Worth using Hasselblad X1D or Fuji 5r II with V lenses? does anyone use x1dII with old v lenses?

Hi all,

I am tempted from the x1dII or the 5r being a Medium Format lover and owning almost all old V lenses. I still use my 501 and 503 with films and I have a A7RII with various 35lenses... but. very tempted from getting digital on MF as well so would like to hear your opinions and experiences.

I've read the V lenses are not up to today's standards about resolution, OK, but they have a great and special "look" or "feel" and I am wondering if someone can share his/her experiences in shooting with the 50mpx of the current fuji and Hasselblad MF cameras.

I shoot mostly handheld landscape and architecture, I am no PRO photographer, just an enthusiast.

thanks in advance for your help and suggestion

greetings from Europe!

Using the V lenses on the Fuji or 'blad compact mirrorless MF cams is one of those "sounds interesting, is doable, then when you try it you discover its not terribly practical" ideas.

The first disappointment is the crop factor: these cameras have 33x44 sensors vs the 6x6 field the V lenses were designed to cover. So the 80 Planar functions more like a 105mm, the 50mm or 60mm Distagon wides become your "normal" lenses, the 40mm Distagon becomes just marginally wide, and the tele/portrait focal lengths become significantly longer than you might be used to with 6x6. Depending on your preferred V focal lengths for various shooting situations, this can be very frustrating.

The next hurdle is handling: the 80 Planar is pleasant enough, and perhaps the 60mm Distagon, but everything else is very front-heavy, large and clumsy. The mirrorless EVF makes focusing accuracy technically easy, but in practical terms the lenses remain rather difficult in the field (C and CF have very heavy, long-throw focus helicals, the CB and CFi/CFe are better but still a bit awkward, and you need to remember to manually stop the lens down with its DOF button or slider). All of this gets easier with tripod shooting, but handheld "V-on-mirrorless" is a challenge that tends to nullify the fun/charms of handheld work.

Finally you have the shutter issue to contend with. The Fujis at the moment are the best (really only) fully usable mirrorless option for V glass, because they contain their own standard electromechanical focal plane shutter. The Hasselblad X1D relies on the leaf shutter in each of its bespoke lenses for exposure control: with adapted lenses like the Vs one is forced to rely on its sensor-based electronic shutter, which tends to create problematic artifacts in many common shooting situations. The X1D can be used effectively with V lenses, but you do need to be mindful of its shutter limitations.

Reduced to a nutshell: if you're very serious about wanting to continue V lens use with medium format mirrorless, you'll probably be happier with one of the Fuji bodies. The Hassy X1D is an extraordinary compact MF system when used with its own native lenses as intended, but loses much of its appeal with adapted glass. You might also consider getting the new Hasselblad CF-V50cII digital back for your existing V film body: it is very advanced compared to previous V backs and has much the same sensor/color as the X1D. What you lose in mirrorless EVF convenience, you gain in familiar V-body handling and ability to quickly shift between film and digital formats: a subjective preference. At present it retails for about $7500 (USD), including the novel new 907x camera body which converts the basic back into a supplementary compact mirrorless that takes X1D lenses.

V lenses work well enough on a digital camera, but not conveniently. You must leave the shutter open (and be prepared to re-cock it if accidentally tripped), and the diaphragm in DOF Preview mode, for manual aperture control. I don't have an X1D, but I do have an adapter for my Sony A7Riii. The X1D does not have a mechanical shutter, so you must use the electronic shutter exclusively with a V lens.

Heavy and bulky is not an impediment to landscape photography, where you use a tripod anyway. Even on a V body, you tend to support the lens, not the body.

Nor is a cropping sensor cripple its utility. I used a CFV-16 back for a decade with my 500 and 200 bodies. The Distagon 60 became my new "normal", and I added a 40 mm to my collection for the best wide-angle effect available.

The biggest problem with a CFV back is that you must use a sync cable for best results. Mechanical coupling is not reliable as the camera (and timing) ages, and has other restrictions. You must reconnect the cable each time you change the lens, which puts a lot of wear and tear on the cable and PC connection. The solution is to use a body which couples with the back electronically. Suitable cameras include a 555ELD (my choice) and factory modified 200 bodies. You cannot use a 200 body with a C lens without a cable, nor the focal plane shutter without the modification. The modification can ONLY be used with the focal plane shutter.

