I recently sold off all my Fuji GFX gear, and settled on the X2D (and SL3 full frame)...I loved GFX, but became a little too boring and lugging around 20-35, 45-100 and 100-200 was not that appealing...I also struggled with their colors at times. Anyway, I need to build out a simple kit and was looking for suggestions...I already own the 55v, but not opposed to selling if needed, here are my initial thoughts
1. 28P, 55v and 75P, lightweight, but are the P lenses up to the task?
2. 38v and 75P or 90 original, could add the 21 to this as well, but think the 38v might be wide enough, could always stitch if needed
3. Or any combination of three primes up to 90mm, telephoto will be separate
4. Telephoto: the 135 + 1.7 is the obvious choice, but not sure I want to shell out $4k...I will first look at adapted lenses, I am okay with ES as this will be on a tripod mostly, somewhere in the 135 to 180 range.
I just went through your scenario too after shedding the GFX 100S II, except with the 907X/100C. It is mainly used for landscape.
I started with the 38V for a long time, the recently acquired the 25V. I just like the MF clutch on the V lens series so decided to stick with those where possible. You get what you pay for. Then I got the 135/2.8. What a lens and when combined with the 1.7x gives you so much versatility.
Just recently I got both the 55V and 90V because I decided to stick with the Hasselblad system and might acquire the X3D or whatever it will be called.
Here has been my take since I want full field of view coverage-25V=95˚;38V=70˚;55V=53˚;90V=34˚; 135=23˚; AND 135+1.7x=14˚. With the Hasselblad lineup the spread is very uniform at around 20˚.
My 2 cents.
stgrove wrote:
I just went through your scenario too after shedding the GFX 100S II, except with the 907X/100C. It is mainly used for landscape.
I started with the 38V for a long time, the recently acquired the 25V. I just like the MF clutch on the V lens series so decided to stick with those where possible. You get what you pay for. Then I got the 135/2.8. What a lens and when combined with the 1.7x gives you so much versatility.
Just recently I got both the 55V and 90V because I decided too stick with the Hasselblad system and might acquired the X3D or whatever it will be called.
Here has been my take since I want full field of view coverage-25V=95˚;38V=70˚;55V=53˚;90V=34˚; 135=23˚; AND 135+1.7x=14˚. With the Hasselblad lineup the spread is very uniform at around 20˚.
My 2 cents. ...Show more →
Hello Rod,
I spent 10 days on the road in Redwood SP/NP and southern coastal Oregon. The trip was entirely focused on landscape photography. I brought a minimum of FX mirrorless gear (17-28mm and 100-400), and a Hasselblad X1D & X1D2 50C with a 45mm P and 90mm f3.5 (original). With a focus on landscapes only, I shot 80% of my work with the two Hassy Primes. Had I included the 30mm f3.2 that I recently acquired, it would have been 90% hassy. I don't think there is a bad lens in the Hasselblad X lineup. If you do not object to the larger build of the original lenses, there are bargains to be had. My 30mm lens cost only $1250 in excellent condition without hood or box.... I don't think you could get a better wide angle at that price... or even doubled it.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
I recently sold off all my Fuji GFX gear, and settled on the X2D (and SL3 full frame)...I loved GFX, but became a little too boring and lugging around 20-35, 45-100 and 100-200 was not that appealing...I also struggled with their colors at times. Anyway, I need to build out a simple kit and was looking for suggestions...I already own the 55v, but not opposed to selling if needed, here are my initial thoughts
1. 28P, 55v and 75P, lightweight, but are the P lenses up to the task?
2. 38v and 75P or 90 original, could add the 21 to this as well, but think the 38v might be wide enough, could always stitch if needed
3. Or any combination of three primes up to 90mm, telephoto will be separate
4. Telephoto: the 135 + 1.7 is the obvious choice, but not sure I want to shell out $4k...I will first look at adapted lenses, I am okay with ES as this will be on a tripod mostly, somewhere in the 135 to 180 range.
You had a large swath of focal lengths covered with the GFX; what were your most used? Using your library catalog to see your most-used focal lengths can help point you in the right direction.
I also wouldn't dismiss the 135 without giving it a rental. In a line of great performers, it's a stand-out all-arounder.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
I loved GFX, but became a little too boring and lugging around 20-35, 45-100 and 100-200 was not that appealing
It's a tough circle to square in regards to lugging the weight around when it comes to replacing focal lengths at the extreme wide end - if that enters the equation for you. For instance, what would one replace the GF 20-35 with that would result in weight and bulk savings? The equivalent Hasselblad 20-35 is 805g and 4.6" long while the Hasselblad XCD 21mm prime is 600g and just over 4" (plus you would need to add additional primes to cover the focal range). The GF 20-35 is right in the middle at 725g and 4.4" long. With MF digital, I'm not sure if there is a way to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to bulk, weight and capability. I think you either choose to give up some capability (focal length coverage) or choose a smaller format if the goal is to shed bulk and weight. I'm curious how others view this dilemma.
freaklikeme wrote:
You had a large swath of focal lengths covered with the GFX; what were your most used? Using your library catalog to see your most-used focal lengths can help point you in the right direction.
