The Hasselblad XCD 80mm f/1.9 Lens

[Hassels]

Anticipation... here was one of the best at it, taking one of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen, taken 87 years ago without the benefit of motor drives, autofocus, where your brain telling your finger to fire the shutter and the shutter actually firing has to occur before the instant you're seeing the moment in the viewfinder you want to photograph.


The dancers floating/suspended like the angels in a Rapheal painting and juxtaposed considering the figures on the wall behind the dancers.  I've seen this presented w/the onlookers on the right, and w/them cropped out.

He had to expect this moment, and time it perfectly w/no second chance because the moment shows up once and then is gone forever.

The completion of the process w/the camera has to initiate way before you see the final instant you want to "nail".

If you're seeing the instant you want to photograph in the viewfinder and you haven't fired the shutter, you're too late.


Be sure to click on the image to enlarge it.


https://www.wikiart.org/en/andre-kertesz/ballet-new-york-city-1938

[Hendrix_CI]

I would love to see some comparative examples of this between the 80mm and the 90mm. In my experience shooting those 2 lenses, I am not seeing that difference and the only advantage I find for the 80mm is the less than one stop max aperture advantage. There could indeed be advantages and differences, so far I have not seen them, but would be interested if you have some examples illustrating.

I can't seem to get an image to display, but I may be doing something wrong. below is a link.

80 XCD vs 90 V


Steve Hendrix/CI

The difference becomes more visible when you get a little closer to the subject with the Xcd80 so that the image frame is the same.

Ralf, did you see my comparison?


Steve Hendrix/CI

Yes, the xcd 80 shows a larger image frame.

Yes, slightly.

Regardless, whenever someone mentions visual advantages for one product over another, I like to see evidence of that (comparative examples) and rarely are they ever presented. Especially when utilizing terms like "sense of depth", "organic", "retro". I'm not doubting what you describe at all - but in order for someone to choose a lens like the 80mm XCD over a lens like the 90mm V (a nearby focal length), it is helpful to the community to present precisely what you are describing, especially in a comparative sense.

While the comparative test I shot is not an exact apples to apples framing, it's close, and I can't see anything in the images that convincingly create the attributes you describe for one over the other. I can also do some additional tests as well. I think it would be helpful for some to dig in deeper. Certainly due to the increased maximum aperture of the 80mm/1.9, there are some differences. My perspective is that so far at f/2.5 (a bit narrower aperture) and smaller, it's hard to see anything that points to a significant character difference in the 80mm.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[TimH]

I've tended to use my 80mm for remote studio portrait shoots, which can be frustrating even with a tripod and "cube." It's been worth it because it always produces a money shot if I'm patient and willing to put up with slow and missed focus.  Now that I have the 90v, I'm not sure I'll ever use the 80mm, so I'll soon be listing it. 

[Ralf]

I would love to see some comparative examples of this between the 80mm and the 90mm. In my experience shooting those 2 lenses, I am not seeing that difference and the only advantage I find for the 80mm is the less than one stop max aperture advantage. There could indeed be advantages and differences, so far I have not seen them, but would be interested if you have some examples illustrating.

I can't seem to get an image to display, but I may be doing something wrong. below is a link.

80 XCD vs 90 V


Steve Hendrix/CI

The difference becomes more visible when you get a little closer to the subject with the Xcd80 so that the image frame is the same.

Ralf, did you see my comparison?


Steve Hendrix/CI

Yes, the xcd 80 shows a larger image frame.

Yes, slightly.

Regardless, whenever someone mentions visual advantages for one product over another, I like to see evidence of that (comparative examples) and rarely are they ever presented. Especially when utilizing terms like "sense of depth", "organic", "retro". I'm not doubting what you describe at all - but in order for someone to choose a lens like the 80mm XCD over a lens like the 90mm V (a nearby focal length), it is helpful to the community to present precisely what you are describing, especially in a comparative sense.

While the comparative test I shot is not an exact apples to apples framing, it's close, and I can't see anything in the images that convincingly create the attributes you describe for one over the other. I can also do some additional tests as well. I think it would be helpful for some to dig in deeper. Certainly due to the increased maximum aperture of the 80mm/1.9, there are some differences. My perspective is that so far at f/2.5 (a bit narrower aperture) and smaller, it's hard to see anything that points to a significant character difference in the 80mm.


Steve Hendrix/CI

If you shorten the distance to the subject to create a tighter frame, this will have a positive effect on background blur. If you were to adjust your example image from the xcd 80 accordingly, it would have a  positive effect on the image's bokeh. That's exactly what I meant.

The evaluation of bokeh is subjective; everyone has to decide for themselves.

[thehotshoeproject]

80E is not far away.

