p.3 #2 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
2613pch wrote:
The two new zooms and the 55v is my choice that 35-100 will be glued the the camera as the 24”70 is my most used lens on my Sony…unless I’m using something wide or long.
Now the Sony does lots of work the Hassy can’t do so I’ll have more weight which ever way You look at it
Exactly the same for me. I’ll add the 28P for when I want to drop the weight of the 20-35. I only shoot wider than 28 equivalent about 4% of the time.
I really hope the longer 100-xxx zoom comes soon. I shoot 70-200 a lot. I have carried a GFX and the 100-200 (an excellent lens) but am considering using the A7CR and 70-200 f4 instead. I don’t tend to carry both the Sony and Hasselblad kits when I travel unless it’s in the van or by car.
p.3 #3 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
stgrove wrote:
I have a complete M11 system, but for travel soon I will take the Hasselblads-907X100C and X2DII plus 5 lenses-25V, 38V, 55V, 90V and 135/2,7 +1.7x. Also 6 batteries, filters, remote release. That's for the plane. All fits comfortably in a Think Tank Airport Advantage roller bag.
Then in my backpack goes a Mavic 4 and 4 batteries (they are huge-like 1 pound each) small controller and perhaps an SA 250 lens with X-V adapter.
With the above I'm ready to fly!
Ready to fly where . . . on a cargo plane with all that gear?
p.3 #4 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
I have started to do some basic side by side comparisons between the 35-100 and the excellent Fuji GFX 45-100 plus the older XCD 35-75. Nothing scientific so far but I have a few impressions.
For the 35-100 vs the GFX45-100, so far I see zero reason to choose one over the other. In most of the range they're basically indistinguishable from each other. At each end (45 and 100) the Fuji is *marginally* better in the extreme corners and the Hasselblad is *marginally* better in the centre. At f8 I'll be buggered if I could say one is better than the other. In the mid range (55-85) I feel the Hasselblad is *marginally* better wide open in the corners. The centre are the same and again at f8 there's no significant differences.
I prefer the background blur on the 35-100. It's actually very nice.
For both lenses the centre is always great. Corners are also very good but don't reach the centre absoluteley until around 5.6. The 35-100 is better than either the 38V or 55V in the corners, mostly, at wider apertures. The zoom does not quite reach the detail level of the 90V, ever.
The older XCD 35-75 is *marginally* better than the new lens, at wider apertures. At f8 any differences are tiny. But you can shoot the older lens with stunning across the frame sharpness wide open. It also has a tiny teeny bit more micro contrast but again I don't yet know how that translates to field use. 10 point on the texture slider would likely equalise them. In general shooting I don't know how much you'd actually see it but in my semi-non-controlled testing I see a small bump to the older lens. If you are purely a landscape shooter and have the older lens then there's no reason to upgrade except for the extra reach.
AF also seems indistinhuishable between the XCD-E lens and the GFX. The same thing about Hasselblads animal AF not always being accurate still applies but for people they seem equal. The Hasselblad is much better in low/no light with the Lidar assist. The Hasselblas balances better than the Fuji. I prefer Fujis dedicated aperture ring and smaller filter size (still 82mm though).
The Fuji has a f*d up white balance in Lightroom with an obvious magenta cast compared to the deadly accurate X2D2. A profile would fix this and I don't use C1, which might be better? So far my testing is using the GFX100Sii.
Personally I feel the 35-100 is good enough it will become my main lens along with the 20-35. I'll keep the 55V in the bag for low light shooting and the 90V for portraits. The 28, 38 and 75 will make a nice compact carry kit as well. I'd be happy shooting pretty much anything including large landscape prints on the 35-100.
Now I just need a longer zoom. And a trip or two to enjoy them on.
p.3 #5 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
Amazing write up - thank you !
flash wrote:
I have started to do some basic side by side comparisons between the 35-100 and the excellent Fuji GFX 45-100 plus the older XCD 35-75. Nothing scientific so far but I have a few impressions.
For the 35-100 vs the GFX45-100, so far I see zero reason to choose one over the other. In most of the range they're basically indistinguishable from each other. At each end (45 and 100) the Fuji is *marginally* better in the extreme corners and the Hasselblad is *marginally* better in the centre. At f8 I'll be buggered if I could say one is better than the other. In the mid range (55-85) I feel the Hasselblad is *marginally* better wide open in the corners. The centre are the same and again at f8 there's no significant differences.