I also wouldn't dismiss the 135 without giving it a rental. In a line of great performers, it's a stand-out all-arounder.
yeah, I didn't own the trio long enough to fully establish a proper distribution, but would say that the bulk of my shooting is in the 30 to 100mm range, weighted in the center, which is why I was thinking 28, 55 and 75, I could swap the 75 for the 90, but 75 allows me to crop if needed to make up the difference. The 25V is very tempting, but not sure it would get the use, same goes for the 135 and 1.7x. I want to solve first for the core and will go from there. My budget unlimited as my wife may want to divorce me It might make sense to sell the SL3 and consolidate to Hassy X system.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's a tough circle to square in regards to lugging the weight around when it comes to replacing focal lengths at the extreme wide end - if that enters the equation for you. For instance, what would one replace the GF 20-35 with that would result in weight and bulk savings? The equivalent Hasselblad 20-35 is 805g and 4.6" long while the Hasselblad XCD 21mm prime is 600g and just over 4" (plus you would need to add additional primes to cover the focal range). The GF 20-35 is right in the middle at 725g and 4.4" long. With MF digital, I'm not sure if there is a way to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to bulk, weight and capability. I think you either choose to give up some capability (focal length coverage) or choose a smaller format if the goal is to shed bulk and weight. I'm curious how others view this dilemma.
Yeah, I fully understand, which is why I will go with primes. This simplifies my shooting and hopefully saves weight, I am okay with cropping or stitching when needed...if I find a gap, will fill it with another prime. The 20-35 is tempting, but pricey and heavy, would rather fill that with the 21 or 25 and 38. The 38v might be a better option than the 55v.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Yeah, I fully understand, which is why I will go with primes. This simplifies my shooting and hopefully saves weight, I am okay with cropping or stitching when needed...if I find a gap, will fill it with another prime. The 20-35 is tempting, but pricey and heavy, would rather fill that with the 21 or 25 and 38. The 38v might be a better option than the 55v.
For myself, I find that whenever I use the 20-35 (GF), I'm either shooting it at 20mm or 35mm, rarely in between. Of course, it's still heavier to carry two primes at either extreme than the one zoom but in use, the camera would be more pleasant to handle.
I have the 28P, 38V, 45P, 55V, 65XCD and 75P lenses and the best of the bunch for landscape work are the 45P and 65XCD. The 65 in particular is a tremendous landscape lens with pretty much perfect corners.
Thank you, this feedback is exactly what I was looking for to help guide my purchase decisions...maybe the 38v, 55v and original 90 would make a good kit.
Fescue wrote:
I have the 75p, and I would caution you against it for primarily landscape use. The light falloff is extreme and gets pretty hard in the corners.
Its characteristics really do favor portraiture, which - in fairness to Hasselblad - is how they market it.
I would at least urge you to get your hands on some raw files to play around with first.
That caution aside, I love love love the X2D and especially when paired with the 38V.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Thank you, this feedback is exactly what I was looking for to help guide my purchase decisions...maybe the 38v, 55v and original 90 would make a good kit.
Okay, had not considered the 65, will check it out.
Ai_Print wrote:
I have the 28P, 38V, 45P, 55V, 65XCD and 75P lenses and the best of the bunch for landscape work are the 45P and 65XCD. The 65 in particular is a tremendous landscape lens with pretty much perfect corners.
Quick update: I pulled the trigger on the following to test out:
1. original 90mm f/3.2
2. Pentax 150 3.5 manual focus + adapter (recommended on another forum as a great value) $300 total
3. Hasselblad V 150 Sonnar CF f/4 + XV adapter, the 180mm had better reviews, but wanted 150mm...$700 total
4. Rogeti L bracket: wish it were black, but like the small light weight design,
I should have the Pentax 150 and 90mm today...will be a couple days on the V lens. I suspect that my preference will be the V lens.
The V lenses are great, but heavy. I have both the CF150 and 250 and SA250. The latter is stellar. That 180 is also a keeper. For occasional long use the CF350 is terrific as is the SA350.
Have fun and show us some images.
Yeah, the Pentax is super lightweight...seems that V lenses are a very good value, thoughts on the CF 150? I believe it is lighter than the X135?
stgrove wrote:
The V lenses are great, but heavy. I have both the CF150 and 250 and SA250. The latter is stellar. That 180 is also a keeper. For occasional long use the CF350 is terrific as is the SA350.
Have fun and show us some images.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Yeah, the Pentax is super lightweight...seems that V lenses are a very good value, thoughts on the CF 150? I believe it is lighter than the X135?
The Hasselblad 180 (which is a newer design) has a better reputation - at least from the film days - than the older 150.
I received the 90 3.2 and Pentax 150...the 90 is noisy and shutter sound is very annoying, is that what I should expect? The Pentax 150 is in really good condition with smooth focus ring and very light weight, the adapter is almost the same size as the lens, but not heavy.
It might make sense to sell the SL3 and consolidate to Hassy X system.