I am not comparing resolution of Hasselblad and Leica lenses per se but comparing their optical qualities like wide open performance, distortion, subject isolation, micro contrast etc. I misspoke when I said the pixels are the same, I should have said the pixel sizes are the same between X2Dii and SL3.
Anyway to answer your question, I am not sure about the 2 posted images as they are web resolution. But if you compare 35-100 and V series lenses, their rendering, distortion, aberrations and contrast is the same. The Hasselblad image pipeline is one of the best (if not the best) but the V lenses or the zoom do not do justice. They are designed to be small and light. Some will be fine with the comprises but personally I do not care for these compromises. Hope this makes it clear.
p.2 #3 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
@Pkash
I have the SL apo lenses and the Hasselblad lenses do not even remotely compare to them optically. The X2d out resolves the SL3 even though they have the same pixels, not sure how to explain. No I am not on the Leica forum.
yes the SL3 and X2D have same pixel density.
can you show pictures that demonstrate this difference? same subject and lighting condition with as close DOF/Exposure as possible. if they "don't even remotely compare" it should be pretty obvious.
i don't quite understand how people make such claims without images to back them up.
the comparison one that Brownstone did on his video is, quite frankly, a joke. to his credit, he did show that to see the difference it needed to be zoomed in at a ridiculous amount...which is not exactly in line with "don't remotely compare"
Anyway to answer your question, I am not sure about the 2 posted images as they are web resolution. But if you compare 35-100 and V series lenses, their rendering, distortion, aberrations and contrast is the same. The Hasselblad image pipeline is one of the best (if not the best) but the V lenses or the zoom do not do justice. They are designed to be small and light. Some will be fine with the comprises but personally I do not care for these compromises. Hope this makes it clear.
come on, man. this is not impossible; i literally just did this comparison in another thread.. take a picture of something mundane but high detail and host it somewhere where people can download the high-quality JPEG file. this is a photography forum discussing image resolution/detail.. "trust me, bro" isn't going to cut it.
p.2 #6 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
The 50-150 is simply spectacular. But the 35-100 should be compared to the 28-70, which is also special but not as spectacular as its longer cousin. I think these are the most interesting in Sonys lineup. I hardly use my 24-70 or 70-200GMii after getting these.
I still have every X system lens and have extensively compared the old ones to the new one as well as to most of the GFX glass. In the case of the zooms the new one is as good as the old one but they draw differently. The original 35-75 followed the other XCD lenses and is very crisp which emphasises detail but has a harsher transition. The 35-100 shows the same detail with less *crunchy* look but smoother transitions. You may prefer the look of the older glass but it doesn’t actually have more detail and the new lens is superior in every other way. It reminds me of my SL 24-90.The 90V is slightly better than the already excellent 90 f 3.2. The newer lenses generally don’t actually drop any detail but they are designed around a smoother look than the crunchy older glass. In my kit the weakest is my 38V but I still wouldn’t hesitate to use it.
The often maligned 55v is a fine lens and still my personal favourite. Comparing it to the older 65 is like comparing an M summilux 50 to the M50 APO summicron IMHO. The 65 is optically impressive and I hate using it. I sell more big prints from the 55V than any other XCD lens. My second copy is better than my first though.
I prefer the 35-100 to any of the Fuji zooms. The Fuji 55 is wonderful and better than the Hasselblad but it’s giant. The Fuji wide zoom is as good as it gets and beats the Hasselblad easily. But other than that I generally prefer the lighter more agile Hasselblad glass over the Fuji. Fuji menus are a horror show. The GFX100ii evf is glorious though.
The SL APO Summicrons are the best set of matched primes available. You can get lenses as good ( the Sony f2 zooms come close) but not a SET of stills lenses. However the Hasselblad always out resolves the Leica as a system, except for a couple of lenses in the extreme corners. You can just talk about the lenses in isolation. You have to look at it as a system. Here the Hasselblad wins. And if you stop down the lowly lenses they do just fine as landscape lenses.
So while the 55V is my favourite the newer zoom is the one I use the most. I’m travelling at the moment with a full Leica SL kit and my X2D2 and even though I brought the SL APOs with me I haven’t used them. So far the workhorse has been the 35-100 for about 80% and the SL with 24-90 and 90-280 for the rest. A few long shots with the Sigma 60-600 for birds etc.
At the sizes I print, A0 and above, I can make excellent files with any of these systems. I’ve stopped worrying about whether one lens is slightly slightly shaper in the extreme corners than another because it simply make zero difference to whether a photo is good or not. The HB zoom is excellent. And made more so with the best IBIS available, lots of framing flexibility and the best long exposure implementation in any system. I’d rather have these than the xcd65, regardless of its slightly better optical performance.
