plaurids

Really enjoying seeing all these different perspectives on the matter. It's clear that the 100mm performs best at or near infinity, while being comparable in practice to the 80mm at closer distances. It must be remarked, though, that the MTF charts of the 80mm and 100mm indicate that the latter is indeed overall sharper than the former, FWIW. In fact, there is a very interesting article from 2009 by Michael J. Hussmann which compares the 100mm Planar to the HC 100mm f2.2 lens for the H system in detail - at infinity, the Planar manages to beat even digital-age Hasselblad glass such as the HC f2.2 in sharpness. At closer distances (more precisely, 1.2m), though, the Planar comparatively falls short, particularly at the corners. This particular deficiency is cut off by a smaller sensor such as the one in the CFV II 50c back, at the price of working at an effectively larger focal length. Chromatic aberrations are another matter, though. The Slanted Lens's review of the CFV II 50c, which includes V-glass usage, show that clearly on the 80mm Planar, but the 120mm Makro-Planar seems to pass the chromatic aberration test on the CFV II 50c with flying colors (no pun intended...). No idea of how the 100mm Planar performs on that field, would love to know more about it. Anyhow, correcting chromatic aberrations is what the Superachromats are all about, so surely they'll outperform all other Hasselblad V glass in that respect. According to Hussmann's article, the 250SA fares against the HC 210mm more or less about the same as the 100mm Planar against the 100mm HC. The 80mm certainly has its advantages, being a faster lens (by about half a stop). For most photography, I agree with q.g._de_bakker that ultimately it comes to personal preferences. I, for one, prefer a slightly longer normal lens. I also concur with orsetto's viewpoint that the 80mm, 100mm and 120mm sort of complement each other (supposing you can afford them all) - the 100mm being best at infinity, the 120mm being best at closer range and the 80mm lying in between but faster than both. I really like using the 100mm Planar. It was the first "normal-length" lens I got for my Hasselblad system (I bought my 503cx without a kit lens, and it wasn't until very recently that I could find a standalone 80mm CF - they are not easy to find to buy without a body), and I'm amazed at what it can deliver, even at closer range. That also adds to my particular interest on how it performs on digital.

Well, regarding Nikon there is also the 45.7 MP D850 (or the Z7 II if you wish to go mirrorless, and the Z glass is reportedly superior to F glass). I've been trying to find a good price on it for a while to replace my D7200 (which will probably remain next to my computer for video), which is not so trivial here in Brazil due to taxes and recent unfavorable exchange rates. By the way, have you had any chance of using the 100mm Planar on your digital setup? If so, how does it perform? As I mentioned above, there are not so many examples of the 100mm Planar being used on digital around, although there are plenty for the 120mm Makro-Planar.

Damn Bernard, that's some serious pixel peeping porn you've just posted there. And all that on 22 megapixels... The 120mm and 180mm damn sure deliver on digital. Thanks a lot!

Actually, I only mentioned the 907X cost-wise, because you have to buy the whole thing to get the CFV II 50c. I wasn't even considering using the 907X itself as part of a scanning rig, I really was only thinking of a V-system camera with the CFV II 50c back, the focusing bellows with the negative holder accessory and (say) a macro lens like the 135mm Makro-Planar, which is meant to be used with the bellows setup anyway. And yes, the bellows makes it much easier to achieve the proper scale to that end, that's why I was thinking of this setup. The scanning resolution I estimated for this rig does take into account the fact that the square crop of the CFV II 50c sensor is 37.5 MP in a 33mm x 33mm square and not the original 56mm x 56mm from the 6x6 format. The only thing I'm unsure of is whether 2800 dpi is enough to resolve the fim grain of, say, a Kodak Portra ISO 400 film or a Ilford XP2 ISO 400 (which are the films I use) without pixel artifacts. The Phase One scanning rig you mentioned seems to indicate that it is, since its smaller sensor option has the same scanning resolution. The Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Digitar Aspheric lens is probably more resolving than the Makro-Planar, though.

I didn't know that, interesting. Thanks for the info!

