XCD 45P vs XCD 55v

[tenmangu81]

My original plan for this camera was 38v 90v 135. I have the 135 and 38v. I think I should hold out for a 90.

You could by an "old" XCD90. The "new" XCD90V is just a little less heavy and bulky than the old one. And the old one is really fantastic !! And cheaper....

[MGrayson]

My original plan for this camera was 38v 90v 135. I have the 135 and 38v. I think I should hold out for a 90.

You could by an "old" XCD90. The "new" XCD90V is just a little less heavy and bulky than the old one. And the old one is really fantastic !! And cheaper....

I second the 90/3.2. It is very sharp and 2/3 the weight of the 80, 120, or 135. My walk around kit is 21/4, 45/3.5, and 90/3.2. I would add a new 24 if they ever make one, and the 90/2.5 could be a very pleasant surprise, but the other two new lenses are no temptation.

[flash]

On an older camera there's only really a few functional differences. The new control ring and the silence. Other than that you may as well choose an original. The 45P is quiet to shoot but noisy to focus. The new manual focus system is vastly better. 2.5 on the 55 to 2.8 on the 65 isn't much.

But on the X2D the differences are much more. Mostly, the AF is significantly faster and quieter. The zoom gets close. The 90, 30 and 21 are good, but not as good as the V lenses. The 45P vs 38/55V focus speed is night and day on the X2D. I think the 45P is one of the worst AF performers on the new camera, besides the macro. And *personally* I really like the 55 focal length on the X cameras.

The 90 is harder. I have the new lens on order, although I have no idea when it will arrive. 2023 hopefully. But I have been very pleasantly surprised by the original 90 on the X2D. Focus is actually pretty good. Not far behind the V lenses. That may not hold true if we ever get AFC but with AFS it's a really good option. The focus is a bit noisy and the shutter definitely is. There's no control ring. But the AF and IQ are just fine. More than fine for what I use the camera for.

For the X2D I usually carry the 30, 55 and 90. Sometimes the 21 and 135 replace the extremes. I'd also like a mid 20's lens. And a 110-120V lens. I use the zoom often. 80mm occasionally. But rarely the 65 and never the 45 or 45P. If I had to keep one it's be the original 45. The 38 is basically glued to my 907x and cropped to square mode. Lots of fun that combo.

Lenses are personal. But I love the X2D 55V combination and I'm building my system around it.

Gordon

[MGrayson]

As an aside, I find it very strange that we're judging lenses while ignoring their main characteristic - focal length. I don't care if a 35mm is great if I need 24mm. I don't have the 65 and 30 because I don't use those focal lengths not because of some difference in sound quality or corner sharpness.

I'm trying to imagine a photograph being mediocre, "But wait! Look at that corner sharpness!" Or conversely, "Gorgeous light and composition. Pity about the corners." We are truly cursed by the ability to zoom in. I understand that clients will want to look at close detail, so if you make a living selling images, it can be important. But these concerns weigh on us all.

I recently tried out a Mamiya 645 50mm shift lens. It had a really lovely look on the X2D - as sharp in the center as the 45/3.5. But my adapter wouldn't let it focus to infinity, and rather than trying to juggle adapters, I returned both. But I wonder. That lens looked really good. Do I care that I wasn't getting my full 100MP? Not in the slightest. I may pick up another one some day...

[jwillson]

have ever used a 45P saying it has a clunky shutter sound ?

It's by far the most silent XCD line lens, certainly quieter than a focal shutter.

I have. I owned one. In comparison to the new V series lenses, it is clunky. Compared to the original 45 and 90 that were released with the X1D? It is well damped.

[flash]

As an aside, I find it very strange that we're judging lenses while ignoring their main characteristic - focal length. I don't care if a 35mm is great if I need 24mm. I don't have the 65 and 30 because I don't use those focal lengths not because of some difference in sound quality or corner sharpness.

I'm trying to imagine a photograph being mediocre, "But wait! Look at that corner sharpness!" Or conversely, "Gorgeous light and composition. Pity about the corners." We are truly cursed by the ability to zoom in. I understand that clients will want to look at close detail, so if you make a living selling images, it can be important. But these concerns weigh on us all.