Are we anywhere near? 

[niviblad]

I would love to see some comparative examples of this between the 80mm and the 90mm. In my experience shooting those 2 lenses, I am not seeing that difference and the only advantage I find for the 80mm is the less than one stop max aperture advantage. There could indeed be advantages and differences, so far I have not seen them, but would be interested if you have some examples illustrating.

I can't seem to get an image to display, but I may be doing something wrong. below is a link.

80 XCD vs 90 V


Steve Hendrix/CI

The difference becomes more visible when you get a little closer to the subject with the Xcd80 so that the image frame is the same.

Ralf, did you see my comparison?


Steve Hendrix/CI

Yes, the xcd 80 shows a larger image frame.

Yes, slightly.

Regardless, whenever someone mentions visual advantages for one product over another, I like to see evidence of that (comparative examples) and rarely are they ever presented. Especially when utilizing terms like "sense of depth", "organic", "retro". I'm not doubting what you describe at all - but in order for someone to choose a lens like the 80mm XCD over a lens like the 90mm V (a nearby focal length), it is helpful to the community to present precisely what you are describing, especially in a comparative sense.

While the comparative test I shot is not an exact apples to apples framing, it's close, and I can't see anything in the images that convincingly create the attributes you describe for one over the other. I can also do some additional tests as well. I think it would be helpful for some to dig in deeper. Certainly due to the increased maximum aperture of the 80mm/1.9, there are some differences. My perspective is that so far at f/2.5 (a bit narrower aperture) and smaller, it's hard to see anything that points to a significant character difference in the 80mm.


Steve Hendrix/CI

I've never seen one example where the hair of my subject shot with the 80 would be close to double like I can see it in examples of the 90V provided on Hasselblad website. As I said, there are a lot of cases where I believe the new V lenses can be perfectly fine to my eyes, but when it is unpleasant, I can't unsee it. However, I admit that I don't know if the same shot taken with  the 80 would result in the same effect. I doubt that frankly and I believe it it is tied to aspheric and low dispersion elements... I've also shared details of shots taken with the 75P where doubling lines are obvious. Now, I've never owned any of the V lenses so I'm not sure how often I would be bothered by that kind of, to my eyes, defects.

[niviblad]

Doubling lines everywhere with the 90V in this example taken from Hasselblad website... I've never seen that with the 65, the 80 nor the 120. I admit there are instances of doubling elements with the 65, but It's more subtle and never in important details like hair. It's also the lens I've shot the most with so, naturally, I am more aware of its flaws, which are very limited. But in a few examples of the new lenses, I've already seen too much of these « defects ».

[Hendrix_CI]

I would love to see some comparative examples of this between the 80mm and the 90mm. In my experience shooting those 2 lenses, I am not seeing that difference and the only advantage I find for the 80mm is the less than one stop max aperture advantage. There could indeed be advantages and differences, so far I have not seen them, but would be interested if you have some examples illustrating.

I can't seem to get an image to display, but I may be doing something wrong. below is a link.

80 XCD vs 90 V


Steve Hendrix/CI

The difference becomes more visible when you get a little closer to the subject with the Xcd80 so that the image frame is the same.

Ralf, did you see my comparison?


Steve Hendrix/CI

Yes, the xcd 80 shows a larger image frame.

Yes, slightly.

Regardless, whenever someone mentions visual advantages for one product over another, I like to see evidence of that (comparative examples) and rarely are they ever presented. Especially when utilizing terms like "sense of depth", "organic", "retro". I'm not doubting what you describe at all - but in order for someone to choose a lens like the 80mm XCD over a lens like the 90mm V (a nearby focal length), it is helpful to the community to present precisely what you are describing, especially in a comparative sense.

While the comparative test I shot is not an exact apples to apples framing, it's close, and I can't see anything in the images that convincingly create the attributes you describe for one over the other. I can also do some additional tests as well. I think it would be helpful for some to dig in deeper. Certainly due to the increased maximum aperture of the 80mm/1.9, there are some differences. My perspective is that so far at f/2.5 (a bit narrower aperture) and smaller, it's hard to see anything that points to a significant character difference in the 80mm.


Steve Hendrix/CI

If you shorten the distance to the subject to create a tighter frame, this will have a positive effect on background blur. If you were to adjust your example image from the xcd 80 accordingly, it would have a  positive effect on the image's bokeh. That's exactly what I meant.

The evaluation of bokeh is subjective; everyone has to decide for themselves.

Yes, I understand that.

I guess I will produce some identically framed comparative shots myself since I happen to have both lenses. Maybe I can also get in some single and double hair shots. We'll see.

