p.1 #1 · Hasselblad XCD 135mm with the X1.7 adapter
As regards the Hasselblad XCD 135mm with X1.7 adapter. I have had two copies of this, both good, yet I have to report that as good as the X1.7 adapter is, to my eyes I see too much difference in lens IQ between that photos with and without that adapter. Yes, I understand that many see little difference, but I differ from that and very clearly see a difference not only in diminished light, of course, but also in finished quality, enough that I would only use the adapter if I had to, but not on any subject that did not demand it.
I find the XCD 135 by itself, with no adapter, is quite remarkable, with the adapter there is more loss of sharpness than I can tolerate.
This shot without the Z1.7 adapter at F12. Very sharp.
p.1 #2 · Hasselblad XCD 135mm with the X1.7 adapter
That's true of any extender. The bare lens is always going to be a better performer. The point of the extender is that it's a better way to 229mm-ish than cropping when you can't get close enough to make the 135 work.
p.1 #3 · Hasselblad XCD 135mm with the X1.7 adapter
That's true of course. Yet the reputation is that the extender is practically perfect. Unfortuantely, I did not find that true. I could have saved a bunch by not buying the extendedr but I probably will use it when I have to, so I have it. Yet, the XCD 135 by itself is something I will use all the time.
p.1 #4 · Hasselblad XCD 135mm with the X1.7 adapter
I think it all needs to be considered in context, no extender is (or can be) perfect, by the laws of optics.
I'm sure you haven't had the experience of a perfect teleconverter on another system/lens.
MichaelErlewine wrote:
That's true of course. Yet the reputation is that the extender is practically perfect. Unfortuantely, I did not find that true. I could have saved a bunch by not buying the extendedr but I probably will use it when I have to, so I have it. Yet, the XCD 135 by itself is something I will use all the time.
p.1 #5 · Hasselblad XCD 135mm with the X1.7 adapter
Is there a difference between near/far distances with the adapter? Ie, is the adapter mainly aimed at landscape, distand portrait/wildlife vs close-up?
Just asking out of curiosity, I do not have an X system.