I prefer the background blur on the 35-100. It's actually very nice.
For both lenses the centre is always great. Corners are also very good but don't reach the centre absoluteley until around 5.6. The 35-100 is better than either the 38V or 55V in the corners, mostly, at wider apertures. The zoom does not quite reach the detail level of the 90V, ever.
The older XCD 35-75 is *marginally* better than the new lens, at wider apertures. At f8 any differences are tiny. But you can shoot the older lens with stunning across the frame sharpness wide open. It also has a tiny teeny bit more micro contrast but again I don't yet know how that translates to field use. 10 point on the texture slider would likely equalise them. In general shooting I don't know how much you'd actually see it but in my semi-non-controlled testing I see a small bump to the older lens. If you are purely a landscape shooter and have the older lens then there's no reason to upgrade except for the extra reach.
AF also seems indistinhuishable between the XCD-E lens and the GFX. The same thing about Hasselblads animal AF not always being accurate still applies but for people they seem equal. The Hasselblad is much better in low/no light with the Lidar assist. The Hasselblas balances better than the Fuji. I prefer Fujis dedicated aperture ring and smaller filter size (still 82mm though).
The Fuji has a f*d up white balance in Lightroom with an obvious magenta cast compared to the deadly accurate X2D2. A profile would fix this and I don't use C1, which might be better? So far my testing is using the GFX100Sii.
Personally I feel the 35-100 is good enough it will become my main lens along with the 20-35. I'll keep the 55V in the bag for low light shooting and the 90V for portraits. The 28, 38 and 75 will make a nice compact carry kit as well. I'd be happy shooting pretty much anything including large landscape prints on the 35-100.
Now I just need a longer zoom. And a trip or two to enjoy them on.
p.3 #6 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
Thank you for the detailed feedback, particularly your point about viability of replacing the 35-75 with the new zoom. Which other new lenses have you found that can replace the legacy range? As noted by many, most of the new still seemed lagging behind the old from an IQ perspective.
Thanks.
…still waiting for the lens from B&H….
flash wrote:
I have started to do some basic side by side comparisons between the 35-100 and the excellent Fuji GFX 45-100 plus the older XCD 35-75. Nothing scientific so far but I have a few impressions.
For the 35-100 vs the GFX45-100, so far I see zero reason to choose one over the other. In most of the range they're basically indistinguishable from each other. At each end (45 and 100) the Fuji is *marginally* better in the extreme corners and the Hasselblad is *marginally* better in the centre. At f8 I'll be buggered if I could say one is better than the other. In the mid range (55-85) I feel the Hasselblad is *marginally* better wide open in the corners. The centre are the same and again at f8 there's no significant differences.
I prefer the background blur on the 35-100. It's actually very nice.
For both lenses the centre is always great. Corners are also very good but don't reach the centre absoluteley until around 5.6. The 35-100 is better than either the 38V or 55V in the corners, mostly, at wider apertures. The zoom does not quite reach the detail level of the 90V, ever.
The older XCD 35-75 is *marginally* better than the new lens, at wider apertures. At f8 any differences are tiny. But you can shoot the older lens with stunning across the frame sharpness wide open. It also has a tiny teeny bit more micro contrast but again I don't yet know how that translates to field use. 10 point on the texture slider would likely equalise them. In general shooting I don't know how much you'd actually see it but in my semi-non-controlled testing I see a small bump to the older lens. If you are purely a landscape shooter and have the older lens then there's no reason to upgrade except for the extra reach.
AF also seems indistinhuishable between the XCD-E lens and the GFX. The same thing about Hasselblads animal AF not always being accurate still applies but for people they seem equal. The Hasselblad is much better in low/no light with the Lidar assist. The Hasselblas balances better than the Fuji. I prefer Fujis dedicated aperture ring and smaller filter size (still 82mm though).
The Fuji has a f*d up white balance in Lightroom with an obvious magenta cast compared to the deadly accurate X2D2. A profile would fix this and I don't use C1, which might be better? So far my testing is using the GFX100Sii.
Personally I feel the 35-100 is good enough it will become my main lens along with the 20-35. I'll keep the 55V in the bag for low light shooting and the 90V for portraits. The 28, 38 and 75 will make a nice compact carry kit as well. I'd be happy shooting pretty much anything including large landscape prints on the 35-100.
Now I just need a longer zoom. And a trip or two to enjoy them on.
p.3 #7 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
RAG_landscapes wrote:
Thank you for the detailed feedback, particularly your point about viability of replacing the 35-75 with the new zoom. Which other new lenses have you found that can replace the legacy range? As noted by many, most of the new still seemed lagging behind the old from an IQ perspective.
Thanks.
…still waiting for the lens from B&H….
Not really. It’s the 38 and 55 that aren’t as optically great as the older lenses. But they also serve a different purpose. And even they sharpen up nicely over 90%+ of the frame when stopped down. My copy of the 55V is a smidge better than my 38. They remind me a bit of the original 45 before the pancake came out.
The 25, 28, 75 and 90 are all excellent. The 28 needs a stop or so in the corners but is already very good in the centre at f4. The others are all pretty good from wide open. The 90 is better than the older one.
There was nothing to compare the 20-35 too. I feel the GFX version is a hair better than the hasselblad at all apertures. I also think the GFX 20-35 is the best wide zoom I’ve used, period. So I’m not saying the Hasselblad is bad. The new 35-100 is about the same as the older 35-75 and the GFX 45-100.
I sell large prints (A0) and my most popular shot in sales is from the 55V. And it’s a shot where fine detail does matter. Maybe if I had shot it on the 65 it’d be 5% more crunchy, but I didn’t and it hasn’t hurt at all.
The weakest XCD lens is still very good. And I see no point in choosing a focal length based on corner sharpness alone. Even for landscapes.
p.3 #8 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
flash wrote:
Not really. It’s the 38 and 55 that aren’t as optically great as the older lenses. But they also serve a different purpose. And even they sharpen up nicely over 90%+ of the frame when stopped down. My copy of the 55V is a smidge better than my 38. They remind me a bit of the original 45 before the pancake came out.
The 25, 28, 75 and 90 are all excellent. The 28 needs a stop or so in the corners but is already very good in the centre at f4. The others are all pretty good from wide open. The 90 is better than the older one.
There was nothing to compare the 20-35 too. I feel the GFX version is a hair better than the hasselblad at all apertures. I also think the GFX 20-35 is the best wide zoom I’ve used, period. So I’m not saying the Hasselblad is bad. The new 35-100 is about the same as the older 35-75 and the GFX 45-100.
I sell large prints (A0) and my most popular shot in sales is from the 55V. And it’s a shot where fine detail does matter. Maybe if I had shot it on the 65 it’d be 5% more crunchy, but I didn’t and it hasn’t hurt at all.
The weakest XCD lens is still very good. And I see no point in choosing a focal length based on corner sharpness alone. Even for landscapes.
I had the 65, it wiped the floor with every other X mount lens I had bought or tried.
But I just sold it in anticipation of the 35-100 which based on the samples I have seen thus far, look relatively uniform in sharpness. I had to go through 3 copies of each of the 38V and 55V to get ones that were at least centered enough to not look horrible in one or more corner even when stopped down. I love the primes for some documentary and commercial work but they fall short of what I need for landscape / aerial work.
I appreciate the beta on the 35-100, I suspect it will be my go to for landscape if shorter than 100 and I don't want to bother with a tilt-shift adapter.
p.3 #9 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
Thank you, flash, for the additional info.
Was holding on to the 21mm despite having added the 20-35 and 28p; most likely will not be picking up the 25v given the zoom. With the 35-100 on order, will let go of the 21 along with the 35-75 and replacing the old 90mm with the newer 90v to save a bit of weight.
With landscapes at mid aperture, as long as edges are good stopped down, the 28/45/75p lenses provide a lightweight travel set. The 20-35 + the on order 35-100 plus the legacy 135 and TC provide the optimal set for coverage if needed.
With the improvements from the X2Dii not as significant for landscapes, not planning to upgrade the camera body.
flash wrote:
Not really. It’s the 38 and 55 that aren’t as optically great as the older lenses. But they also serve a different purpose. And even they sharpen up nicely over 90%+ of the frame when stopped down. My copy of the 55V is a smidge better than my 38. They remind me a bit of the original 45 before the pancake came out.
The 25, 28, 75 and 90 are all excellent. The 28 needs a stop or so in the corners but is already very good in the centre at f4. The others are all pretty good from wide open. The 90 is better than the older one.
