Upload & Sell: Off
Well, yes - it's indeed respectable, and better than many modern zooms.
But before praising it to much, I'd suggest actually comparing it out in reality with:
Sigma 180/3.5 APO macro (dirt cheap)
Sigma 180/2.8 OS APO macro (expensive, but still often cheaper than the HB lens)
Tamron 180/3.5 macro (also dirt cheap)
Nikon 70-200/2.8VR2 @ 180mm
Canon 70-200/2.8IS2 @ 180mm
It (the HB lens) is worse than all of the above on all accounts except vignetting (though the AF-enabled, stabilized and much better APO corrected new Sigma macro is very close at F4.0) and uniformity - roundness - of the OOF highlights. Even a zoom like the Canon 70-200/2.8IS2 can do the reverse, i.e wipe the floor with the Hasselblad @F4.0 in any handheld situation except brilliant daylight.
So no, it does not in any way "wipe the floor" with modern lenses. Anyone saying that hasn't really compared. And probably never used one in the wild, where focusing, stabilization and auto aperture in 99% (?) of all cases makes more difference for the absolute quality of your work than absolute sharpness.
I'm an alternative nutcase myself, and some of my most used lenses are adapted ones. The only ones (from the MF camp) that comes close to modern lenses in real life use for me are the Mamiya APO120/4 (the HB alternative both old and new version are reportedly as good - I've only used the older one), the Mamiya 200/2.8, and the HB/Zeiss SuperAPO series (which I've only seen and held once...). The Mamiya 150/2.8A is very, very good, but not as good as the 70-200 or the any of the Sigma 150 macros.
I recently shot the new HB150/3.2HC (3500USD) on the H4D-40. Even on its' native format it's not significantly better than a good sample of even a lowly Sigma 105/2.8 macro on the D800, except on the lowest aperture value F2.8 (F4.0 for the MF lens). Yes, we did make direct comparisons on the same scene.