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

Quote from: MGrayson on Today at 07:25:35 AM

Quote from: xoda on Today at 06:16:55 AM

Quote from: MGrayson on May 03, 2024, 09:47:12 PM

Quote from: xoda on May 03, 2024, 07:51:21 PM

Quote from: MGrayson on May 02, 2024, 06:44:14 AMThis, 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?

Quote from: xoda on Today at 06:16:55 AM

Quote from: MGrayson on May 03, 2024, 09:47:12 PM

Quote from: xoda on May 03, 2024, 07:51:21 PM

Quote from: MGrayson on May 02, 2024, 06:44:14 AMThis, 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

Quote from: MGrayson on May 03, 2024, 09:47:12 PM

Quote from: xoda on May 03, 2024, 07:51:21 PM

Quote from: MGrayson on May 02, 2024, 06:44:14 AMThis, 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?

Besides the well-known issue of scan times, are there other significant drawbacks to using the electronic shutter on the X2D?

I know for some cameras, such as Canon FF cameras, the ES has worse dynamic range, and this poster from reddit clear thinks the X2D does as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/hasselblad/comments/1c48ou0/can_someone_help_explain_the_electronic_shutter/

But a 1-stop degradation would be rather dramatic. And Jim Kasson's test didn't reveal any major differences: https://blog.kasson.com/x2d/hasselblad-x2d-100c-edr-vs-iso/

So I was wondering if people here noticed anything noteworthy when using the X2D?

Quote from: Ralf on Today at 03:15:11 AMThe "Focus on infinity" function works with the 4/21, 2.5/38 & 1.9/80 lenses.

I could only imagine using this function for astrophotography (which I don't actually do yet), and for that the 3.5/45 would be my last choice anyway.

The Hasselblad service will probably be able to explain why focus on infinity doesn't work with the 3.5/45.

I wonder what is this feature for anyways? I can't imagine it's actually mainly for astro-photography... and why those specific lenses? I had suspected it may only be supported on the new V-series lenses...

Quote from: Helwin on Today at 04:24:53 AM

Quote from: Ralf on Today at 03:15:11 AMThe "Focus on infinity" function works with the 4/21, 2.5/38 & 1.9/80 lenses.

Did you test them all or how do you know?

Yes, I tested the lenses mentioned on my X2D.

Quote from: Ralf on Today at 03:15:11 AMThe "Focus on infinity" function works with the 4/21, 2.5/38 & 1.9/80 lenses.

Did you test them all or how do you know?

The "Focus on infinity" function works with the 4/21, 2.5/38 & 1.9/80 lenses.

I could only imagine using this function for astrophotography (which I don't actually do yet), and for that the 3.5/45 would be my last choice anyway.

The Hasselblad service will probably be able to explain why focus on infinity doesn't work with the 3.5/45.

Hmm...My XCD 90 only does "drive to near limit". My XCD 45P does both near and infinity limit. Sigh...