Just wondering how you are liking this lens. Part of me is tempted to swap the S1R + 24-90 for an X2D + 35-100 for a travel landscape setup, but I am wondering if this lens is as well corrected and capable as the Leica one. The kit would weigh 300-400g less and have theoretically better IQ which is a win-win...
Just wondering how you are liking this lens. Part of me is tempted to swap the S1R + 24-90 for an X2D + 35-100 for a travel landscape setup, but I am wondering if this lens is as well corrected and capable as the Leica one. The kit would weigh 300-400g less and have theoretically better IQ which is a win-win...
I can’t speak to the 24-90, but the 35-100 is a very capable trave/landscape lens. I have found out really quick in Hasselblad land, copy variation has seemed to vary much more than I expected. I bought my 35-100 second hand, I think it’s extremely sharp even wide open out to the edges/corners. It was sharper than my 38V but slightly behind my 55V, of which I think I have an excellent copy of. My 90V was clearly superior, even wide open, compared to the 35-100. I’ve seen people mention it takes the place of all V primes, I would say it is probably 90% there optically, but for convenience sure. I haven’t used the 65 or 75 personally, but from all reports I’ve seen they are also superior optically.
There is no getting around it, the 35-100 is a LARGE lens. For travel/landscape, not a problem but it certainly isn’t a walk around town type of lens. I am going out to Western US next month, plan on taking just the 20-35 and 35-100 for the X2D II. Don’t get me wrong, they are more than good enough, they are excellent lenses, just don’t expect the 35-100 to match a good copy of the 90V or 65
Just wondering how you are liking this lens. Part of me is tempted to swap the S1R + 24-90 for an X2D + 35-100 for a travel landscape setup, but I am wondering if this lens is as well corrected and capable as the Leica one. The kit would weigh 300-400g less and have theoretically better IQ which is a win-win...
I love my 35-100 on the X2D II. The lens is larger (as is the 24-90) but the images I get from it are worth the size and weight.
Thanks guys. I may have to take a closer look at this option. The 24-90 has a wider range obviously but I rarely go all the way to 24 and on the long end you can certainly crop the Hassy output to get some extra reach.
And yeah, I get the 35-100 is a large lens, but the 24-90 is even worse. 1140g for that one vs the 894 (I think it was) for the 35-100. Physical dimensions seem to be virtually identical. And the X2D is a bit lighter than the S1/S1R bodies.
Have been lugging around two S1(R) bodies for the past trips, but realised that in my 30 years of shooting I have had ZERO equipment failures in the field so maybe I don't really need to fret over having a backup body with me at all times. I have Leica and M43 systems as well so could easily pack an OM-1 + 12-45 or M + a couple of lenses as an "emergency kit" if the main rig should have issues. So it's a way of downsizing/focusing a bit, something that has been increasingly appealing to me in the past year or two in life overall. Just fewer, high quality items in life instead of a hodgepodge of "stuff".
I recently decided to sell my Leica L 24-90 which I considered the main reason to keep the SL3 and SL3S, after getting the 35-100 Even though I have the 25V, 38V, 55V and 90V, I like the zoom feature so much, like I did on the SL system, it was the only lens other than my 135 I have taken on my current trip to CO.
I must say I have not missed any XCD lens on this trip and most of it required hiking in 1-2 feet of snow to each composition wanted. I can see having a 20-35, but for me when I want wide the 25 suffices.
All this said I will not process my images in final form until back home early March, so is my copy good? I cannot say, but looking at images on camera they are fine for me.
pingflood wrote:
I have had ZERO equipment failures in the field so maybe I don't really need to fret over having a backup body with me at all times.
And you can always use your phone as a last resort backup: you would be outside of your comfort zone but it pushes to be creative.
pingflood wrote:
I have Leica and M43 systems
If I want the smallest possible backup, a GM1 or GM5 with the 12-32 zoom of some pancake primes is small enough to fit in a pocket.
And I've shot good pictures with it, very close to much higher-end gear once printed.
The fact that Hassy made this lens roughly the same size and weight as the best full frame 24-70/2.8 options is rather remarkable.
Of course, those lenses are internal zooms compared to the erogenous Hassy that just grows and grows, but the fact remains that this is one of, if not THE most useful medium format zooms available in a decently small package...for what it is.
I'm not on the fence any longer and have canceled my order for the 37-100E with B&H.
I just don't need it and since I own all of the primes that cover that distance AND they are sharper and most better F-stops wide open, etc., I will use the primes quite happily. And it is somewhat heavy, and with the protruding lens part, I don't like or need that either. If I eventually change my mind, I can get it and it might actually be available.
I did pick up a copy of the XCD 135mm lens, which I am glad to have. I also came across a couple reviewers who like the35-200 E lens but are going back to their primes. I echo that.
