Hasselblad XCD Lens Kit for Outdoors

[Michael Erlewine]

If I'm looking for lenses I want to carry with me in the field, I get practical fast. I'm not even talking about hiking real distance, but just what I want to have in the car and available at stops I make.

I tried a couple of Hasselblad's new "V" lenses, the XCD 55mm and the XCD 28mm. Yes, I see that these are compact, light lenses, perfect for portability, yet IMO (and I am sorry to report this), whatever we can agree they cut corners on, I did not like the end results.

I know that many will not agree, and I understand. However, if I am just looking at color and the images that result, I get better images out of the older XCD lenses, as heavy and clunky as they are.

I would rather drag around the earlier XCD lenses, clunkers, bulky, and heavy as they are, at least the ones I have used. And having checked out the MTF graphics for the other "V" lenses, I just can't (or won't) use them. The new 75mm "V" lens may be an exception, but I have not decided yet about that lens.

I'm not going to get better bokeh out of any XCD lens other than the XCD 80mm f/1.9 lens. Period, end of story. So that lens is in my kit even though it is heavy, large, and clunky. No way around it and I love it.

The new XCD 20mm-35mm F/3.2-4.5 Zoom lens is superior in almost all ways, 12" minimum focus, and as good as the primes. It is on my X2D most of the time, at least when I am not in the studio

Another XCD lens that is a top performer, at least on the MTF charts, is the classic XCD 30mm f/3.5 lens. Yes, it is old-style, a little heavy, etc. yet I am NOT using it, although it is wicked sharp.

Yes, I am taking instead the XCD 65mm f/2.8, why" Because it is also very sharp and the f/2.8 turns out to be what I need to get the correct bokeh more often.

XCD 20mm-35mm F/3.2-4.5 Zoom
XCD 80 f/1.9
XCD 65mm f/2.8

The above three lens I have to have with me.

Now, another lens I might as well carry, although it too is large, heavy, and clunky is the XCD 120mm f/3.5 Macro lens. If I need to get in really close, there is nothing better, other than to use the new 9mm extension tube on one of the others, like the XCD 30mm of XCD 65mm lens.

I have tried carrying the XCD 135mm with the 1.7x tele, but enough acuity is lost with the tele that I can't use it. And it is so big that I will use the XCD 80m lens instead. It hurts to leave it home, and I am still thinking about it, but also not bringing it. The 135mm (with or without the tele) is fine for relatively closeup shots, but for long distance, I can't use that combination.

I also have the wonderful XCD 21mm f/3.5, but the new XCD 20mm-35mm Zoom is all-around better, although the XCD 21mm has a special character that should not be ignored, but I'm ignoring it anyway.

And the two XCD 45mm (f/4 and f/3.5) I am still up in the air about, but so far, I'm leaving them at home.

As I look this over, it is obvious that a fast lens (wide f-stop) is the key to my photography. I need that narrow depth of field to isolate key focal points and also to throw the background into meaningful bokeh, thus the accent on the XCD 80mm and XCD 65mm with their larger apertures.

So, that's my run-down on a Hasselblad XCD kit that I take with me in the car.

[Ralf]

I initially opted for the 21mm, the 38V, and the 80mm. I'm happy with this combination, and I don't miss any of the focal lengths in between.

I'd also like to buy a telephoto lens that's a bit more compact than the 2.8/135 and, above all, a bit faster in autofocus, but that's not available (yet).

Later, I came across a cheap used 3.5/45mm for €640, which I couldn't resist, even though it's actually too close to the 38V. Still, it's a worthwhile backup.

I usually take at least the 21, 38, and 80 with me.

[MGrayson]

We all have different priorities. I don't own a car, and I don't like heavy lenses, as I tend to carry the camera in my hand. (If weight were no issue, I'd be carrying the Leica S3 everywhere!) My kit was 21/4, 45/3.5, and 90/3.2 for the longest time. The 120 and 135 tend to stay at home (big, heavy). If I want a long focal length, the Mamiya 645 300/5.6 ULD or 200/2.8 APO are better. The 28P is my one lens light weight combination. The 25 *should* have been my favorite, as it's closest in FoV to my favorite lens of all time (Leica S24), but I haven't warmed up to it. The extra millimeter and the 4:3 ratio sensor gives it a noticeably smaller horizontal FoV.