My feelings exactly orsetto, apart from the "SWC factor" which I hadn't thought of. Indeed, if you think about it, the optional grip and viewfinder for the 907X are both strongly remniscent of the SWC. I had no idea that the CFV backs wouldn't work so well on the SWC - my impression was otherwise. Anyhow, as I said above, I also think that providing the CFV II 50c as part of the 907X is mostly a kind of invitation to the V-system users for entering the XCD lens ecosystem. Another (maybe silly) thought that occurred to me is that the V system cameras coupled with the CFV II 50c, the focusing bellows extension (using, say, the 135mm Makro-Planar lens) and the negative holder accessory for the latter may be an interesting platform for scanning medium-format negatives, similar to the Nikon ES-2 adapter for scanning 35mm negatives. A quick calculation shows that such a scanning rig may achieve almost 2800 dpi of optical scanning resolution with the CFV II 50c (taking into account the 37.5MP resolution of the 32.9mm x 32.9mm square crop of the CFV II 50c sensor and the resulting 0,5875x crop factor as compared to 6x6 = 56mm x 56mm). I know, the 907X alone is more expensive than, say, a 4000-dpi Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED, but if you already have the 907X for taking pictures... The focusing bellows extension, the 135mm Makro-Planar and the negative holder accessory can be considerably more affordable in the used market.

Thanks for all the comments. I think I've been able to get a decent overall picture of the situation concerning using the CFV II 50c back with a V-system camera and lenses, which to some extent also applies to using adapted V-system lenses on Fujifilm GFX cameras. To summarize: The small pixel size of the CFV II 50c makes accurate focusing critical. It baffles me that, unlike the original CFV back, the 907X kit doesn't include the split focusing screen with the X1D / 907X form factor framelines, just a dinky focusing screen mask. The split Fresnel at the middle helps enormously with fine tuning focus, if my previous experience with 35mm film cameras (Leica R6, Minolta SRT-101, Kodak Retina Reflex III) has any worth. You can still buy the screen separately, of course, but it's a pain. Alternatively, you can also lift the mirror and use e.g. focus peaking with live view. Only a few of the V-system lenses are up to the more exacting digital standards of today - most notably, it seems, the 40mm f/4 FLE Distagon, the 100mm f/3.5 Planar and the 250mm f/5.6 Superachromat Sonnar (particularly the latter being an apochromatic lens, just like the XCD lenses). The 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar and 180mm f/4 Sonnar also seem to deliver on the CFV backs, judging from photo samples. For me, the 100mm Planar + 120mm Makro-Planar combo seems especially compelling to that end, since these lenses nicely complement each other (also on film, obviously) - both have similar lengths and perform exceptionally well on the whole aperture range, with the 100mm being the sharpest near infinity (with its famed ultra-low distortion there) and the 120mm being the sharpest at close range (being a lens optimized for close-ups). Moreover, both lenses have a very precise focusing ring. Even though the 907X opens access to modern XCD glass, it only makes sense to buy it over (say) the X1D II if you are already invested into the V system, especially considering that the X1D II costs about USD 500 - 600 less than the 907X and has more features. Of course, new XCD glass, although arguably superior and more adequate for digital photography, is much more expensive than used V glass (especially if you already own it ;) ), but one may also argue that if you have USD 5800 - 6400 to spend on a camera body, you probably can also afford to buy at least one or two XCD lenses instead of a whole V-system setup. On the other hand, that's not what the CFV II 50c back is all about - it's about the whole experience of shooting with a V system you already own being transported into the digital age, which is great provided one watches out for the above provisos. That's clearly the market Hasselblad is aiming at with the 907X, with the possibility of inviting V-system users to try the XCD lenses in time.

Well, here we are... the 907X has been officially released at $6399: 907X 50C - Hasselblad Store The best review I've found on it, especially regarding comparison between Zeiss V glass and XCD lenses, was made by Jay P. Morgan on his The Slanted Lens site, reposted at PetaPixel: Hasselblad 907X Hands On Camera Review - The Slanted Lens Hasselblad 907X Hands-On Review and Vintage Lens Test As usual when using vintage glass on modern digital cameras, manual focus precision becomes more critical than on film. This is also emphasized in the CFV II 50C manual. It seems to me that Zeiss glass holds up pretty well in that respect, though (albeit maybe not up to XCD autofocus precision standards), probably thanks to these lenses' superb microcontrast. Mike Aubrey commented above on PetaPixel regarding the best choices of V glass for the CFV II 50c (in his opinion): Some of his recommendations - both best (Planar f/3.5 100mm, Sonnar-Superachromat f/5.6 250mm) and perhaps not so great (Distagon f/3.5 60mm) - happen to coincide with orsetto's made above. It seems to me, though, that he based his judgement on measured lens sharpness (MTF charts, etc.) rather than actual experience with the combinations. What do you think?

