Summary of current Hasselblad XCD lens ranges

[colonel]

Hi, I am new to the Hasselblad universe and am currently shooting with a XCD 45mm f3.5 and x1d ii. This combination is sublime and I can't fault the lens. It is one of the best lens I have every used, albeit with an AF speed and shutter noise slightly higher then I am used to. Although the AF is far superior to my M10 

I was looking at the lenses in general across the range and deciding my next step

Longer lens will either be 55mm f2.5 or 65mm f2.8
Shorter lens will either be 28mm f4 or 30mm f3.5

I have been reading extensively about the lenses, both from users and from reviews

I am postulating the following rough round up given that in general, all these lenses are excellent, and the differences are more design trade offs and mechanical.

There are broadly three range designs: P, V and original (mostly 3.5, but with 3.2, 1.9, 4, 2.8, 3.5) - using the original label as I couldn't think of any other.

The P range (namely 28P and 45p) are the lightest and cheapest. They have the slowest autofocus (although the 28 is faster) and the least sharp (again, still very sharp, just the nuance of comparison). Their corners are not the sharpest in the range. There is some report of their colours and micro-contrast also being slightly behind the other lenses. Again, all of this is slight.

The V range are the quietest with the fastest AF of the range when paired with the x2d. They are all very sharp in the centre. I have read that they are not so sharp in the corners.

The original range are the sharpest corner to corner. Their AF speed is between the P and V. Their shutters tend to be the most noisy.

All of the above makes sense in terms of price, and newness. It also kind of justifies all of them being in the range. I think there are trade-offs but not substitutes.

With this assumption, I would tend to want to go for the 30mm f3.5 and 55mm f2.5 as my next lenses. However the 65mm FL would be better for me then the 55mm, I am not sure if the weight of the 65mm works for me as a walk about.

What is your experience ?

[tenmangu81]

Some X1D II and CFV50 users observed magenta casts with the 28P, but not all. In that case, an LCCwas needed to compensate the cast.
The XCD65 f/2.8 is one of the best XCD lenses. However, it is rather heavy, and I bought the 55V and am using it rather than the XCD65.
The 45P is very good (I have one), very light, and seems better than the 28P. The XCD45 f/3.5 is better, however.
Generally speaking, it is recognized that the legacy XCD lenses are better than the V and the P series, but heavier.

[Patrick CM]

 sold the 45p in favour of the 38V and 55V. I have the 4/21 and the 90V too, so my 'set' is complete. The V lenses are designed for the X2D sensor. Additionally I do like the way one can push the focus ring forward to switch to AF.

[polychloros]

I've seen good and less than good work done with all of the XCD lenses. I don't think any of the lenses will be the limiting factor when it comes to fine photographs so I wouldn't get too hung up on the differences other than practical ones (weight and size). That said, the 28P is one that might be slightly compromised by the standards of the system. Hasselblad themselves market it quite specifically as "ideal for street photography" and there are conflicting reports about colour casts with the 50MP sensor and corner sharpness, etc. I might end up buying this lens but only after renting it first. I think you are based in London – why not rent the lenses you are interested in? The Pro Centre and (I think) Wex/Fixation have XCD lenses available for rental at quite modest cost.

[Usm]

However the 65mm FL would be better for me then the 55mm, I am not sure if the weight of the 65mm works for me as a walk about.

I'm selling a nice 65mm because it's not my length, I'm more for the wide one.
The XCD65 is cheaper and sharper than the 55v.
Check the selling category.

[SMurphy]

I was looking at the lenses in general across the range and deciding my next step

Longer lens will either be 55mm f2.5 or 65mm f2.8
Shorter lens will either be 28mm f4 or 30mm f3.5

I recently weighed the same decision and chose both legacy lenses.

As primarily an urban and architecture photographer who enjoys travel, I considered the three Ps:

• Performance: for my style of shooting, I value edge to edge sharpness over autofocus speed (so long as it is accurate) 
• Portability: no question that the newer lenses are smaller and lighter ( less than half the weight in each case )
• Price: I bought lightly used copies from my dealer, so paid about $800 USD more for the 30mm than I would have paid for a new 28mm, and $2000 USD less for the 65mm than a new 55mm

If I were more a pure street shooter, I would've valued the newer lens' focus speed, quiet shutter, and lower weight more than corner performance on the older lenses. 

I've carried the 65mm as a walkabout on the X2D with a cuff wrist strap and felt the weight become uncomfortable after about an hour.  I haven't been out with it yet using a full length strap over a shoulder, but feel this would be the better method. 

Depending on your style of shooting, minimum focus distance may be another factor to consider.  While the 55mm and 65mm perform about the same (max scale 1:6.4 and 1:5.4, respectively) the 28mm focuses much closer than the 30mm (1:6.0 vs 1:9.6).

As polychloros suggests, I'd recommend a short-term rental as a wise investment towards making the best decision for your specific needs.

Hope this helps,
Scott.