The 20-35 would be wonderful, but I know I wouldn't carry that weight around in my hands. I don't have the 35-75 and 80/1.9 for the same reason.

Matt

[Michael Erlewine]

We all have different priorities. I don't own a car, and I don't like heavy lenses, as I tend to carry the camera in my hand. (If weight were no issue, I'd be carrying the Leica S3 everywhere!) My kit was 21/4, 45/3.5, and 90/3.2 for the longest time. The 120 and 135 tend to stay at home (big, heavy). If I want a long focal length, the Mamiya 645 300/5.6 ULD or 200/2.8 APO are better. The 28P is my one lens light weight combination. The 25 *should* have been my favorite, as it's closest in FoV to my favorite lens of all time (Leica S24), but I haven't warmed up to it. The extra millimeter and the 4:3 ratio sensor gives it a noticeably smaller horizontal FoV.

The 20-35 would be wonderful, but I know I wouldn't carry that weight around in my hands. I don't have the 35-75 and 80/1.9 for the same reason.

Matt

Thanksfor the notes. Your requirements are different, of course, from my own. I am mostly just still-life, although I have a large Nikon system as well that can shoot sports. I am working out of a car with only short hikes. I have the same problem with tripods. I have all kinds of them, including very, very light ones, like the Gitzo 1545T and tiny ball head. Yet I just don't like light tripods, so I end up carting around (from the car) a RRS 3-legged tripod and the Arca-Swiss Cube1, which are heavy. Go figure. 

[fredfoto]

I use the 35-75mm lens as my main lens. That's the best lens in the system IMHO, YMMV. Hasselblad said at its release that it is the best lens they've ever made, and I believe it.
The optics are exceptional, in my experience. Maybe I have an exceptional copy- but it is inspirational to use.
Correctly processed through Phocus, the results are better than 5x4 scanned and printed 1 meter by 1.25 meter.
I doubt that I would get a fixed focal length in the same range instead of the zoom, except that I have the 45 f4 if the zoom breaks or if I am flying and don't want to take the zoom, but the truth is, I hardly use it- it's an economical backup.
They key for me is that I don't have to change lenses in the field with the zoom, preventing dust ingress, and I find the zoom range mirrors what I used to shoot in 5x4 pretty much, with the bonus of having the zoom steps in between. (90mm and 210mm on 5x4).
I use a very good neck strap, over the shoulder, and carry the lens/body combo in a backpack and NOT in a shoulder bag.
I have the 135 + extender in the backpack when I need longer reach, but a smaller top loader for when I don't take it with me.
The wide zoom interests me, but only when I buy a second body, which I'm waiting to do (X2DII ?).
I recommend the zoom for outdoors- I can make most corrections in Phocus to give great results for keystone or vertical/Horizontal, and the other slider tools are excellent to prepare a TIFF ready for minimal work in Photoshop.
I did a lot of research and found the zoom lens was the right fit for me. It's the first zoom I have ever owned in 40+ years of professional photography. I used to shoot Leica and Kodachrome, or 5x4 and the 'Blad zoom + X2D blow all that out of the water in terms of ease of use and quality (although I really miss Kodachrome 25- SIGMA DP3 Merrill comes close in digital, but no cigar).
Sure it weighs a bit, but it's all relative, remember, I'm coming from 5x4 with three lenses, darkcloth, film holders, light meter and assorted extra gear, so I can put up with it. I'm 60 years old. I can hold it in my hand no problem, but a good over one shoulder strap really helps.
I shoot pretty much everything at f13, so the bokeh thang doesn't apply to me as my work is more aimed at having everything in focus- which I get at f13 at most focal lengths. YMMV.
I have a car, but can hike with the zoom/body and batteries with a good pack (Mystery Ranch) all day.

[Seb76400]

The equipment you need really depends on whether you're using it for a professional or amateur camera.

i am just an amateur

I sometimes go out with just the X2D and a 55V, in a Peak Design shoulder bag.