There was nothing to compare the 20-35 too. I feel the GFX version is a hair better than the hasselblad at all apertures. I also think the GFX 20-35 is the best wide zoom I’ve used, period. So I’m not saying the Hasselblad is bad. The new 35-100 is about the same as the older 35-75 and the GFX 45-100.
I sell large prints (A0) and my most popular shot in sales is from the 55V. And it’s a shot where fine detail does matter. Maybe if I had shot it on the 65 it’d be 5% more crunchy, but I didn’t and it hasn’t hurt at all.
The weakest XCD lens is still very good. And I see no point in choosing a focal length based on corner sharpness alone. Even for landscapes.
p.3 #10 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
This has been quite an informative thread. Given that my most used lenses are the 38v and 25v, I purchased the 20-35mm e lens and will pair it with my 90v for travel. I do think there is a strong case for swapping out the 90mm for the 35-100mm, but I’ll see how I adapt to the smaller wide zoom prior to taking that next step.
p.3 #11 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
flash wrote:
I have started to do some basic side by side comparisons between the 35-100 and the excellent Fuji GFX 45-100 plus the older XCD 35-75. Nothing scientific so far but I have a few impressions.
For the 35-100 vs the GFX45-100, so far I see zero reason to choose one over the other. In most of the range they're basically indistinguishable from each other. At each end (45 and 100) the Fuji is *marginally* better in the extreme corners and the Hasselblad is *marginally* better in the centre. At f8 I'll be buggered if I could say one is better than the other. In the mid range (55-85) I feel the Hasselblad is *marginally* better wide open in the corners. The centre are the same and again at f8 there's no significant differences.
I prefer the background blur on the 35-100. It's actually very nice.
For both lenses the centre is always great. Corners are also very good but don't reach the centre absoluteley until around 5.6. The 35-100 is better than either the 38V or 55V in the corners, mostly, at wider apertures. The zoom does not quite reach the detail level of the 90V, ever.
The older XCD 35-75 is *marginally* better than the new lens, at wider apertures. At f8 any differences are tiny. But you can shoot the older lens with stunning across the frame sharpness wide open. It also has a tiny teeny bit more micro contrast but again I don't yet know how that translates to field use. 10 point on the texture slider would likely equalise them. In general shooting I don't know how much you'd actually see it but in my semi-non-controlled testing I see a small bump to the older lens. If you are purely a landscape shooter and have the older lens then there's no reason to upgrade except for the extra reach.
AF also seems indistinhuishable between the XCD-E lens and the GFX. The same thing about Hasselblads animal AF not always being accurate still applies but for people they seem equal. The Hasselblad is much better in low/no light with the Lidar assist. The Hasselblas balances better than the Fuji. I prefer Fujis dedicated aperture ring and smaller filter size (still 82mm though).
The Fuji has a f*d up white balance in Lightroom with an obvious magenta cast compared to the deadly accurate X2D2. A profile would fix this and I don't use C1, which might be better? So far my testing is using the GFX100Sii.
Personally I feel the 35-100 is good enough it will become my main lens along with the 20-35. I'll keep the 55V in the bag for low light shooting and the 90V for portraits. The 28, 38 and 75 will make a nice compact carry kit as well. I'd be happy shooting pretty much anything including large landscape prints on the 35-100.
Now I just need a longer zoom. And a trip or two to enjoy them on.
Great thoughts Flash, I appreciate your analysis. I just received my X2DII and the 35-100E. Haven't put it to work yet but preliminary imagery from the 35-100E is remarkable. One thing that I was a little concerned about was getting that shallow depth of field in portraiture but a couple of test images put that to rest, the bokeh is remarkable. Next lens is the 20-35 are you pleased with that lens?
p.3 #12 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Great thoughts Flash, I appreciate your analysis. I just received my X2DII and the 35-100E. Haven't put it to work yet but preliminary imagery from the 35-100E is remarkable. One thing that I was a little concerned about was getting that shallow depth of field in portraiture but a couple of test images put that to rest, the bokeh is remarkable. Next lens is the 20-35 are you pleased with that lens?
This is going to sound harsh, so let me start with, I really like the 20-35. It’s mostly replaced my use of wide primes. It’s a good lens. Good af speed and very good performance especially closed down a bit.
But…
I also have the Fuji GFX 20-35 and it’s better, cheaper and faster (AF). The Fuji lens is basically a set of primes and there’s zero reason to but any Fuji wide primes over this lens. Possibly the best wide zoom I’ve ever used. That doesn’t hold true for the XCD 20-35 if you must have optical excellence all the time. If I wanted critical sharpness across the entire frame at wider apertures I’d be using the 25V and the older 21 and 30mm. The 20-35 has very good sharpness across around 80% of the frame from wide open and the corners sharpen up nicely when stopped down but it doesn’t quite reach the level of the zooms and never beasts the Fuji at any aperture.
So it’s good. Sometimes excellent. But not the best there is.
p.3 #14 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
I have heard that as well…how does the 35-100E compare to the GFX 45-100?
I am still waiting on the 35-100 and is tempting to bag the Hasselblad system and go back to GFX, especially with the year end sales.
flash wrote:
This is going to sound harsh, so let me start with, I really like the 20-35. It’s mostly replaced my use of wide primes. It’s a good lens. Good af speed and very good performance especially closed down a bit.
But…
I also have the Fuji GFX 20-35 and it’s better, cheaper and faster (AF). The Fuji lens is basically a set of primes and there’s zero reason to but any Fuji wide primes over this lens. Possibly the best wide zoom I’ve ever used. That doesn’t hold true for the XCD 20-35 if you must have optical excellence all the time. If I wanted critical sharpness across the entire frame at wider apertures I’d be using the 25V and the older 21 and 30mm. The 20-35 has very good sharpness across around 80% of the frame from wide open and the corners sharpen up nicely when stopped down but it doesn’t quite reach the level of the zooms and never beasts the Fuji at any aperture.
So it’s good. Sometimes excellent. But not the best there is.
p.3 #16 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
Rod.smith7 wrote:
I have heard that as well…how does the 35-100E compare to the GFX 45-100?
I am still waiting on the 35-100 and is tempting to bag the Hasselblad system and go back to GFX, especially with the year end sales.
I’m not seeing any functional optical difference between the GFX 45-100 and XCD 35-100. At 200% I’ll be buggered if I can see more detail in one or the other. When I do it’s always down to a small difference in focusing. They do *look* slightly different though, with the HB being slightly smoother looking even at the same aperture. Maybe 5-10 points of texture in LRC difference. My preference is the Hasselblad but it’s just a preference. Many would like the Fuji slightly better. Hasselblads older 35-75 is really spectacular as well but the AF is far behind and she’s a heavy beast like the 45-100.
Here the Hasselblad has real world advantages. It’s lighter, easier to carry faster and longer. I found the GFX 45-100 a chore for all day carry. The Hasselblad is much better in this regard. Its weight, balance and handling are just less cumbersome and fatiguing than the Fuji. Combined with the vastly superior IBIS of the X2D/X2D2 I have completely stopped carrying the 45-100. If handling is important (it is to me) then the Hasselblad is the superior choice.
Also I need to make clear, the 20-35 is a very good lens. And I choose it over the GFX version every time because it’s not stopping me getting the pictures I want and I like the HB system more. But if you shoot 20-35 as a primary and must have the ultimate optical performance then the GFX is the best there is.
p.3 #17 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
SlowDriver wrote:
With regards to (the comments above on) the 55V a YouTube video below with 40 images shot with the 55V:
The images look pretty good to me...
The 55V is still my favourite lens, maybe ever. I sell more prints from it than any other so it surely can’t be bad. I have two copies and the new one is *slightly* better than the one I got on release day.
Yes, wide open the corners aren’t as crisp as some and yes the 65 has more detail. But as good as the 65 is I never really liked using it. I vastly prefer the *inferior* 55V. No one is looking at my A0 prints and complaining about it, that’s for sure.
p.3 #18 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
flash wrote:
The 55V is still my favourite lens, maybe ever. I sell more prints from it than any other so it surely can’t be bad. I have two copies and the new one is *slightly* better than the one I got on release day.
Yes, wide open the corners aren’t as crisp as some and yes the 65 has more detail. But as good as the 65 is I never really liked using it. I vastly prefer the *inferior* 55V. No one is looking at my A0 prints and complaining about it, that’s for sure.
Gordon
Considering your love of the 55mm, would you travel with the 20-35mm with the 55V and 90V, or just go with the 35-100mm? I appreciate your informed view with regards to these lenses.
p.3 #20 · How Will You Use the Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E Lens?
RoamingScott wrote:
It's always interesting reading takes that are so different from my own. The 55V wouldn't crack my top 5 lenses, and perhaps not even top 10.
