gfx poor quality control on lenses".

I’ll leave it to others to interpret what you said.

 

[akaru]

Ummm...as you are enlarging the image, it makes an enormous difference.

It is also stitched so corner performance is pretty important.

This is a thread about the newly-released 20-35 zoom.