Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
JimKasson wrote:
All the HC lenses I've tested work fine for coverage (as you'd expect), except that I've not been able to get the Fuji adapter to fire the leaf shutters. I have yet to find an HC lens that is up to the resolution of the native GFX glass or adapted Zeiss lenses.
I have not tested the three HC lenses that you have.
I have tested the V-mount 250/5.6 SA, and it is pretty sharp, but difficult to use. The V-mount 500/8 Apo is soft. I didn't even bother to put the results on the web site. You'd be far better off with a Nikon 400/2.8 on an a7RII, or even a D810.
To be fair, the HC lenses were made to cover a larger format, and the V-mount lenses were intended for a much larger one.
Jim
...Show more →
Hi Jim,
As usual you did very thorough testing. Thanks for these tests and all that you have done on your excellent blog. If I remember rightly you tested the HC 35 f/3.5; the HC 80 f/2.8; and the HC 150 f/3.2. I don't have the HC adapter yet, but Fuji does claim it fires the leaf shutter on HC lenses, which is obviously at odds with what you found. In my view, Fuji has an obligation to get that adapter working with HC lenses. Unfortunately for me, they never claimed it would work with the HC to CF adapter that I am hoping will work, so I took a risk on that I know.
With regard to the HC lenses, my own attempts to examine photos and the MTF graphs at Hasselblad led me to shy away from the HC 35 f/3.5. I think it is the worst of the HC lenses as far as I can tell. I think the 80 f/2.8 isn't really anything special either other than it is quite small. I was tempted by the 150 f/3.2 as a portrait lens, but in the end I went with the CF 180 f/4 which I think will ultimately be better if I can use it with its leaf shutter, and I am also getting the Mamiya 200 f/2.8 APO, which I know is an excellent lens, so I passed on the HC 150. Based on samples and the MTFs I have hopes that the HCD 24 f/4.8 will be an excellent wide solution. I also love the rendering of the 100 f/2.2, which reminds me a lot of the Leica M 75 summilux including it dual nature of being a bit soft and dreamy wide open, but getting quite sharp when stopped down. The 300 f/4.5 I am hoping will be a long portrait solution, but we will see. Of the three HC lenses I got, this is the one that worries me the most about living up to my expectations. For my own use I want HC 100 and 300 primarily for portraits, so I care more about rendering than overall sharpness. I do very much want the leaf shutter to work, however. The HC 24, however, I am hoping will be a good landscape lens, so that one better be sharp or I will be disappointed.
I am not surprised the C (variants) of the 250 f/5.6 superachromat would be very sharp. The MTF graphs and the samples suggest that to be true. Neither am I surprised that the CF 500 f/8 APO didn't work that well. That lens is certainly better than C non-APO lens, but both the MTF graphs and the samples have always left me uninspired. The lens I would really like for long landscapes would be the CFE 350 f/5.6 superachromat, but that is in a whole different price category and I don't want to spend what that lens costs. And then there is the 300 f/2.8 superachromat with the matching 1.7 adapter, but that lens might as well be a myth and comes at a price that seems only fitting for very wealthy collectors. I am impressed by these long lenses but I am not sure any of them are realistic options. They really aren't for me.
|
