MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
One of the attractions of the X2D is the possibility that it will make it easier to use older wide aperture glass. In particular, I've always been interested in the Hasselblad FE 110mm f/2. Wide open, it is a very special portrait lens. But I don't shoot a lot of portraits, and so I was curious about how it performed as an architecture or landscape lens. Crazy, right?
The HC 100mm f/2.2 is the more modern AF Hasselblad portrait lens, and it will work with AF on the X1D (I'm assuming it will on the X2D as well), so a comparison might be interesting.
I mounted both of these on an X1D. I should have used the Leica S3, as both will mount on it, and the S 100mm f/2 could join the fun. AND no need for the electronic shutter. Next time.
To my surprise, both lenses were pretty sharp across the frame wide open. Until I set everything up on a good tripod, this had not been my impression. But sharp isn't everything (Cartier-Bresson was talking to his friend Helmut Newton when he made that famous quote. Sort of changes the whole vibe.) There are some fascinating artifacts that arise in the absence of Apochromatic corrections.
Oddly, I neglected to shoot any apertures between wide open and f/5.6. Smaller apertures, f/8 and f/11, were indistinguishable - no diffraction effects on a 50MP 44x33 sensor, which is consistent with my tech cam experience.
So, Hasselblad X1D, Acratech panning head, Gitzo GT5533LS with leveling base, 2 second delay, adapters by Hasselblad.
First, the scene. Having a bright sky in the background, I overexposed the image to better see the detail and accentuate fringing (and possible misplace a modifier). This was with the 100/2.2, so the image has a slightly wider FoV than the 110/2. The edge crops will not be identical.
The buildings are about one mile away - the trees about 1/4 mile.
First the 110mm f/2
Central and edge crops at f/2
Hint: The Empire State Building, seen poking its spire up in the background there, is NOT actually purple.
By f/5.6 things are better. Sharpness at the edge and contrast are much improved. And the purple is greatly suppressed.
And by f/11. Hmmm.Yes, the light does change between shots. Sorry. Very slight improvement over the f/5.6
And the HC 100/2.2?
Wide Open - a lot of purple again. More softness at the edge. This is consistent with the field curvature hypothesis. I have focused this lens at the edge and it is sharper wide open than appears below.
f/5.6 - better
And f/11
Huh. The only issues were purple fringing. Both of these lenses are quite sharp enough for landscape and architecture once past f/5.6. Field curvature was not *as* pronounced as I was expecting. If I can find a nice grassy slope, I'll try Roger Cicala's "field curvature without expensive lab equipment" test. Aside from the AF, I don't see much in favor of the 100/2.2. Just as much fringing, softer at the edge wide open. But this was all at infinity. Closer up? Remains to be seen. Looking forward to the X2D.
Well, maybe I should just shoot some portraits.
Matt
The HC 100mm f/2.2 is the more modern AF Hasselblad portrait lens, and it will work with AF on the X1D (I'm assuming it will on the X2D as well), so a comparison might be interesting.
I mounted both of these on an X1D. I should have used the Leica S3, as both will mount on it, and the S 100mm f/2 could join the fun. AND no need for the electronic shutter. Next time.
To my surprise, both lenses were pretty sharp across the frame wide open. Until I set everything up on a good tripod, this had not been my impression. But sharp isn't everything (Cartier-Bresson was talking to his friend Helmut Newton when he made that famous quote. Sort of changes the whole vibe.) There are some fascinating artifacts that arise in the absence of Apochromatic corrections.
Oddly, I neglected to shoot any apertures between wide open and f/5.6. Smaller apertures, f/8 and f/11, were indistinguishable - no diffraction effects on a 50MP 44x33 sensor, which is consistent with my tech cam experience.
So, Hasselblad X1D, Acratech panning head, Gitzo GT5533LS with leveling base, 2 second delay, adapters by Hasselblad.
First, the scene. Having a bright sky in the background, I overexposed the image to better see the detail and accentuate fringing (and possible misplace a modifier). This was with the 100/2.2, so the image has a slightly wider FoV than the 110/2. The edge crops will not be identical.
The buildings are about one mile away - the trees about 1/4 mile.
First the 110mm f/2
Central and edge crops at f/2
Hint: The Empire State Building, seen poking its spire up in the background there, is NOT actually purple.
By f/5.6 things are better. Sharpness at the edge and contrast are much improved. And the purple is greatly suppressed.
And by f/11. Hmmm.Yes, the light does change between shots. Sorry. Very slight improvement over the f/5.6
And the HC 100/2.2?
Wide Open - a lot of purple again. More softness at the edge. This is consistent with the field curvature hypothesis. I have focused this lens at the edge and it is sharper wide open than appears below.
f/5.6 - better
And f/11
Huh. The only issues were purple fringing. Both of these lenses are quite sharp enough for landscape and architecture once past f/5.6. Field curvature was not *as* pronounced as I was expecting. If I can find a nice grassy slope, I'll try Roger Cicala's "field curvature without expensive lab equipment" test. Aside from the AF, I don't see much in favor of the 100/2.2. Just as much fringing, softer at the edge wide open. But this was all at infinity. Closer up? Remains to be seen. Looking forward to the X2D.
Well, maybe I should just shoot some portraits.
Matt
Last edited: