With the Hasselblad XCD 20-35mm f/3.2-4.5 E lens, which I have received, the “E” label might well stand for ‘expensive’ rather than ‘exclusive’, I had to sell a lot of other camera gear to make it happen. Now that I have one in my hands, I can say that for my work this lens, IMO, is worth the high cost.
Indeed, as they say of Hasselblad’s other XCD zoom lens, the XCD 35-75mm F3.5-4.5 Zoom Lens, that it is a “prime’ zoom, meaning every extension of the zoom is like an individual prime lens, this new 20-35 mmm zoom is also a ‘Prime Zoom’, IMO.
The lens is incredibly good and, in my work, at least outside, not having to change the lens to get the job done is greatly appreciated. If you rent this lens when it becomes available, you will not want to give it back. You will have to own it.
This lens is a game changer.
Darrel Crilley
September 11, 2024 12:25 pm
Thanks for this scrupulously honest appraisal of the lens. UK review tests show some softness in the corners and list that as a negative at £5700 Sterling. Im an X2D user for landscape but at the price im wincing and flinching. I think it’s a grand over priced. It’s not any leap forward in any respect. The 35-75 which I use all the time is under tested and very rarely reviewed. Testing of one reviewer – Vieri Bottazini – found it sharper than primes. I don’t quarrel . What I quarrel with is the extra thousand for the 20-35. As you point out, it’s not really weather sealed and probably not to GF 20-35 standards. Have you any comparison data to the GF 20-35 ??
No, I haven’t tested the GF 20-35mm f/4 yet, but would like to! The price is certainly appealing, although I graded this Hasselblad on a harsh curve given its own high price. Optically I have no idea which would be better.
Lars
September 11, 2024 12:04 pm
Briefly checking B&H, it turns out that for the exact same amount of money, you can get a used Fuji GFX 100s AND a brand-new GF 20-35mm f4. This is a fantastic combo that I have shot with personally. So even if you are already in the Hasselblad system, you can just get a second camera body and an equally-capable lens to shoot landscapes for the same $$! That pricing is delusional.
Glenn
September 11, 2024 8:40 am
Spencer: What is your “default deconvolution” sharpening?
Hi Glenn! I actually just changed those images to show Lightroom’s default sharpening, since that would be a more familiar comparison for most of our readers. But my deconvolution sharpening settings are:
– Amount 35
– Radius 0.5
– Detail 100 (this isn’t actually aggressive; the Detail slider just shifts Lightroom’s algorithm toward deconvolution sharpening at the high values, and unsharp mask sharpening at low values)
– Masking 10
– Luminance and color noise reduction both at 0
I think that these settings are superior to Lightroom’s defaults in terms of reducing artifacts without reducing detail. That said, they’re only my defaults when shooting at or near base ISO.
Beyond these settings, I will sometimes do additional local sharpening (like on a bird’s eye) and always do export sharpening for the medium where the image will be displayed. This is known as three-step sharpening, and it’s something I wrote about here before: photographylife.com/advan…sharpening
Thanks Spencer. Is there an article (website or patreon) where you describe your lens test setup and procedure. In particular I am curious about what distance (50xf?) you test at. Also, does your test use data from the camera sensor or an independent sensor. If it uses the camera sensor, does the sensor resolution get factored out (since overall MTF is the product of the lens and sensor) and are distortion and vignetting corrections applied to whatever file you use? Since the Hassy results aren’t comparable to the other results, can the MTF values for a Nikon lens on a 45MP camera even be compared to the values for a Sony lens with, presumably a 60MP sensor?
Sure thing! We’ve written about it before, most extensively here, which will answer a lot of your questions: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
We test our lenses at 1:50 magnification, which gives us a good gauge of how the lens performs at medium to far distances, including out to infinity focus. Of course the exact distance to the test chart depends upon the focal length, but they are all tested at 1:50 magnification (except supertelephotos of 300mm and beyond, which we test on a smaller chart out of necessity).
I put in a lot of work last year to make sure that all of our full-frame lens tests are comparable to one another. All Canon, Sony, and Nikon lens reviews on Photography Life have totally comparable numbers – sharpness, CA, vignetting, and distortion. This is done by introducing a multiplication factor to the Canon and Sony lens tests as described in the article I just linked. No distortion, chromatic aberration, or vignetting corrections are applied.
As you say, our medium format lens reviews are ONLY comparable to our other medium format lens reviews.
Good article… and a well reasoned and implemented approach… although it’s a bit harsh on Sony lenses by estimating their MTF50 on a 45MP instead of 60MP sensor… still, it’s more robust than trying to upscale the Nikon and Canon results.
