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!