I stand corrected - actually, the IQ3 digital backs from Phase One can be used on Hasselblad H- and V-series camera bodies (but not the IQ4). The problem actually is the car-grade price of those...

In due time: regarding manual focusing precision, I reckon that the 100mm Planar's success on the Fuji GFX (and on MF digital cameras on the same sensor) has to do with the fact that, in addition to its extremely low distortion, its focusing mechanism is reputedly very precise, so it should be up to digital standards. The only problem is that, with such a crop factor, its effective focal length gets a bit long and therefore excludes some of its applications. Pity that the Distagons don't seem perform so well in that respect, according to your finds. I still couldn't find any reports on how well Hasselblad / Zeiss V system lenses fare on the Fuji GFX, but I did find some photos on Flickr using the CFV-50c back. Not many using the 100mm Planar, though, but I could find several nice examples using the 120mm Makro Planar. Unfortunately, that setup kind of precludes the kind of comparison I asked for, at least until one gets the 907X / CFV II combo to make such a test.

I guess so, because the crop factor is so large you are close enough to the lens axis to get a significantly lower distortion (depending on the lens), but these lenses are really large and heavy compared to full-frame 35mm lenses of the same focal length, so it's not something one would want to use on a 35mm camera most of the time. Color rendition and contrast are of course highly subjective - that's the reason I love classic German glass and loathe Canon glass as it shows on photos, for instance.

Interesting... In fact, I'm curious (as many out there) about how the upcoming CFV II 50c attached to a 500-series mechanical body will fare in this respect. Given that sensor size is a factor and that won't change from the previous iteration, it seems that the problems you pointed will remain. As a matter of fact, I'm more interested in the CFV II digital back for use in my 503cx than in the X1D itself or on the CFV II companion (?) 907X. It's a pity that Phase One no longer makes backs for other than their own cameras.

Hmm... Good point, I didn't pay attention to the fact that the XV adapter cannot give control of the V lenses' leaf shutter to the X1D body. This is certainly a handicap for the use of V lenses on this camera, considering the fact one has to use the on-sensor electronic shutter (at least for now... Until Hasselblad or other vendor comes up with a more functional adapter than the XV). Ok, this is the kind of info I was looking for, but I'd like to see this on photos somewhere... I'l try to look for usage of V lenses on the Fuji GFX to have a better impression.

Hi all, One can find several comparisons between the XCD lenses for the Hasselblad X1D (II) mirrorless, medium-format digital camera and the full-frame (35mm) Otus lenses made by Zeiss on the same camera (using a suitable adapter, of course), as e.g. done by Usman Dawood: Hasselblad X1D and the Zeiss 85mm Otus: The Ultimate Combination? I'm rather curious about how the XCD lens lineup match up against the classic V system lenses made for the Hasselblad 500-series film cameras by Zeiss (C, CF, etc.) using Hasselblad's XV adapter for the X1D (II) as far as the photo quality / characteristics are concerned, but I couldn't find such a comparison so far. Of course, I'm not considering features such as autofocus capabilities (which the V system lenses obviously don't have), I'm really trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison here. Just looking at the spec sheets provided by Hasselblad in its website and e.g. the Zeiss spec sheets available at the Hasselblad Historical web page, one can see that (at least on paper) the XCD lenses are faster and are supposed to have better color rendition since they are apochromatic lenses. However, how do they compare against old flagships such as the super-low-distortion 100mm Planar in a "real life" situation - that is, on the photos? I mean, my point is: apart from autofocus and lower f-stops, is there any other reason for which the XCD lenses are objectively superior to the old Zeiss V system lenses as far as the final result is concerned, and therefore justify Hasselblad's marketing and price tag? I guess color rendition should be better due to apochromaticity, but that is on paper... How about sharpness / bokeh / etc.? Any links to such analyses / photos are welcome!