Menu
What's new
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 35-90mm HC lens comments

M

mark1958

Member
I broke down and purchased one of these lenses. I have done two separate set of test shots and compared it with the 50-110mm HC zoom and one prime-- the 80mm HC. My shots were of old brick walled gates at Stanford (lots of unique cracks and lines) and a wood fence in my yard. I used a tripod and for one i used mirror up, timed shutter exposure to avoid issues of vibration. For both I used my Gitzo 1548 and cube.

The 35-90mm is exceptionally sharp at the lower focal lengths. It really beats the 50-110mm zoom at 50mm with the exception of the corners. In my opinion, the corners are weak with the new zoom and I am using the H3DII-31. My comparisons so far have been at f4,4.8,5.6, and 8. I have not looked carefully at the f11 and 16 images yet.

At 80 and 90mm, the difference in sharpness is very marginal and I could not honestly say there was a noticeable difference except at the corners where the 50-110 was a bit better albeit the difference in the corners was much less noticeable than what I observed at 50mm. The 80mm HC prime is still a bit better than the 35-90mm zoom primarily at the corners.

In terms of distortion, there were not huge differences that I could appreciate and pretty much corrected with DAC.

I have emailed a few others who have made brief but positive comments and both so far have stated they primarily shoot people and have not paid attention to the corners.

The lens is much easier to balance when holding and the AF is much faster than the 50-110 zoom. There is no question here.

My conclusion is that the new zoom is quite good but not without some faults-- the corner sharpness being my main negative.

I would really be curious as to results of others and if anyone has taken more landscape type shots especially with the H3DII-39, 50 or 60. Mark
 
ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I had this lens shopt last week for very short time, I was satisfied with IQ, also I did not do any serious tests, but this lens is far too heavy for me as becoming a nice and small always on solution.

Looking forward to the Leica S zoom, if it is of similar size or smaller?

Also I would love to see a similar zoom from Mamiya/Phase, but of course also smaller.
 
L

LJL

New member
Thanks for the testing and comments, Mark. Still looks to be a very nice lens for Hassy. The concept of it not really bothering the portrait shooters about any softness in the corners is interesting. While we all tend to think that all lenses should be able to be used across all types of shooting, sometimes that truly is not possible, or the costs may be prohibitively high to accomplish that. Personally, I think that folks that do a lot of serious landscape shooting probably have or would be moving toward tech cameras and the glass that goes well with them. Not saying zooms do not have their place, but realistic expectations about corner to corner performance have to come back into play then.

Peter, I would not get hopes up that the proposed Leica S2 30-90 zoom is going to be small or light. It is an f3.5 with AF, so the barrel will be fairly stout to start, and with floating elements and such, there will probably still be a lot of hefty glass inside. We will have to wait to see on those specs, but plan for a biggish, heavy lens with an equally hefty price.

LJ
 
M

mark1958

Member
There is always a trade off --size, ultimate performance, focal range etc. However, I just want to know how many potentially great shots are missed because of the greater complexity in setting up the appropriate gear vs having something available and easier to use. There are times I get a shot I really like with a Canon DSLR or because I have a zoom on the camera and I have some limited time. If my only option might be setting up a technical camera-- well the shot might not even get taken.

I really would be interested to see how the new zoom does with the fuller frame Hassy cameras. I mean it is quite a costly investment.
 
L

LJL

New member
Mark,
I agree....I would rather have the shot and suffer any minimal cropping or whatever in the corners, than not have the shot. I too use a similar range with the 24-70mm f2.8 on my Canons. Yes, it is heavy and bulky. Yes it is sometimes soft in the corners when opened up at f2.8 or even f4. It still lets me get shots I just would never otherwise even attempt if I had to carry a bigger, slower rig around. For purposeful shooting, the tech rig may be the ticket, but as you say, it is usually not always going to be at hand when you may see what you want to shoot. I can live with some shortcomings on the zooms in that case.

As I was thinking/rethinking the S2, my preference would be to get the 30-90 zoom as the body cap. Yes, it would be heavy. Yes it would be a bit slower at f3.5 max aperture (that is why some of the hand wringing about just how clean the higher ISOs may be on the S2), but it looks to cover the sweetspot for most practical shooting.....24-70mm in 35mm FF equivalent. At this point it is still speculation over performance, but my bet would be that it could deliver nicely across its range, much as this Hassy lens seems to be doing. That seems a good set of compromises in my book.....having something that delivers over what may be your most used range, even if not razor sharp in the corners when opened up. Might mean getting the shot versus not, or struggling with other lenses, when it may be better to do a tad of cropping in post.