I recently tried out a Mamiya 645 50mm shift lens. It had a really lovely look on the X2D - as sharp in the center as the 45/3.5. But my adapter wouldn't let it focus to infinity, and rather than trying to juggle adapters, I returned both. But I wonder. That lens looked really good. Do I care that I wasn't getting my full 100MP? Not in the slightest. I may pick up another one some day...

I sort of agree and then don't.

1. If we're not chasing something a bit better with IQ then why even bother with the X2D? The SL2, R5, M11, A7R5 all make great images a lot faster and with more system flexibility. This is literally the system of incremental gains. Otherwise what's the point?

2. The difference between 38 and 45 isn't that big. They were the original OP choices. Both are moderate wides. There only a few steps between them.

3. I'm a 50mm (equiv) shooter. Always have been. I build ALL my systems around a 50. So I should be all over the 65 (I still have mine). But on the X2D I REALLY like the 55V. This is new to me because traditionally I haven't really liked 40-45mm lenses (24x36). It's a combination of the lens, camera, ratio etc that this lens works for me on the X2D. It's not the weight or speed. I just really feel natural with this combo. I still prefer a 50 on my SL2 or R5 or A7R3 etc. So it's entirely possible the OP may prefer something new if he hasn't yet tried it. I'm also liking the 38 on the 907x but I prefer the 30 on the X2D.

4. Now I'm settled on the 55 that also changes the rest of my lens preferences. I like a 100% spread. 24/50/100. Pretty easy with the 65. 30 and 135. Nice even spread close to 100%. Slightly over but even. With the 55 That's 27, 55 and 110. There's no 27 or 110. I need to compromise now. Will the 90 or 135 suit better the longer end? 21 or 30 on the wide? If you're looking at a *system* holistically then you may need to choose between options that don't at first, appear logical.

5. Your focal length might not exist. When the X1D came out with a 45 and 90. I had to adapt. I NEVER shoot with a 35mm (equiv). But I did until the 65 came out because there was no other option if I wanted the X1D. I got used to it but as soon as the 65 came out I reverted and never looked back. Rght now I want a 110 to match with my 55. The 120 is too slow (AF). The 90's a bit short and the 135 is a bit long. But I'll have to make a choice. I have the HC 100 and it's not what I want. And I'm not adapting to use the electronic shutter. Do I go with the 90 which has better AF (old version and new) but is really too close to the 55, or the 135 which is a better spread but bigger, heavier and slower (AF)?

But generally I agree. No point arguing about optics without first considering focal length. I advise to consider them as a system though.

Gordon

[acg69]

XCD 55V is 10x better — programmable ring, manual focus ring, DoF, metal throughout with superior metal caps.  The new line made all old lenses obsolete.

That's a pretty strong statement! It would be a weird world if an investment was made obsolete because the new, upgraded model has a superior metal cap... I do realize that the new line is indeed better for some of the reasons you mentioned, but there is something to be said about the 4/45 specifically, since it is the smallest, lightest and least expensive lens of the lineup. I have it as my only lens on the X2D and it is absolutely stellar in all ways. Granted, when I get another lens it will most likely be the new 90, but to say that all else is obsolete is probably wrong, especially given that Hasselblad itself goes to great lengths to ensure that these old lenses are available to the X system through the adaptors.

[MGrayson]

....

I sort of agree and then don't.

....
Gordon

Gordon,

I wrote a long reply that was eaten by the system. It comes down to "we use what we enjoy using, which means we like the plusses a lot and the minuses aren't so annoying as to overwhelm the plusses." Right now, the X2D with 21, 45, 90 does that for me, but I have no problem with anyone else's choices. I love the manual focus on the new lenses. It might matter enough on the 90 to upgrade. It isn't critical (for me) on anything shorter. So until the 90/2.5 arrives, I'm happy with what I've got.

Matt

[tenmangu81]

3. I'm a 50mm (equiv) shooter. Always have been. I build ALL my systems around a 50. So I should be all over the 65 (I still have mine). But on the X2D I REALLY like the 55V. This is new to me because traditionally I haven't really liked 40-45mm lenses (24x36). It's a combination of the lens, camera, ratio etc that this lens works for me on the X2D. It's not the weight or speed. I just really feel natural with this combo.

