Longest telephoto lens for the X2D

[xoda]

Curious what is the longest telephoto lens I can get? Don't really care if I need to use electronic shutter, as I'm only shooting static landscapes. Manual focus is fine. Corner to corner sharpness is highly desired though. Aperture pass though is a nice to have, but not a deal breaker. Basically I'm looking for something which can match Fuji's upcoming 500 5.6 lens for their GFX line up

Thanks!

[Ralf]

https://www.hasselblad.com/de-de/x-system/accessories/xh-lens-adapter

& HC 4.5/300mm

should work with leaf shutter and AF

[MGrayson]

This, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7

Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6

There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.

[Thyl]

https://www.hasselblad.com/de-de/x-system/accessories/xh-lens-adapter

& HC 4.5/300mm

should work with leaf shutter and AF

and combined with one of the available tele converters, either for HC or for XCD lenses, you will get 510 mm.

[Thyl]

just for fun, as you can't really get it, but here it is, the longest one for Hasselblad:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3865393209/zeiss1700f4

and yes, it in fact exists. I have seen one at the Photokina.

[JCM-Photos]

The XCD converter is specially designed for the XCD135.
With other adapted lenses it is too far from the lens mount and gives huge vignetting (my trials with Zeiss CF 250 SA and Mamiya C 500 RF)

But the Zeiss Mutar 2x copes very well with Zeiss CF telephoto lenses so a relatively common CF 500mm and Mutar 2X gives a nice 1000 mm tele lens.

And Zeiss CF lenses have optical corrections in Hasselblad Phocus software for all X cameras.

[JCM-Photos]

just for fun, as you can't really get it, but here it is, the longest one for Hasselblad:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3865393209/zeiss1700f4

and yes, it in fact exists. I have seen one at the Photokina.

This lens was a unique unit built by Zeiss on special order from a rich Emirates amateur.

[xoda]

This, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7

Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6

There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.

Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?

[MGrayson]

This, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7

Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6

There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.

Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?

I have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.

[xoda]

This, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7

Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6

There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.

Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?

I have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.

Curious if you could expound on that a little more? "Fine" as in it has good sharpness from corner to corner wide open like the XCD 135mm? Or fine as in acceptable, though not holding up unreasonable pixel-peeping standards?

[MGrayson]

This, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7

Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6

There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.

Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?

I have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.

Curious if you could expound on that a little more? "Fine" as in it has good sharpness from corner to corner wide open like the XCD 135mm? Or fine as in acceptable, though not holding up unreasonable pixel-peeping standards?

First of all, UGH!


Full frame. The sidewalk is about 200 yards away. f/8. Wide open is too low contrast and too much fringing.


Crop


It's sharp, but I often can't tell when I've missed focus. Not a high contrast lens.

Here's the XCD 135 + 1.7x


And same crop


I could hand hold the Mamiya 645 300/5.6 ULD and get better results than the Pentax at one fifth the weight.

In fact, I just did. This is f/5.6. Sorry about the motion blur on the walkers. Here's the same crop.



Matt

[xoda]

This, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7

Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6

There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.

Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?

I have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.

Curious if you could expound on that a little more? "Fine" as in it has good sharpness from corner to corner wide open like the XCD 135mm? Or fine as in acceptable, though not holding up unreasonable pixel-peeping standards?

First of all, UGH!

Full frame. The sidewalk is about 200 yards away. f/8. Wide open is too low contrast and too much fringing.

Crop

It's sharp, but I often can't tell when I've missed focus. Not a high contrast lens.

Here's the XCD 135 + 1.7x

And same crop

I could hand hold the Mamiya 645 300/5.6 ULD and get better results than the Pentax at one fifth the weight.

In fact, I just did. This is f/5.6. Sorry about the motion blur on the walkers. Here's the same crop.



Matt

It's bit a hard to judge from the photos. I think they're kind of average-ish sharp... but definitely not to the standards of a modern lens. Is that about right?

[MGrayson]

They're lower contrast more than (much) less sharp. But what else is there in MF at 300mm+? Wait for the Fuji, I suppose.

[grotte]

2024 Solar Eclipse out of Kerrville, TX. X1D with CF500 and 2x Teleconverter.