Hasselblad X1D 120/3.5 Macro MTF data major improvement over the HC-macro

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The X1D has 44x33 mm sensor and the new lenses are designed for that sensor. I just found the MTF curves for new 120 macro:



These data is extremely good. The HC 120 macro is known to be a truly excellent lens:



But the X1D one lens is the better one. This may depend a bit on the smaller image area the lens needs to cover. It will be sharper, if correctly focused, at maximum aperture than at f/8.

Best regards
Erik

 

[TRixxY]

... It will be sharper, if correctly focused, at maximum aperture than at f/8.

I'm new to MF ... but is this really what you want to have for a macro? :ROTFL:
I'm usually around f16-22 for macro photography on my Nikon F gear ...

 

[D&A]

Just curious. Is the HC macro data at infinity too, like the X1D 120mm? In other words are we comparing apples to apples?

Secondly, I'd also like to see the data for both lenses at min focusing distance since after all they are macro's (assuming reproduction ratio is the same or kept the same for both when testing at min. focusing distance). Sometimes manufacturers optimize their macro to min distance, or mid range as a compromise or infinity.

I mention all this because a while back I did some in depth testing (both controlled and real world) on the Pentax FA 120mm f4 645 macro vs. Leica's S 120mm f2.5 macro at 1:2 close range and infinity. (To note, the Pentax does go down to 1:1 whereas Leica's only to 1:2,), so Pentax might be at a slight disadvantage trying to optimize performance over a greater focusing range)

Results: Edge to edge it was a virtual dead heat between the two lenses at close range, with maybe a slight edge for the Pentax. Excellent sharpness with both was from corner to corner At infinity, results were quite different. It was no contest and as good as the Pentax was, it quickly showed its relative weakness to the Leica away from the center of the frame and into the corners. Therefore I may be wrong but when it comes to the large focusing range of macro's, a couple of data points, such as one at close range and again at infinity would give a more accurate assessment in my opinion when comparing 2 or more macro lenses.

It may turn out one macro is superior in performance to the other at infinity but the results at mid distance or close range could be quite different.

Dave (D&A)

 

[jerome_m]

These are the curves for the second version of the HC 120.

These are also the curves for far distance curve, Hasselblad publishes a second set of curves for near distance.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is always a dilemma, stopping down reduces sharpness and resolution. But we need to stop down for depth of field.

This posting shows the effects of defocus and diffraction:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1

Left column is plane of focus and the other columns are defocused 3, 6 and 9 cm.

Shot with an APS-C camera with a 100/2.8 macro at 3.0 meter

The good news is that diffraction is pretty benign to sharpening.

Best regards
Erik

I'm new to MF ... but is this really what you want to have for a macro? :ROTFL:
I'm usually around f16-22 for macro photography on my Nikon F gear ...

 

[fotografz]

IMO, the Leica S Macro isn't a true Macro lens like the HC-120/4. Its advantage is an unusually fast max aperture of f/2.5 for a close focusing lens ... which is helpful because of the S camera has an optical viewfinder. It is telling that Leica has not introduced an S-ELPRO for 1:1 Macro like the one available for the R-100/2.8 Macro.

The HC120/4-II was improved over the original "film era" HC-120/4 ... better optimization at close focusing distances. The Contax 120/4 Macro for the Contax 645 system was my favorite MF macro lens until the faster S 120 arrived.

Leica made a R-180/3.4 that was optimized for far-distance/infinity (originally developed for military arial reconnaissance). It was not so hot when used at more normal distances.

Seems like tests should be designed around a lens' specialty when it is a specialty lens.

- Marc

 

[D&A]

Thanks Marc. Thats sort of the impression I got when using/testing the Leica S 120mm macro...namely a superb all around 120mm focal length lens that had the ability to close focus down to a reproduction rario of 1:2 but not specifically designed primarily as a close focusing macro.

In contrast, the Pentax was apparently designed with being used as a macro lens first (reproduction ratio down to 1:1) and optomized for that close range. My guess is Pentax didn't put a priority about the 120mm macro lens use at longer distances (although still quite good for that), since they had a myriad of other lenses near or at the 120mm focal length for their 645 system.

Dave (D&A)

 

[jduncan]

For those of us who are early adopters, B&H now has the lens listed for pre-order at $4,495 with "Expected availability: End of Jun 2017". If only I could find a spare battery, I'd have more confidence in the availability date.

Joe

I second you sentiment, on the other hand lenses appear no to be the issue: The lenses were shipping before the camera.
This is a lens the system really needs to move beyond the landscape /cityscape markets.

Best regards,

 

[siddhaarta]

Just curious. Is the HC macro data at infinity too, like the X1D 120mm? In other words are we comparing apples to apples?

Dave (D&A)

Yes it is, so apple to apples.

If you download the datasheets of both Hasselblad lenses, you will find also a second set of MTFs for close range. Problem is the HC II is at 1:2 and the XCD at 1:5: so that second set isn't really comparable.

But roughly, the Hasselblad XCD seems to be on the level of the Leica S Apo 120mm, but without the 2.5 aperture

... and it has internal focusing ... and no image stabilizing, which means: no loose elements inside the lens as the Fuji Macro

 

[D&A]

Thank you and quite interesting. Based on what you presented, it appears the new X1D macro should be a stellar performer. Actual real world tests will reveal quite a bit about its performance vs. some of its close competitors.

Dave (D&A)