Gordon

Completely agree !! Even if I am on a X1D II.

[tenmangu81]

have ever used a 45P saying it has a clunky shutter sound ?

It's by far the most silent XCD line lens, certainly quieter than a focal shutter.

I have. I owned one. In comparison to the new V series lenses, it is clunky. Compared to the original 45 and 90 that were released with the X1D? It is well damped.

Don't agree, at least for the X1D II I am on. The 45P is more silent than the 55V (I have both). Sometimes I even wonder if my shot has been taken !!

[jwillson]

have ever used a 45P saying it has a clunky shutter sound ?

It's by far the most silent XCD line lens, certainly quieter than a focal shutter.

I have. I owned one. In comparison to the new V series lenses, it is clunky. Compared to the original 45 and 90 that were released with the X1D? It is well damped.

Don't agree, at least for the X1D II I am on. The 45P is more silent than the 55V (I have both). Sometimes I even wonder if my shot has been taken !!

Two possible explanations, then.

1) Sample variation—not all 45p's are/were the same
2) I'm biased by the shift in the X2D to EFCS—the shutter closes and then opens for each exposure rather than closing, opening, closing, and opening for each exposure as it used to with the X1Dii. That whole process was less elegant and made the picture taking seem less elegant. Perhaps in my memory I am conflating the two.
3) I'm just flat out remembering the 45p shutter sound wrong—I sold mine 18 months ago.

[6X6Miles]

Love the X2D, amazing camera, burly file that I can enlarge huge, especially when stitched which is my plan for hotel / resort and other mural clients. It's playing really well with adapted V lenses like the 100mm and 180mm CFi.
But the wider than 100mm end, that is an interesting one.

My use case for this camera is not a "walk around" that pukes out 215MB files but landscapes from the ground and air. So rendering, bokeh, how it is wide open, not my main concerns. How tiny the lens is, how fast it focuses, again, not a make or break category for me.

My number one concern is sharpness and that includes corner sharpness at working landscape apertures. I currently own two XCD lenses, the 45P which I have had since getting the 907X and the 65mm 2.8 which I acquired used about a week ago. The 45 is just amazing, I did an entire commissioned shoot in Costa Rica with it on the 907X for an interior designer. I was so happy with the images, I never pulled my backup Z7II kit out of the bag.

The 65mm is *really* sharp overall but I find it falls apart a bit in the corners at F11 onward, kind of an odd outcome for a lens that would logically have a larger image circle as a function of focal length.

Enter the new V lenses, seem ideal especially if one is less concerned with exact focal lengths. But there is so little beta on these in terms of optical performance it is kind of astounding. Even the samples on Hassy's site are not screaming "buy me".

I have the 55 on order that would logically see me getting the 38 to shift the spread a bit wider but these Leica priced lenses need to perform optically. So far I am not hearing much in terms of how they perform as landscape lenses, a genre of photography Hasselblad promotes heavily across all media channels.

I guess I will know when I see for my self.

[outside_late]

I'm really enjoying hearing everyone's preferences on lens selection, shooting!

Thanks for sharing!!!!

I'm inspired to rent some lenses to try some things I might not have tried otherwise.

[MGrayson]

My use case for this camera is not a "walk around" that pukes out 215MB files but landscapes from the ground and air.
I guess I will know when I see for my self.

As I'm the only person who used that term, I guess that jab was aimed at me. My work has never been called puking before. Well, first time for everything.

If you count cityscapes, there is every bit as much detail to be had within a mile or two of a subway stop as one could ever hope to photograph.

[6X6Miles]

My use case for this camera is not a "walk around" that pukes out 215MB files but landscapes from the ground and air.
I guess I will know when I see for my self.

As I'm the only person who used that term, I guess that jab was aimed at me. My work has never been called puking before. Well, first time for everything.

Absolutely not, I hear the term a bunch when it comes to the 38mm and 55mm lenses. The other term refers to the file size only, not the creative impact of the actual photo.

My 65mm is not bad at F11, just not as good as my 45P is so I am going to give the 55 a spin and see how it does.