Pixel peeping is fun but it doesn’t make great photographs.
p.2 #7 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
Glad I am not the only one who finds the older XCD lenses have a more pleasing rendering and in case of 90 3.5, better in the corners. Both the XCD 90 3.2 and XCD 80 are crown jewels of the XCD lineup IMO.
Pkash wrote:
I have used the older xcd lenses and currently the V lenses. I have the 38, 55 and 90. Compared to the 80mm 1.9 the 90 V is slightly sharper especially in mid zone and corners but it is very harsh and contrasty. The 55mm is the weakest of the V lenses. The older lenses have a more sublime rendering. The V lenses also have other optical comprises to accommodate the smaller size. I also had the zoom but sold it. The zoom mirrors the characteristics of V lenses and in addition it’s heavy but it’s a personal choice. The resolution and the files are unbeatable though.
Ps. I have the SL apo lenses and the Hasselblad lenses do not even remotely compare to them optically. The X2d out resolves the SL3 even though they have the same pixels, not sure how to explain. No I am not on the Leica forum. ...Show more →
p.2 #8 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
flash wrote:
<snip>
I’ve stopped worrying about whether one lens is slightly slightly shaper in the extreme corners than another because it simply make zero difference to whether a photo is good or not.
<snip>
Pixel peeping is fun but it doesn’t make great photographs.
Gordon
Well said. These are, for me, the essential points.
When I first saw this thread, I thought it would be interesting to see what opinions emerged, because I’ve been seriously thinking about the X2D. But I then thought: does it really matter? You’re completely right, it’s about the system, not individual lens comparisons.
So, although I do find some of the differences in lenses’ character and performance interesting, if and when I buy an X2D (actually, it’s probably now a case of ‘when’ ….), it will be primarily because of the capabilities it will give me in terms of low light performance and colour consistency, relative to my Leica and Sony kit, not resolution per se (as well as the pleasure of using it). It’s nice that it can out-resolve FF systems, and a bit of extra cropability is not a bad thing, but that on its own would not (for me) justify it. It’s also true that skill, practice, study and opportunity are a lot more important than kit (so I’m on a losing wicket anyway …. )
p.2 #9 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
Pixel peeping is fun but it doesn’t make great photographs.
with all due respect, i wasn't casting doubt on the x2d or the 35-100 on its own .. i think Hasselblad is awesome (i've owned the older X1D II and the 45 and 65).
the claim was quantifiable one.. the x2d and sl3 sensors have the same pixel pitch. so yeah for the same shooting condition they can be compared with the lenses in question. i'm sure someone else would be curious of the results? i would have done it myself but i don't have an X2D and a 35-100 and renting the pair for a week would cost me about 800USD (insured).
there is interest in both artistic and technical aspects of photography and i have participated in both discussions on these forums. i happen to be interested in the technical side of it in this context. Context matters.
yeah cool anyone can make great images with any gear. i get it. but does everything have to be philosophical in every discussion?
p.2 #10 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
dalegaspi wrote:
with all due respect, i wasn't casting doubt on the x2d or the 35-100 on its own .. i think Hasselblad is awesome (i've owned the older X1D II and the 45 and 65).
the claim was quantifiable one.. the x2d and sl3 sensors have the same pixel pitch. so yeah for the same shooting condition they can be compared with the lenses in question. i'm sure someone else would be curious of the results? i would have done it myself but i don't have an X2D and a 35-100 and renting the pair for a week would cost me about 800USD (insured).
there is interest in both artistic and technical aspects of photography and i have participated in both discussions on these forums. i happen to be interested in the technical side of it in this context. Context matters.
yeah cool anyone can make great images with any gear. i get it. but does everything have to be philosophical in every discussion?...Show more →
In that case the X2D2 with 35-100 outresolves the SL APOs. Simple. If the SL lenses covered the larger sensor then the result would be reversed. But I don’t think you can compare because they have the same pixel pitch. If that were the case we’d also compare the Hasselblad to the 26mp Fuji X sensor.
For me there’s no technical reason to choose the blad or Leica on resolution alone unless you print bigger than A0. But each camera has different performance strengths and each lens brings something different as well. Not better or worse. Just different.
p.2 #11 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
flash wrote:
In that case the X2D2 with 35-100 outresolves the SL APOs. Simple. If the SL lenses covered the larger sensor then the result would be reversed. But I don’t think you can compare because they have the same pixel pitch. If that were the case we’d also compare the Hasselblad to the 26mp Fuji X sensor.