It would be nice to hear from folks and see some results of just what this Hassy lens does on the bigger sensor set-ups.

LJ
 
S

s.agar

Member
I think what matters most is personal preferences when chosing lenses and camera systems. One lens being perfect for me may not be suitable for others.

My considerations when selling the HC35 in exchange for a HCD35-90mm and HCD28mm were as follows:

Firstly, if considering to buy a zoom lens for convenience, this zoom lens is smaller and lighter than the HC50-110mm.
It gives me what I need in the WA side. (with H3DII-31, you need WA lenses because of the crop factor, compared to the "so called" FF cameras)

What is important is that, by having this zoom lens, you may leave your prime 35mm, (all CF) 40mm, 50mm, 60mm lenses at home. Weight and size of the bag reduces considerably. For a typical trip, like visiting some ancient sites and landscape photos, I need to take only HCD28 for thight areas like inside ancient churches etc) and the Zeiss 180mm/250mm (some detail shots and landscape9) with this lens, and the setup is complete.

Therefore convenience is the most important consideration for me.

I either use 35mm (or HCD28) in internal confined spaces like ancient churches etc, and at f4, do not notice any problems, except for some WA distortion etc, which I regard as normal. The point of interest is mostly in the central portion of the photo.

For all other photos, I use f8 and smaller, and there are no objectionable problems nowhere in the frame.

I don't even use the Phocus DAC corrections for most of my photos.

Therefore, as I have mentioned, the setup satisfies me, but may not be useful, say for a commercial photographer, who may need tack sharp photos all around to produce posters etc.

This weekend, just for the purpose of knowing the limitations, I will do some testing at 35 and 50mm full open, with typical brick walls etc. Not because it's important for me, but for the sole purpose of experimenting. I will post a few cuts if anyone may be interested. In fact, I have been exchanging messages with Mark regarding the corner softness etc. One photo taken by him at 50mm seemed to have problems to me too.

Seyhun
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
For me this would be a perfect lens based on my application needs.

The 28mm is indispensable for some commercial/industrial applications ... but the 35, 50 and especially the 80 rarely see much use. Maybe the 50mm gets used more than the 35 and 80. I just got rid of the 80 because I actually never used it even once ... preferring the 100/2.2.

With a 35-90 all those combined applications would be handled by a single lens and it would probably get used more frequently because I would actually have the lens with me ... where when I had to carry 3 different lenses I just wouldn't do it. Especially for use at a high end wedding shoot.

I'm using the H3D-II/39 which is a different ball game with these lenses then it was on my H3D-II/31 and its crop frame sensor.
 
M

mark1958

Member
F

fotografz

Well-known member
Mark, based on Timothy's observation I'd contact your Hasselblad rep and find out what the heck is going on. Everyone who has this lens that has reported on it seems to feel it's sharp as hell.

Frankly, it's very difficult to tell from your shots because of the subject matter and lighting.

Were I you, I'd do another test in a more controlled situation with objects that'll either be clearly sharp or not. I ususally use a target test card in a constant and evenly lit scene and take different exposures with the card placed in the center and then in the corners. Sometimes I just use bottles of Booze with labels and place them in the corners as well as in the center. Something with a crisp label.
 
M

mark1958

Member
i have taken a number of different targets. nonetheless, hassy agrees there is a problem and is in the process of exchanging the lens
 
M

mark1958

Member
The replacement lens is much much better. The corners are close to what I get with my prime lenses. I sold the 50-110mm so I cannot do a direct comparison but i did some quick ones with the 80 and 28mm and the zoom is reasonably close in sharpness, color, edge sharpness, and distortion. The one negative is that the zoom has more CA than the primes
 
A

arashm

Member
"The one negative is that the zoom has more CA than the primes"

is this with DAC on or do you see in another convertor?
Glad to hear the lens was swapped out.
am
 
M

mark1958

Member
I compared the CA with DAC and with Adobe RAW converter. The DAC was a bit better compared to Adobe with the CA filters off but with the CA sliders in Adobe, I was able to do a better job of reducing. I am not sure if there is a way to adjust the CA filter in DAC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top