The maximum of 3.17 stops is practically unheard of. Vignetting improves to manageable – though still disappointing.
From this review:
The maximum vignetting (2.84 stops) wide open isn’t much higher than we usually see with wide-angle, wide-aperture lenses. That’s good news for Milky Way photographers.
And Hasselblad’s vignetting doesn’t go away and has a colour cast to it, and Canon is a zoom lens :) Yes you wrote as Canon to be terrible and Hassy as “well, it is acceptable” :)
That’s fair, I didn’t word that portion very well. Here is the revised quote: “The maximum vignetting wide open is 2.84 stops, which is quite high. The good news for Milky Way photographers is that infinity focus has less vignetting than close focus, and that result (2.46 stops) isn’t much higher than we usually see with wide-angle, wide-aperture lenses.”
I also want to point out that at f/2.8, the 25mm f/2.5 V’s vignetting at infinity focus is 2.16 stops. In the same situation, Canon’s 15-35mm f/2.8 is 3.09 stops. My initial wording was clumsy, and this Hasselblad lens is hardly a vignetting champ, but it’s better than the Canon 15-35mm f/2.8’s Milky Way vignetting performance. To this day, the 15-35mm f/2.8 is one of the highest-vignetting lenses we’ve tested.
Thank you, fixed! The two lenses might have the same build quality, but I probably shouldn’t have copied it *exactly* from the 90mm review :)
chris
May 9, 2024 4:19 am
thanks, it would be very interesting to see the differences to fuji as it is now clear what design goals hasselblad follows including the compromises they think are justified for their audience . when as often in my work the important part is not in the center such a massive vignetting does have a visible negative effect on image quality. the new H lenses seem also suffer from heavy focus shift probably another compromise they think does not matter….
The vignetting on this lens is quite high, especially at narrower apertures compared to most lenses. I didn’t notice much focus shift on this lens or the other XCD V lenses, though – none on the 90V, and only a bit on the 25V and 38V.
James
May 8, 2024 9:11 pm
Nice review, Spencer. Thanks!
While you mentioned below the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 and the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G, I’d also be interested in how tall three compare to the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4. I realize we’d then be comparing at best a 40 MP Fujifilm APS-C sensor to a 100 MP MF sensor, but FOV and DOF are basically equivalent as well. It’s a very sharp lens and seems to review quite favourably.
It’s a great time to be a photographer! So many wonderful lenses to choose from, regardless of your camera system :)
Sure thing, Dmitry. I would describe both lenses as the optimal wide-angle primes for their respective systems (the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G is also eerily good, on the same level).
One example is in the coma crops from each of these lenses – there’s hardly any coma on any of them. So it’s more a difference in what sensors you can put behind each lens.
Thank you for the answer! Perhaps in the future you will be able to develop a technique that can compare the resolution of the full frame and medium frame matrices.
It would be a good goal at some point. Although it took enough work just to get full-frame lenses for Nikon/Canon/Sony to be comparable – I can already imagine the headache that would be caused adding the additional variables of sensor size and aspect ratio into the mix. Not impossible but probably better uses of my time.
It definitely is! That’s the 907X & 100C. Although I mostly shot this lens on the X2D, which is a more traditional looking camera.
Jason Polak
Admin
May 7, 2024 8:06 am
Nice review, Spencer. The images you captured makes me want to visit these places very much! Even as more of a wildlife photographer, I can feel the spirit of landscape photography in what you created with this lens.
From Canon RF 15-35mm:
The maximum of 3.17 stops is practically unheard of. Vignetting improves to manageable – though still disappointing.
From this review:
The maximum vignetting (2.84 stops) wide open isn’t much higher than we usually see with wide-angle, wide-aperture lenses. That’s good news for Milky Way photographers.
And Hasselblad’s vignetting doesn’t go away and has a colour cast to it, and Canon is a zoom lens :) Yes you wrote as Canon to be terrible and Hassy as “well, it is acceptable” :)
That’s fair, I didn’t word that portion very well. Here is the revised quote: “The maximum vignetting wide open is 2.84 stops, which is quite high. The good news for Milky Way photographers is that infinity focus has less vignetting than close focus, and that result (2.46 stops) isn’t much higher than we usually see with wide-angle, wide-aperture lenses.”
I also want to point out that at f/2.8, the 25mm f/2.5 V’s vignetting at infinity focus is 2.16 stops. In the same situation, Canon’s 15-35mm f/2.8 is 3.09 stops. My initial wording was clumsy, and this Hasselblad lens is hardly a vignetting champ, but it’s better than the Canon 15-35mm f/2.8’s Milky Way vignetting performance. To this day, the 15-35mm f/2.8 is one of the highest-vignetting lenses we’ve tested.
Fourth paragraph:
—
Build Quality
The Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/2.5 V features…
—
What lens are we reading about again? :-)
Thank you, fixed! The two lenses might have the same build quality, but I probably shouldn’t have copied it *exactly* from the 90mm review :)
thanks, it would be very interesting to see the differences to fuji as it is now clear what design goals hasselblad follows including the compromises they think are justified for their audience . when as often in my work the important part is not in the center such a massive vignetting does have a visible negative effect on image quality. the new H lenses seem also suffer from heavy focus shift probably another compromise they think does not matter….
The vignetting on this lens is quite high, especially at narrower apertures compared to most lenses. I didn’t notice much focus shift on this lens or the other XCD V lenses, though – none on the 90V, and only a bit on the 25V and 38V.
Nice review, Spencer. Thanks!
While you mentioned below the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 and the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G, I’d also be interested in how tall three compare to the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4. I realize we’d then be comparing at best a 40 MP Fujifilm APS-C sensor to a 100 MP MF sensor, but FOV and DOF are basically equivalent as well. It’s a very sharp lens and seems to review quite favourably.
It’s a great time to be a photographer! So many wonderful lenses to choose from, regardless of your camera system :)
Thanks, James! I’d look forward to testing it. Seems like one of the better choices for APS-C Milky Way photography at the moment.
Thanks for the review. Question. How big is the difference between this lens and the Z 20 mm f/1.8S?
Sure thing, Dmitry. I would describe both lenses as the optimal wide-angle primes for their respective systems (the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G is also eerily good, on the same level).
One example is in the coma crops from each of these lenses – there’s hardly any coma on any of them. So it’s more a difference in what sensors you can put behind each lens.
Thank you for the answer! Perhaps in the future you will be able to develop a technique that can compare the resolution of the full frame and medium frame matrices.
It would be a good goal at some point. Although it took enough work just to get full-frame lenses for Nikon/Canon/Sony to be comparable – I can already imagine the headache that would be caused adding the additional variables of sensor size and aspect ratio into the mix. Not impossible but probably better uses of my time.
Such a beautiful camera..
It definitely is! That’s the 907X & 100C. Although I mostly shot this lens on the X2D, which is a more traditional looking camera.
Nice review, Spencer. The images you captured makes me want to visit these places very much! Even as more of a wildlife photographer, I can feel the spirit of landscape photography in what you created with this lens.
Thanks, Jason! It’s hard to beat Yellowstone for wide-angle landscapes. And telephoto landscapes for that matter…