[bmikiten]

Hi, I am new to the Hasselblad universe and am currently shooting with a XCD 45mm f3.5 and x1d ii. This combination is sublime and I can't fault the lens. It is one of the best lens I have every used, albeit with an AF speed and shutter noise slightly higher then I am used to. Although the AF is far superior to my M10 

I was looking at the lenses in general across the range and deciding my next step

Longer lens will either be 55mm f2.5 or 65mm f2.8
Shorter lens will either be 28mm f4 or 30mm f3.5

I have been reading extensively about the lenses, both from users and from reviews

I am postulating the following rough round up given that in general, all these lenses are excellent, and the differences are more design trade offs and mechanical.

There are broadly three range designs: P, V and original (mostly 3.5, but with 3.2, 1.9, 4, 2.8, 3.5) - using the original label as I couldn't think of any other.

The P range (namely 28P and 45p) are the lightest and cheapest. They have the slowest autofocus (although the 28 is faster) and the least sharp (again, still very sharp, just the nuance of comparison). Their corners are not the sharpest in the range. There is some report of their colours and micro-contrast also being slightly behind the other lenses. Again, all of this is slight.

The V range are the quietest with the fastest AF of the range when paired with the x2d. They are all very sharp in the centre. I have read that they are not so sharp in the corners.

The original range are the sharpest corner to corner. Their AF speed is between the P and V. Their shutters tend to be the most noisy.

All of the above makes sense in terms of price, and newness. It also kind of justifies all of them being in the range. I think there are trade-offs but not substitutes.

With this assumption, I would tend to want to go for the 30mm f3.5 and 55mm f2.5 as my next lenses. However the 65mm FL would be better for me then the 55mm, I am not sure if the weight of the 65mm works for me as a walk about.

What is your experience ?

You don't really say what you'll be doing with the lenses or what type of photography you enjoy. I have the 21mm, the zoom, the 90mm (not the new one) and the 135 w/1.7. I shoot landscape and urbanscapes and rarely any people. That covers everything I do. The lenses are all a bit heavy but I use a tripod most of the time so that isn't an issue. Do you hike? All of this with extra batteries and some other accessories all fits in a 30L bag. There is a point where you just have to rent or borrow the lens and test it instead of worrying about what others say or what the specs show. (I'm an engineer so that was tough for me to say)

[colonel]

You don't really say what you'll be doing with the lenses or what type of photography you enjoy. I have the 21mm, the zoom, the 90mm (not the new one) and the 135 w/1.7. I shoot landscape and urbanscapes and rarely any people. That covers everything I do. The lenses are all a bit heavy but I use a tripod most of the time so that isn't an issue. Do you hike? All of this with extra batteries and some other accessories all fits in a 30L bag. There is a point where you just have to rent or borrow the lens and test it instead of worrying about what others say or what the specs show. (I'm an engineer so that was tough for me to say)

Mostly urban and travel, so almost the opposite of your list. In FF terms I use 35mm a lot and work almost exclusively between 20 and 50.

So for me, 28/30, 45 and 55/65 would be good combination.

[AndrewM]

Have you considered the 35-75mm zoom in the mix?

I have the 28p, the zoom and the 135mm with 1.7x. Great mix for travel with the X2d. I shoot landscape and urban.

The zoom maybe heavy, but for travel, there's less lens changing and potential for dirt ingress. Plus it's as sharp as any prime.

hope this helps..A

[bmikiten]

You don't really say what you'll be doing with the lenses or what type of photography you enjoy. I have the 21mm, the zoom, the 90mm (not the new one) and the 135 w/1.7. I shoot landscape and urbanscapes and rarely any people. That covers everything I do. The lenses are all a bit heavy but I use a tripod most of the time so that isn't an issue. Do you hike? All of this with extra batteries and some other accessories all fits in a 30L bag. There is a point where you just have to rent or borrow the lens and test it instead of worrying about what others say or what the specs show. (I'm an engineer so that was tough for me to say)

Mostly urban and travel, so almost the opposite of your list. In FF terms I use 35mm a lot and work almost exclusively between 20 and 50.

So for me, 28/30, 45 and 55/65 would be good combination.

Consider renting or borrowing a zoom. They are sharp and incredibly flexible. That is my standard walk-around lens.

[JCM-Photos]

IMO 55 is too close to 45 when you already own the 45 and intend continuing using it.

[ashdown]

How things change. Anyone who thinks the little 65mm is heavy should try carrying around an H body with the 50-110 zoom for a day!

[Georg Kovalcik]

...
The P range (namely 28P and 45p) are the lightest and cheapest. They have the slowest autofocus (although the 28 is faster) and the least sharp (again, still very sharp, just the nuance of comparison). Their corners are not the sharpest in the range.
...

That´s true only for the 28P which is nowhere as good optically as the XCD30 (which is outstanding), but then it´s half the weight and half the price, so probably ok depending on priorities.
The 45P is excellent, absolutely on par with the other XCD lenses and it is better optically at f/4 than the 55V at f/5.6, which is a bit of a disappointing result for the 55V at four times the price.