The CFV added ten years (or more) to the useful life of my Hasselblad V system, but that faded away with the advent of the high-resolution Sony A7Rii. I have more resolution than I need, and a much wider choice of lenses.

Yes, using a digital back on your 'blad 500 body is less convenient and less exciting than adapting your V lenses to a sexy new mirrorless X1D or Fuji GFX. But depending on your priorities and shooting preferences, there are still advantages to the digital back solution (or Hasselblad would never have bothered with the effort of drastically updating the CF-V50c into the CF-V50cII, while slashing the price in half).

The Hasselblad film body with digital back retains its magnificent large optical viewfinder, which some photographers still vastly prefer over EVF. The finder will show more than the actual sensor area, which is indicated by a smaller outline in the center: this allows you to better follow and predict action as it enters and leaves the active digital framing area, while providing a constant reference as to what the full 6x6 film area would be with the same lens. You also retain full functionality of the lens leaf shutter for flash, and auto-diaphragm: the camera works exactly as it does with film, except the A12 is swapped for an identical-looking digital back. Depending on your V camera model, it can be calibrated to more accurately use the mechanical cordless firing option of the CFV back, or its electronic contacts: a small cord running from lens to back is the fallback choice unless the camera body is so old and tired it can't be made fully compatible for cordless firing.

The V film body will handle much more naturally with the large V lenses, the same with digital back as it does with film. Since OP specifically said they will mostly shoot handheld, this could be a significant factor. The Fuji GFX-50R or Hasselblad X1D + mount adapter + big fat slog-focusing manually-stopped-down V lens is not the most ergonomic, balanced or quick-handling package when handheld at EVF eye level. On a tripod mirrorless + V glass is fine, but handheld is a rather joyless exercise (esp with the heavy 50mm Distagon one is likely to use as "normal" focal length with a 33x44 sensor).

The change in lens coverage due to sensor crop bothers some photographers more than others. If you favor normal to wide focal lengths, it is likely to be more annoying than if you tend to favor portrait or tele lenses. You completely lose any serious wide angle options with V lenses on 33x44 crop sensor: as I noted previously, "normal" focal length for this sensor is 55mm, so your 50mm or 60mm Distagons are effectively neutered to replace the 80mm Planar as a slow f/4 "normal" (while the once-exotic 40mm Distagon on 33x44 becomes equivalent to the 60mm on 6x6).

There is also the subtle issue of deploying a retrofocus wide angle lens as a crop-sensor normal: the coverage may compare to the 80mm Planar but the rendering does not (entirely). Wide angle SLR lenses entail a certain degree of optical compromise to achieve their wide coverage: these compromises ideally disappear in actual use for their intended format, but when cropped to "normal" AOV they can be a bit disappointing (or just different) vs what you get from the 80mm Planar on 6x6. plus you lose the additional faster f/2.8 aperture stop.

Which brings us to the "V lens performance on digital" question. This can vary quite a bit depending on your personal standards, camera choice (V-body or mirrorless), shooting style (handheld vs tripod), print sizes and types, and the sensor used. Back at the dawn of pro digital photography, when the Hasselblad 500cm with a $40,000 Phase One, Imacon, Leaf or Hasselblad digital back was king of the studio, the V lenses did very well. At the time, 16MP was common and 22MP was considered high resolution: these "fat pixel" CCD sensors worked marvelously with the V lenses, much as the 12MP Nikon D700 and D3 full-frame DSLRs were simpatico with most of Nikon's older glass.

Once sensor resolution shot higher, to 39MP and now 50MP, and sensor tech transitioned from CCD to CMOS with microlenses, the V lenses were more challenged. On todays sensors, some photographers feel it is not worth the trouble to use several of the key V focal lengths. Lenses that were once the jewels of the V series on film, like the 60mm Distagon, can be surprisingly blah on 50MP 33x44 digital. The 80mm Planar is even more polarizing: some feel it is useless with digital, others feel it does well within its limitations. In my experience this often due to sample variation: Zeiss made approx 340,000 Hassy 80mm Planars across fifty years. Some are excellent on film but only adequate on 50MP digital, some do very well on both mediums. I've found the 80mm "New C" (CF without the F interlock) that came bundled with the 501c camera to be consistently better on digital than other versions I've tried, while the later "budget" CB version is often rated highest overall for digital use vs C, CF or CFe. Perhaps because the CB has higher resolution in the center with dropoff in its corners, while the other versions have more even performance across the 6x6 frame.