For me there’s no technical reason to choose the blad or Leica on resolution alone unless you print bigger than A0. But each camera has different performance strengths and each lens brings something different as well. Not better or worse. Just different.
Gordon
i'm merely looking at it as a purely technical exercise...one can do a simple arithmetic to compute how much the X2d outresolves the SL3... X2D has a pixel pitch of 3.76 µm while Leica has 3.79 µm which translates to both roughly 7MP per sq cm..this is why i pointed out it's probably comparable if shot at equivalent focal length (which i would guess is ~45 on the Hassy) with the best glass then crop to 1:1 pixel .. Hasselblad by math alone will still come out on top (slightly smaller pixel density) but I just wanted to see by how much in practical terms...i don't think it's that much if the best glass is applied.. which is why the 35 APO and 35-100 .. since they seem to be the best each system has to offer.
@flash, since you have both SL3/35APO and X2D/35-100@45 .. can you indulge us and do the exercise? same subject/lighting with base ISO equivalent exposure/DOF?
i mean yeah just to be clear (which i didn't think it needed to be said but here we are) i agree that it should not be a factor in choosing X2D over SL3 or vice-versa as that would be ridiculous.
EDIT: tsk, i just realized that the comparison cannot be done in a meaningful way even with the equivalent focal length and the same pixel density because of other various factors....
p.2 #12 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
I always find it strange to see people still obsessed with resolution in a world where we have so much of them it is impossible to see the different on any print and where tools like Topaz can make most of the differences moot anyway.
Friend of mine, an excellent and experienced photographer shot landscapes in Peru for weeks with a 100 Mpix Fuji MF. His wife used an APS-C Fuji.
Guess what? Sure you can see how good the MF is on screen. But once printed?
And BTW, this is what he said, not me.
Another thing: all these long conversations about "this system is better" never show any comparison. I find it significant.
p.2 #13 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
pmeheut wrote:
I always find it strange to see people still obsessed with resolution in a world where we have so much of them it is impossible to see the different on any print and where tools like Topaz can make most of the differences moot anyway.
Friend of mine, an excellent and experienced photographer shot landscapes in Peru for weeks with a 100 Mpix Fuji MF. His wife used an APS-C Fuji.
Guess what? Sure you can see how good the MF is on screen. But once printed?
And BTW, this is what he said, not me.
Another thing: all these long conversations about "this system is better" never show any comparison. I find it significant....Show more →
I’m there with you (even though I do own a 100mp MF camera). I see these tourists walk through town with their Hasselblads and that 35-100mm lens and instead of being jealous that I don’t own such a gorgeous piece of gear, I wonder what in the world they’re gonna do with those images once home after carrying that kit all day with them. I just don’t get it.
Personally, I’m going in the direction of lower weight, less bulk, irrespective of the resolution (unless I know I’m really going to crop or shoot in a particular format). The lenses are all good, though.
p.2 #14 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
johnvanr wrote:
I’m there with you (even though I do own a 100mp MF camera)
BTW, I'm not saying that MF 100mpx cameras do not give better pictures. I've used them and I appreciate the IQ.
Just that resolution is the least of them.
I do no understand why people do not talk about bokeh, color rendering, B&W conversion, etc.
And why not posting? Each time I wondered if my system X was better for this or that than my system Y, I did something simple: took them both, shot pictures, compared them before and after post-processing and printed to really compare.
Why don't we ever see such a comparison in threads like this one?
p.2 #15 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
pmeheut wrote:
BTW, I'm not saying that MF 100mpx cameras do not give better pictures. I've used them and I appreciate the IQ.
Just that resolution is the least of them.
I do no understand why people do not talk about bokeh, color rendering, B&W conversion, etc.
And why not posting? Each time I wondered if my system X was better for this or that than my system Y, I did something simple: took them both, shot pictures, compared them before and after post-processing and printed to really compare.
Why don't we ever see such a comparison in threads like this one?
Agreed. Yesterday someone asked me which camera to buy and the differences between the larger brands. The three I mentioned that mattered (camera-wise) were color rendering, ergonomics and lens availability. The others only start playing a role if you have specific needs. I often have the feeling that people here are often techies who appreciate specs for the sake of what's technically possible and not necessarily for what it does to the actual end result. That's perfectly fine - to each his/her own - but it's not me.
p.2 #16 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
I have been working with the 90v on the X2D before I sold the camera. Next day my 35-100 showed up. So, I am just waiting for the X2Dii to get here. Then I will run it through it's paces.
I have the Sony A1ii and 50-150. That lens is the sharpest Zoom I have ever used. Noticeably better than the 70-200. It competes directly with the 90v in sharpness (without doing side by side) but having looked at 100s of files. The 50-150 is really a unicorn.