With the Hasselblad XCD 20-35mm f/3.2-4.5 E lens, which I have received, the “E” label might well stand for ‘expensive’ rather than ‘exclusive’, I had to sell a lot of other camera gear to make it happen. Now that I have one in my hands, I can say that for my work this lens, IMO, is worth the high cost.
Indeed, as they say of Hasselblad’s other XCD zoom lens, the XCD 35-75mm F3.5-4.5 Zoom Lens, that it is a “prime’ zoom, meaning every extension of the zoom is like an individual prime lens, this new 20-35 mmm zoom is also a ‘Prime Zoom’, IMO.
The lens is incredibly good and, in my work, at least outside, not having to change the lens to get the job done is greatly appreciated. If you rent this lens when it becomes available, you will not want to give it back. You will have to own it.
This lens is a game changer.
Thanks for this scrupulously honest appraisal of the lens. UK review tests show some softness in the corners and list that as a negative at £5700 Sterling. Im an X2D user for landscape but at the price im wincing and flinching. I think it’s a grand over priced. It’s not any leap forward in any respect. The 35-75 which I use all the time is under tested and very rarely reviewed. Testing of one reviewer – Vieri Bottazini – found it sharper than primes. I don’t quarrel . What I quarrel with is the extra thousand for the 20-35. As you point out, it’s not really weather sealed and probably not to GF 20-35 standards. Have you any comparison data to the GF 20-35 ??
No, I haven’t tested the GF 20-35mm f/4 yet, but would like to! The price is certainly appealing, although I graded this Hasselblad on a harsh curve given its own high price. Optically I have no idea which would be better.
Briefly checking B&H, it turns out that for the exact same amount of money, you can get a used Fuji GFX 100s AND a brand-new GF 20-35mm f4. This is a fantastic combo that I have shot with personally. So even if you are already in the Hasselblad system, you can just get a second camera body and an equally-capable lens to shoot landscapes for the same $$! That pricing is delusional.
Spencer: What is your “default deconvolution” sharpening?
Hi Glenn! I actually just changed those images to show Lightroom’s default sharpening, since that would be a more familiar comparison for most of our readers. But my deconvolution sharpening settings are:
– Amount 35
– Radius 0.5
– Detail 100 (this isn’t actually aggressive; the Detail slider just shifts Lightroom’s algorithm toward deconvolution sharpening at the high values, and unsharp mask sharpening at low values)
– Masking 10
– Luminance and color noise reduction both at 0
I think that these settings are superior to Lightroom’s defaults in terms of reducing artifacts without reducing detail. That said, they’re only my defaults when shooting at or near base ISO.
Beyond these settings, I will sometimes do additional local sharpening (like on a bird’s eye) and always do export sharpening for the medium where the image will be displayed. This is known as three-step sharpening, and it’s something I wrote about here before: photographylife.com/advan…sharpening
Thanks Spencer. Is there an article (website or patreon) where you describe your lens test setup and procedure. In particular I am curious about what distance (50xf?) you test at. Also, does your test use data from the camera sensor or an independent sensor. If it uses the camera sensor, does the sensor resolution get factored out (since overall MTF is the product of the lens and sensor) and are distortion and vignetting corrections applied to whatever file you use? Since the Hassy results aren’t comparable to the other results, can the MTF values for a Nikon lens on a 45MP camera even be compared to the values for a Sony lens with, presumably a 60MP sensor?
Sure thing! We’ve written about it before, most extensively here, which will answer a lot of your questions: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
We test our lenses at 1:50 magnification, which gives us a good gauge of how the lens performs at medium to far distances, including out to infinity focus. Of course the exact distance to the test chart depends upon the focal length, but they are all tested at 1:50 magnification (except supertelephotos of 300mm and beyond, which we test on a smaller chart out of necessity).
I put in a lot of work last year to make sure that all of our full-frame lens tests are comparable to one another. All Canon, Sony, and Nikon lens reviews on Photography Life have totally comparable numbers – sharpness, CA, vignetting, and distortion. This is done by introducing a multiplication factor to the Canon and Sony lens tests as described in the article I just linked. No distortion, chromatic aberration, or vignetting corrections are applied.
As you say, our medium format lens reviews are ONLY comparable to our other medium format lens reviews.
Spencer: Thanks for the link… I thought you had posted on the methodology, but couldn’t find it
Good article… and a well reasoned and implemented approach… although it’s a bit harsh on Sony lenses by estimating their MTF50 on a 45MP instead of 60MP sensor… still, it’s more robust than trying to upscale the Nikon and Canon results.