The 100mm Planar, 120mm Macro Planar, 180mm Sonnar and 250mm Super Achromat are probably the four best performers on digital. The uncommon 135mm CF Makro Planar bellows lens is extremely good, the 150mm Sonnar and standard (non-SA) 250mm are good but perhaps not great. I've never seen any digital images from the long 350mm or 500mm lenses. Of the shutterless F/FE lenses made for the focal plane 200 and 2000 series bodies, the 110/2 remains as unique on digital as it is with film. The 150mm f/2.8 Sonnar is very pleasing, but I haven't seen anything digital from the 50mm f/2.8 Distagon or any of the other F/FE lineup (perhaps because the F bodies were less adaptable to digital backs than the standard leaf shutter bodies/lenses).

I would agree with the points raised by andylynn and Ed_Ingold: if you plan on shooting mostly handheld, you probably won't be able to realize the full potential of V lens performance on a digital sensor (instead you might tend to magnify the flaws). The Hasselblad V body with digital back benefits mightily from a tripod. X1D or Fuji mirrorless 33x44 cameras are amenable to handheld success with their native, smaller, fully coupled AF optics, but clumsy with most adapted V glass unless tripod mounted. Handheld medium format digital will retain a certain degree of the medium format aesthetic, but not the full resolution advantages over smaller formats like 24x36. For the price of a Fuji or Hass X1D mirrorless, or digital back for Hass 500 body, one could pick up an excellent 42MP Nikon or Sony body with a few digital-optimized Zeiss 24x36 lenses (manual focus for Nikon, AF for Sony). Such a system might arguably be a better choice for handheld digital photography, with the V lenses reserved for shooting 6x6 film in a V body.

Shooting hand held will not be able to "magnify flaws" in any lens. The 'flaws' introduced by handholding will mask anything, good performance and bad performance alike. All cameras should be used on a stable tripod if you want to get the best out of them. So whenever possible, do so. It's a basic thing, a principle of photography, and that's true regardless of 'capture mode', either film or digital.

Whether you will like the physical experience of using V-system lenses on a mirrorless camera, or a small format (digital) camera depends a lot on personal preferences. Myself, i do not put Hasselblad lenses on my small format DSLRs. I got enough, and good enough, lenses for those, smaller and lighter, automatic, autofocus, etc., that i do not know why i would do so.

Using a digital back on V-system cameras is not "less convenient" (whether it is less exciting i leave up to you) than putting them on a mirrorless camera or small format DSLR. On the contrary. As mentioned in the above post too, "the V film body will handle much more naturally with the large V lenses".

I do use my range of V-system lenses on V-system cameras with digital backs, and there are no worries about performance. They all do well. Contrast and resolution is at least on par with digital capture on smaller format high resolution cameras. Maybe some newer lenses on medium format digital cameras, like the X1D, are better. Someone with more experience using these and similar cameras and their lenses will be able to tell us.

Yes, some V-system lenses are a bit better than others (just like they always were. Digital or film, no difference there). But there is no single lens that would be not up to par, or even useless, on a digital camera.

The main attraction still of using V-system lenses on V-system cameras with digital backs is that these lenses and the larger sensors render images quite differently (less harsh, more pleasing, subtle colours) than equally good lenses do on smaller formats. And that is both due to the lenses, the way they render. And to the sensors (and to the post processing built into the small format digital cameras, which tends to push towards more contrasty and saturated images, losing the natural tone and colour you would get on Portra film and you still do get using MF digital backs).

My Nikons will not, because cannot, replace my Hasselblad (and neither will substitute digital capture on my Sinars, though there's only so much you can do using scanning backs). They all have their own character and uses.

And you do not get the complete character of a V-system lens on a MF digital back when you put that V-system lens on a small format DSLR. The lens is only part of the equation.

And mind you: resolution is not much, if at all, part of it. MF capture using MF lenses does not fall short compared to smaller format DSLR or mirrorless capture.