I use the 55V a lot. I've only been using a Hasselblad for a year. I think I should have bought the 35-70 instead.
I'm not familiar with older Hasselblad lenses (I had a Nikon before), but the 55V is the best lens I've ever owned. In my backpack, I have the 55V, a 25V, a Leica 80-200 f/4 with an adapter, and usually also a Leica 35-70 f/4, a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S with an adapter, a Nikkor 35 f/1.4 AI-S, a Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AI, a Micro-Nikkor 55 f/2.8 Macro, and a Jupiter 8 M39 with an adapter. These are all lenses I love, with a more or less artistic rendering, far from the quality of the Hasselblad, but with character for black and white photography. (I have about fifty other vintage lenses, all very different.) In my bag, I also have a large battery for security, for my phone or the X2D. The bag is full. No more place.

And if it rains... or for sports scenes, I don't take my X2D, my D6 is more suitable.

[tenmangu81]

When I go abroad for a while, I take my X1D II with the combo XCD45P/XCD90 f:3.2 in my suitcase, or only with the 55V. I hate (and can't any longer!!) take a lot of gear with me. My policy is to go out with only one lens, that I choose depending upon the place I intend to go to. And I zoom with my feet, when necessary and possible. I'm thinking about the light 28P.

[pat m]

As an amateur, I usually take just one lens, depending on where we're going. If walking in country, then the 38, in town, the 55, if on the coast the 25, or with people, the 90. Generally I've found the 55 to be my favourite.

[Bob Foster]

I have tried carrying the XCD 135mm with the 1.7x tele, but enough acuity is lost with the tele that I can't use it. And it is so big that I will use the XCD 80m lens instead. It hurts to leave it home, and I am still thinking about it, but also not bringing it. The 135mm (with or without the tele) is fine for relatively closeup shots, but for long distance, I can't use that combination.

Hello Michael,

Used on the X2D with focus set to or near to infinity the performance of my copy of the XCD 2,8/135 approaches but does not equal that of the Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2,0/135mm at apertures wider than f5,6. At f8 diffraction is quite noticeable on both lenses.

In my experience a substantial loss of acuity when the focus is set to or near infinity is not a normal result when using the XCD 2,8/135 - with or without the XCD 1,7 tele-converter. Because you note that the lens is usable for "relatively close shots" I suspect that there may be a problem with your copy of the XCD 2,8/135.

The XCD 1,7 tele-converter is available only when purchased with the XCD 2,8/135. It's possible that Hasselblad might be selectively pairing converters to individual lenses as part of acceptance testing. If the lens is sent "in" for evaluation/repair I'd also send the converter.

Have you considered discussing this issue with the vendor that you purchased the lens from?

Bob

[outside_late]

Like you I tried a couple of V lenses (25V and 38V), but didn't like the results, so I traded them for more original lenses.  The 80mm always produces beautiful results.  The 21mm I'm using a lot for some urban landscapes.  The 30mm was my first XCD lens and is still one of my favorites. 

These days, I'm usually making the decision of what lens to use before I leave the house, and just sticking with one focal length.  I like this limitation, and it helps keep the dust off my sensor

[flash]

I have tried carrying the XCD 135mm with the 1.7x tele, but enough acuity is lost with the tele that I can't use it. And it is so big that I will use the XCD 80m lens instead. It hurts to leave it home, and I am still thinking about it, but also not bringing it. The 135mm (with or without the tele) is fine for relatively closeup shots, but for long distance, I can't use that combination.

Hello Michael,

Used on the X2D with focus set to or near to infinity the performance of my copy of the XCD 2,8/135 approaches but does not equal that of the Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2,0/135mm at apertures wider than f5,6. At f8 diffraction is quite noticeable on both lenses.

In my experience a substantial loss of acuity when the focus is set to or near infinity is not a normal result when using the XCD 2,8/135 - with or without the XCD 1,7 tele-converter. Because you note that the lens is usable for "relatively close shots" I suspect that there may be a problem with your copy of the XCD 2,8/135.

The XCD 1,7 tele-converter is available only when purchased with the XCD 2,8/135. It's possible that Hasselblad might be selectively pairing converters to individual lenses as part of acceptance testing. If the lens is sent "in" for evaluation/repair I'd also send the converter.

Have you considered discussing this issue with the vendor that you purchased the lens from?