With regard to the bokeh, my questioning was only based on the descriptives that had been posted - out of focus areas having a retro look and color appearing more organic. I'm not sure what a retro look for out of focus might be, but I have not seen any real difference that points to the 80/1.9 (vs the 90/2.5V) having more organic color. Naturally, another 2/3 stop aperture will yield an extended sense of depth as there would be less subject matter in focus, but whether this occurs at the same aperture as another lens, I've seen no evidence of.

I'm not trying to stick on this point, I just like to clarify comparative descriptions with real world examples, as I strongly feel that authentically helps those who might be considering these lenses.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[Hendrix_CI]

Doubling lines everywhere with the 90V in this example taken from Hasselblad website... I've never seen that with the 65, the 80 nor the 120. I admit there are instances of doubling elements with the 65, but It's more subtle and never in important details like hair. It's also the lens I've shot the most with so, naturally, I am more aware of its flaws, which are very limited. But in a few examples of the new lenses, I've already seen too much of these « defects ».

I have some results from a quick hair test yesterday between 80/1.9 and 90/2.5. Can someone guide me on how to upload or link? I see "Insert Image" and "Insert Link". There is no direct attachment option? I also tried inserting an image link, and it did not display the image. Help?

Sorry for coming across like a luddite.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[niviblad]

I'm not good at this and usually post from my phone but the only way I know to do this is not doing a quick reply but a normal one. Under the text zone you'll find a link to attach files. Image size and definition are limited so you can't post a full photo. Hope this helps.

[MGrayson]

Steve,

I upload images to Flickr. This is a pasted link to one such. Just pasted - no selected formatting. XCD 25/2.5 😎



It's the "BBCode" export and looks like this (spaces inserted to prevent rendering).
 
[ url="https://www.flickr.com/gp/131284125@N08/3962m32V0k"][ img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54492917825_d03e057b1f_b.jpg[/img][/url]

Matt

[Hendrix_CI]

Thanks Matt. I don't use Flickr, I have an old site that I have not updated for some time. But I uploaded to a folder there and tried to use that link. I tried both "Insert Image" and "Insert URL" with no success, it just shows the link, doesn't display an image. I'm not sure what I am doing wrong.

Anyway - for those interested to see if the 90mm/2.5 V exhibits an issue with hair that the 80mm/1.9 XCD lens does not, below is a link from my test. These were at f/2.4 and f/2.5, respectively. I'm not sure I am seeing a unique issue with capturing hair specific to the 90mm that the 80mm does not also exhibit.

https://www.stevehendrixphotos.com/galleries/tests/59608805-76152-photo-0


Steve Hendrix/CI

[MGrayson]

Oh, I think I see how the double hair effect can occur in an otherwise optically perfect lens. We talk about sharpness, DoF, CA, distortion - all the standard lens measures, but "quality of bokeh" is difficult to quantify.

This is not a mysterious and vague notion. I mean the actual shape of a specular highlight at some distance from the plane of focus. Focal length, aperture, focus distance, distance from plane of focus, and position in the frame all affect this, but let's look a particular strand of hair.

Here it is in focus and the bokeh is a small dot.


If the hair is out of focus, bokeh will ideally be a uniform disk. And the hair will be a blurred ... hair.


But sometimes, the bokeh is a bit hard edged - not donut bokeh, but the edge of the disk is a bit brighter (in my case, darker). The effect can be quite strong on highlights. Let's see what happens:


Double hair!

Maybe everyone knew this already, but the phenomenon was confusing me.

Matt

[Hendrix_CI]

Thanks Matt. Yes, that makes sense on the double hair explanation, my emphasis was on the statement that was made which indicated that the 90/2.5 V lens was susceptible to this, while other lenses (like the 80mm) were not.

I now realize that (thanks Nick!) if you click the Reply button, you have an ability to drag a file to attach, rather than use a URL link (which for some reason was not working for me). So here below are the results from my test of the 80mm and 90mm with regard to hair. 80mm is on the left at f/2.4 and 90mm is on the right at f/2.5.


Steve Hendrix/CI

You cannot view this attachment.

[MGrayson]

Thanks Matt. Yes, that makes sense on the double hair explanation, my emphasis was on the statement that was made which indicated that the 90/2.5 V lens was susceptible to this, while other lenses (like the 80mm) were not.

I now realize that (thanks Nick!) if you click the Reply button, you have an ability to drag a file to attach, rather than use a URL link (which for some reason was not working for me). So here below are the results from my test of the 80mm and 90mm with regard to hair. 80mm is on the left at f/2.4 and 90mm is on the right at f/2.5.


Steve Hendrix/CI

You cannot view this attachment.

Steve,

I agree with your assessment of the two images. I was just (as usual) thread-jacking into possible mathematical models for the observed behavior. 

Matt