I don’t understand from your post how you conclude that there is significant copy variation in Hassie lenses. That statement usually means that five copies of the same lens perform differently. You are comparing behavior of a zoom, at different focal lengths, to primes in that range. That has nothing to do with copy variation.
A YouTuber stating that - to their standard - a zoom could replace their primes does not mean you would conclude the same.
What am I missing?
Jim rsolti13 wrote:
I can’t speak to the 24-90, but the 35-100 is a very capable trave/landscape lens. I have found out really quick in Hasselblad land, copy variation has seemed to vary much more than I expected. I bought my 35-100 second hand, I think it’s extremely sharp even wide open out to the edges/corners. It was sharper than my 38V but slightly behind my 55V, of which I think I have an excellent copy of. My 90V was clearly superior, even wide open, compared to the 35-100. I’ve seen people mention it takes the place of all V primes, I would say it is probably 90% there optically, but for convenience sure. I haven’t used the 65 or 75 personally, but from all reports I’ve seen they are also superior optically.
There is no getting around it, the 35-100 is a LARGE lens. For travel/landscape, not a problem but it certainly isn’t a walk around town type of lens. I am going out to Western US next month, plan on taking just the 20-35 and 35-100 for the X2D II. Don’t get me wrong, they are more than good enough, they are excellent lenses, just don’t expect the 35-100 to match a good copy of the 90V or 65...Show more →
Grenache wrote:
I don’t understand from your post how you conclude that there is significant copy variation in Hassie lenses. That statement usually means that five copies of the same lens perform differently. You are comparing behavior of a zoom, at different focal lengths, to primes in that range. That has nothing to do with copy variation.
A YouTuber stating that - to their standard - a zoom could replace their primes does not mean you would conclude the same.
What am I missing?
Jim
Saying something totally different, Jim. I’ve had two 20-35 zooms, they performed TOTALLY different. If I stayed with my first copy I would have argued with anyone that lens was trash. They were both sharp in the center but one copy got very soft in the mid zone and towards the edges. Not necessarily not centered, they both performed very differently. Both brand new. From reviews I’ve seen I didn’t think that was normal character so tried another copy, glad I did because that lens is excellent and exactly as expected
I’ve had two different 28Ps, one was much sharper than the other.
I know someone else that has had three 55Vs where one wasn’t centered and the other two copies one was much sharper across the frame than the other
The 35-100 has already become my main HB lens. Occasionally I'll go out with a 55V or 28,55,90 set but the zoom doesn't really lose anything to these and gains versatility.
I can't perceive any detail differences to my 35-75 although the 35-75 seems to be a bit more *crunchy* in the way it draws. However the new zoom is longer lighter and faster than the old one.
My next two trips will have the 35-100 as my main lens. Unless HB make a 100-xxx telezoom I'll pair it with a GFX and the 100-200 and the 500mm. I suppose I could also use the 135 and TC. That and a 20-35 meet 90% of my travel needs unless I'm shooting wildlife.
@flash
You brought up an important point for me since I went on this last trip with a pulled loin muscle and had to limit my weight especially since I was going to be walking in 2+ feet of snow for one week straight even though the second week was going to be much easier.
So I decided to carry the 35-100 and leave my 135+TC in my roller bag. In fact I only used the 35-100 in the snow and found I never missed my 38V, 55V and 90V lenses. Only on 2 occasions did I miss my 25V since walking would have required much too much effort in my current condition. In the shot above I used my 135 and 135+1.7x for a few captures.
The 35-100E is a perfect lens for my work. I don't really notice the size, a Hasselblad has always been a bit of a challenge ergonomically, but well worth the slight extra effort. I'm hoping the next "E" lens is a 100-200E +-.
The combination of the large sensor and the quality of the 35-105E allows for so many compositional options. I've thought about the 135, but I guess with just a slight crop, I get the same effect and retain the flexibility of a zoom.........
JWilsonphoto wrote:
The combination of the large sensor and the quality of the 35-105E allows for so many compositional options. I've thought about the 135, but I guess with just a slight crop, I get the same effect and retain the flexibility of a zoom.........
I like this photo, but it very much seems like it could have been taken with pretty much any full frame and decent zoom. What are you finding uniquely helpful about the Hasselblad for shots such as these?
There isn’t a way to evaluate the advantage the Hasselblad brings to the table via an image posted online obviously. What pushed me over the edge to invest in the camera was the dynamic range that I saw when I shot with the demo camera. The color science, stabilization and, of course the image size are all icing on the cake for me.
You bring up a great point, my R5II’s do a great job. My clients probably would never know the difference, and certainly would never complain, but we all really shoot for ourselves and for me, the X2DIi moves the needle far enough to justify the investment.