Bob

I agree. My 135 is spectacular at all distances with or without the TC. I think there might be an issue with his lens. I agree it might be advisable to have HB check it. The best of the XCD lenses is the 120mm but I have issues with the AF accuracy and speed at anything other than macro shooting. My 135 is 97% as good as the 120 at all distances, macro aside.

For corner to corner sharpness I really like the 35-75. My copy is excellent wide open and stunning at 5.6. The 38 and 55, I really like. They're not the best optically in the corners where they never get beyond very good (the centre 80% is excellent) but I like the way they draw and they're my preferred travel lenses. I have some of my favourite images ever from the 55V.

The 90V and 75P are extremely good. I don't think the 90V is much better than the older 3.2. But the AF is better, it's faster and it has the MF clutch and ring. The 75 is potent and small but I usually carry the 90.

If I wanted a simple kit for edge to edge optics it's be the 21 or wide zoom, 35-75 and 135.

Gordon

[stefan_iacob@me.com]

+1 on the 135 + TC being very good at all distances. I had the 120mm which may have been the sharpest X lens ever, but I gladly traded it for the versatility of the 135 + TC - the perceived difference in IQ was minimal.

[gg12]

It's kind of interesting how lens lineups shift depending on  priorities: for travel, the 28 and 45P. Smallest, lightest. For a bit better quality - the 55. For more serious architectural wide - the 30mm, which has no edge distortion (unlike the 28). The 65 sits at home, although lovely, probably to be sold. And the 90 is for reach - wishing for the 135, but it's too much weight.

[HeikoK]

When I joined the Hasselblad family, I paired my X1D II with the XCD 45, a XCD  35-75 and XCD  80 (all pre-owned). The latter was my dream lens until it stopped working in the middle of a session with a stuck shutter and I had to return it (got fully refunded). I then added an XCD 135 (without TC) to my lineup. The XCD 35-75 is my most frequently used lens, either primarily in the studio or as a backup in the field when I need wider angles.

After upgrading to the X2D, I was still looking for a replacement for the 80mm and finally opted for the legacy XCD 90, rather than the 90v - pre-owned copies with a few clicks don't hurt my budget as the 90v would and f2.5 over f3.2 is not that much of a deal for me. Also, I bought an XCD 65 to get a bit more light and separation when in the field.

My usual travel kit is either the XCD 65 or XCD 90 as the primary lens, depending on the location, and the XCD 35-75 as a backup when I know I'll be shooting indoors. I don't use the XCD 135 as often as I would like and might sell it after this summer season if it hasn't changed.

[MGrayson]

We all have different priorities. I don't own a car, and I don't like heavy lenses, as I tend to carry the camera in my hand. (If weight were no issue, I'd be carrying the Leica S3 everywhere!) My kit was 21/4, 45/3.5, and 90/3.2 for the longest time. The 120 and 135 tend to stay at home (big, heavy). If I want a long focal length, the Mamiya 645 300/5.6 ULD or 200/2.8 APO are better. The 28P is my one lens light weight combination. The 25 *should* have been my favorite, as it's closest in FoV to my favorite lens of all time (Leica S24), but I haven't warmed up to it. The extra millimeter and the 4:3 ratio sensor gives it a noticeably smaller horizontal FoV.

The 20-35 would be wonderful, but I know I wouldn't carry that weight around in my hands. I don't have the 35-75 and 80/1.9 for the same reason.

Matt

Thanksfor the notes. Your requirements are different, of course, from my own. I am mostly just still-life, although I have a large Nikon system as well that can shoot sports. I am working out of a car with only short hikes. I have the same problem with tripods. I have all kinds of them, including very, very light ones, like the Gitzo 1545T and tiny ball head. Yet I just don't like light tripods, so I end up carting around (from the car) a RRS 3-legged tripod and the Arca-Swiss Cube1, which are heavy. Go figure. 

Speaking of Tripods, I also have way too many covering absurdly flimsy to Gitzo 5 + Cube. Lately, I've been very happy with a medium weight FLM tripod, CP30-L4 II, and a Markins Q20 ballhead (I got mine used from Lens Rentals). The Markins is extremely sturdy for its size and weight, the motion is heavily damped and the lockdown has no sag - It's very easy to position. It's *almost* enough to get me to carry a tripod regularly. 

Matt