Hassleblad XCD Lens Kit for Outdoors

[Michael Erlewine]

If I’m looking for lenses I want to carry with me in the field, I get practical fast. I’m not even talking about hiking real distance, but just what I want to have in the car and available at stops I make.

I tried a couple of Hasselblad’s new “V” lenses, the XCD 55mm and the XCD 28mm. Yes, I see that these are compact, light lenses, perfect for portability, yet IMO (and I am sorry to report this), whatever we can agree they cut corners on, I did not like the end results.

I know that many will not agree, and I understand. However, if I am just looking at color and the images that result, I get better images out of the older XCD lenses, as heavy and clunky as they are.

I would rather drag around the earlier XCD lenses, clunkers, bulky, and heavy as they are, at least the ones I have used. And having checked out the MTF graphics for the other “V” lenses, I just can’t (or won’t) use them. The new 75mm “V” lens may be an exception, but I have not decided yet about that lens.

I’m not going to get better bokeh out of any XCD lens other than the XCD 80mm f/1.9 lens. Period, end of story. So that lens is in my kit even though it is heavy, large, and clunky. No way around it and I love it.

The new XCD 20mm-35mm F/3.2-4.5 Zoom lens is superior in almost all ways, 12” minimum focus, and as good as the primes. It is on my X2D most of the time, at least when I am not in the studio

Another XCD lens that is a top performer, at least on the MTF charts, is the classic XCD 30mm f/3.5 lens. Yes, it is old-style, a little heavy, etc. yet I am NOT using it, although it is wicked sharp.

Yes, I am taking instead the XCD 65mm f/2.8, why” Because it is also very sharp and the f/2.8 turns out to be what I need to get the correct bokeh more often.

XCD 20mm-35mm F/3.2-4.5 Zoom
XCD 80 f/1.9
XCD 65mm f/2.8

The above three lens I have to have with me.

Now, another lens I might as well carry, although it too is large, heavy, and clunky is the XCD 120mm f/3.5 Macro lens. If I need to get in really close, there is nothing better, other than to use the new 9mm extension tube on one of the others, like the XCD 30mm or XCD 65mm lens.

I have tried carrying the XCD 135mm with the 1.7x tele, but enough acuity is lost with the tele that I can’t use it. And it is so big that I will use the XCD 80m lens instead. It hurts to leave it home, and I am still thinking about it, but also not bringing it. The 135mm (with or without the tele) is fine for relatively closeup shots, but for long distance, I can’t use that combination.

I also have the wonderful XCD 21mm f/3.5, but the new XCD 20mm-35mm Zoom is all-around better, although the XCD 21mm has a special character that should not be ignored, but I’m ignoring it anyway.

And the two XCD 45mm (f/4 and f/3.5) I am still up in the air about, but so far, I’m leaving them at home.

As I look this over, it is obvious that a fast lens (wide f-stop) is the key to my photography. I need that narrow depth of field to isolate key focal points and also to throw the background into meaningful bokeh, thus the accent on the XCD 80mm and XCD 65mm with their larger apertures.

So, that’s my run-down on a Hasselblad XCD kit that I take with me in the car.

[ColinM]

Thanks for sharing your experiences of this Michael.

You'll remember some people have commented how hard it can be to appreciate the levels of quality & performance you're working with, when we only see the end results on a 2.6Mb web image.

I tried a couple of Hasselblad’s new “V” lenses ... I am sorry to report, whatever we can agree they cut corners on, I did not like the end results.

If I am just looking at color and the images that result, I get better images out of the older XCD lenses, as heavy and clunky as they are.

Do have any examples of the same subject, taken with the different lenses youre comparing?

[Michael Erlewine]

Thanks for sharing your experiences of this Michael.

You'll remember some people have commented how hard it can be to appreciate the levels of quality & performance you're working with, when we only see the end results on a 2.6Mb web image.

Do have any examples of the same subject, taken with the different lenses youre comparing?

Most images posted here are resulting images from whatever process the photographer uses.

Here are many free books and books of images that have all kinds of details from my main site.

http://spiritgrooves.net/#&panel1-4


Most of my lens choices depend upon how close (or not close) I am going to be to the subject, how much bokeh I need, how much detail I want to appear, and what kind of context or feeling I would like to express.

 For instance, here is a photo of a Moonflower (Datura) that I wanted to be sharp in certain areas, but have the background fall away, yet, aside from the flower, I wanted the leaves to be very detailed and just as interesting as the flower itself or the bud.

So I used a mirrorless NIkon like the Z7 II camera and for a lens the Nikon Noct 58mm with an f/0.95 that will give me a very sharp image with plenty of details and also a good bokeh for background. Don't know how much more I could say.  Does this help?

Or here is a photo I took just outside my office. It is as simple as could be, a table I built out of maple, with a cork coaster on it. I try to get some kind of composition that feels good or interesting to me. I only took a couple of seconds to shoot this. That's it. Do I like it? Well, I like it well enough to share it with you. Hasselblad X2d, XCD 65mm f/2.8 lens.

The flower was done a few years ago with the Nikon system, while the photo of the table I took just a short while ago with the Hasselblad system. Each different, of course. The table is more what I am doing now because I just took it.

The process of photographing is as important as the resulting photo. In fact, because of the process, the photo image is what it is.

When I strike a composition the sparks me, satisfies something inside me, it’s like a window in time opens and I can rest in that moment at the beauty of the image.

That’s why I do this, and I do it for me, but some I show to others; most I don’t share. Even my own family, wife, kids, and grandkids like to see maybe a few photos. Beyond that, not so much, yet I have over a million of them. My point is we do this to please ourselves, at least I do. I have never wanted to be a professional photographer. I love images too much for that.

[BruceSD]

.

With all the crime in my area, I'd be reluctant to take expensive gear like this (worth about $13,000 USD on Amazon just for the body and lens) into the field or leave it in my car.