Having said that, I just adore the files coming off the Hasselblad. The color is steps above Sony. Sharpness is one thing, but overall rendering and color is heavily in favour of the Hassy
p.2 #17 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
dalegaspi wrote:
i'm merely looking at it as a purely technical exercise...one can do a simple arithmetic to compute how much the X2d outresolves the SL3... X2D has a pixel pitch of 3.76 µm while Leica has 3.79 µm which translates to both roughly 7MP per sq cm..this is why i pointed out it's probably comparable if shot at equivalent focal length (which i would guess is ~45 on the Hassy) with the best glass then crop to 1:1 pixel .. Hasselblad by math alone will still come out on top (slightly smaller pixel density) but I just wanted to see by how much in practical terms...i don't think it's that much if the best glass is applied.. which is why the 35 APO and 35-100 .. since they seem to be the best each system has to offer.
@flash@, since you have both SL3/35APO and X2D/35-100@45 .. can you indulge us and do the exercise? same subject/lighting with base ISO equivalent exposure/DOF?
i mean yeah just to be clear (which i didn't think it needed to be said but here we are) i agree that it should not be a factor in choosing X2D over SL3 or vice-versa as that would be ridiculous.
EDIT: tsk, i just realized that the comparison cannot be done in a meaningful way even with the equivalent focal length and the same pixel density because of other various factors.... ...Show more →
I don't have have the 35. I have the 21, 28, 50 and 90. Plus I'm away for another month.
Happy to provide a raw file from each when I get home but that's a while away.
p.2 #18 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
pmeheut wrote:
I always find it strange to see people still obsessed with resolution in a world where we have so much of them it is impossible to see the different on any print and where tools like Topaz can make most of the differences moot anyway.
i take this is squarely directed at me, which i suppose if juding my posts on this thread in isolation can be taken that way. that's fair.
i generally don't obsess over resolution but when someone says a particular lens and camera combo outresolves another combo i take notice...because that's not an opinion, that's taken as a statement and by that it ask for proof. Again, context matters.
i mentioned this cannot be measured in a meaningful way because of various reasons. i should have realized this sooner.because things like lens magnification needs to be taken into account and comparing lenses on the same format makes that very difficult and having different formats makes it even harder.
last night i saw this video from mathphotographer making this comparison but with the SL21 vs XCD 25 where he had maths and everything for equivalency but still mentioned caveats why such comparison is not really 1:1
so in this case if one needs an answer, it really has nothing to do with the 35-100; it can be proven even with the older 45 XCD. it's more of a function of the megapixel count of the camera than anything else.
p.2 #19 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
pmeheut wrote:
I always find it strange to see people still obsessed with resolution in a world where we have so much of them it is impossible to see the different on any print and where tools like Topaz can make most of the differences moot anyway.
Friend of mine, an excellent and experienced photographer shot landscapes in Peru for weeks with a 100 Mpix Fuji MF. His wife used an APS-C Fuji.
Guess what? Sure you can see how good the MF is on screen. But once printed?
And BTW, this is what he said, not me.
Another thing: all these long conversations about "this system is better" never show any comparison. I find it significant....Show more →
I tried to square this after I first purchased the X2D. My favorite portrait lens for Sony is the Loxia 85mm f/2.4 and I wanted to compare it to the XCD 90mm V lens. I also did this with images of flowers using macro lenses and this time included film. Here is my initial “portrait’ with Sony A7CR vs Hasselblad X2D.
I have 35mm film images enlarged to 24”x48” that are sharp viewing from a couple of feet, but I would be lying if I were to tell you that images, when everything falls into place, from the X2D(ii) are special. That is not the same as saying that output from other systems is somehow lesser, but rather different.
p.2 #20 · Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
dalegaspi wrote:
i take this is squarely directed at me
It was not. Really.
This is something I noticed about all this discussions.
Many, many years ago, I compared a 6 Mpix digital Nikon with their 80-200 zoom vs my Leica R9 + 180mm/2.8 Apo, Sensia 100 scanned on a LS4000.
On film, the Leica was better than the Nikon and it was obvious.
But the 6 Mpix DSLR had more resolution and better colors.
On a print, the difference was still there but a good picture is a good picture, even if shot on film.
Since then, we use better lenses, sensors with 24 to 60mp in FF and we still talk about resolution? Thread after thread after thread?
And we never talk about prints? Never show a picture?
Something is very, very strange. In fact, there is something rotten in the kingdom of Fred Miranda (all due respect to Fred, just a bad pun).
)