Re sensor sizes: the difference between full frame and crop frame medium format digital backs isn't that big that edge performance of a lens wouldn't be an issue too on crop sensors (if it is using the same lens on full frame film). You do lose the extreme corners, but not so much of the sides. Compare that to MTF performance graphs of Zeiss lenses, and you'll notice that if there is fall off going out from te center (and there invariably is), it will show itself also on crop sensors. So even if a lens performs well in the center, it cannot hide the fact that it does not going out from the center. So though yes, we crop away the very worst bit, good performance across the field is still important

I do not know why the 80 mm Planar lens is singled out as a possible problematic lens. It is one of the very best Zeiss lenses available for Hasselblad, and it is so on film and on digital. It's weak point is flare, so use s good lens hood. But other than that, no problem.

And i do not believe that there is sample variation that wide that what you say could be true. If some do very well, and some are only adequate, it is due not to the lens per se, but to something we have discuseed before: using old and worn equipment that should have been serviced or discarded. That, in general, is not something anyone should do. It is not an inherent quality of that particular piece of equipment.

I also do not know why the 135 mm is singled out as extremely good. I haven't noticed that it compares exceptionally well to the other lenses. How does it make itself known as such?

Retrofocus lenses do quite well on digital, because the retrofocus design is particularly suited to avoid angle of incidence problems. They are also more than good enough. No worries. I use the CF 40 mm a lot, and it performs very well. Sharp. Not too much fall off. Good contrast.

It would indeed be a big surprise if the 60 mm distagon would show itself to be "blah". It hasn't yet.

In general: the differences between the different V-system lenses you noticed using them on film will also be present using them on a digital back or digital camera.

Crop factors are not really an issue, i think, to anyone used to using and switching between different cameras. You soon know what to expect of what lens on what camera, and you also et used to the viewfinder and the 'unobtainable extra' it shows . But that is a personal thing, and will vary.

I wonder why we (still) talk about "some photographers feel" etc. Why not talk about what you feel and (more importantly) why that is, and leave the unsubstantiated generalizations out? Tell us what things like "extremely well" mean,

"Extremely well" means extremely well: the 135mm CF Makro Planar produces some gorgeous digital files (at least in the product work I've witnessed): somewhat better and more predictably than the excellent 120mm CF Makro Planar. The 135mm fitted with variable extension tube for field use is an interesting alternative to the more common 120 lens, if one can afford the cost and the one stop slower aperture.

"Some photographers feel" is a legitimate shorthand overview expression for when someone asks an overview type of question like "how does the 'blad 80mm Planar acquit itself on digital". My personal experience (or q.g.'s) forms but a single data point: if someone wants a broader sample they can verify generalized statements by checking the nearly 20 years worth of threads and photo posts re "How do various V lenses perform on various digital platforms". There are countless such user posts, many from professionals, at sites like Luminous Landscape, Rangefinderforum, Photorio (formerly APUG), DPreview, well received personal sites like Ming Thein's, flickr and of course here at p-net.

Different photographers have different expectations of lens performance on digital: some are very casual, some have realistic quality bars, some have taxingly high standards, and of course some have ridiculously unrealistic expectations (i.e., a circa 1992 second hand CF 80mm Planar of unknown provenance designed for 6x6 film cannot possibly be expected to EXACTLY equal the performance metrics of a current digital 24x36 optimized Zeiss Otus on a Nikon D850 in every conceivable respect). Peruse enough experience reports, and you quickly get an idea of whose opinion is most relevant to your own work.

Of these many many reports, the two most polarizing V lenses (on modern 'medium format' sensors like the 50MP 33x44 Sony) are the 80mm Planar and 60mm Distagon. A significant number of users express disappointment that they don't perform as well for them on those sensors (in their work) as they did when these same photographers used them on film, or older less dense sensors. Given the crop factor and pixel density are similar to the difference between current 24x26 and APS-C, this is reasonable: some classic 35mm SLR lenses intended for 24x36 also suffer from excessive light spill in the sensor chamber or other mechano-optical conflicts when adapted to smaller sensor coverage. The notion that a crop sensor will always make any lens seem better simply because it crops the 'sweet spot' from the center of the field is erroneous: other factors in the lens design + camera interface can 'contaminate' that sweet spot.

So, YMMV: a well-preserved or slightly better-than-average 80mm Planar might work for you quite beautifully on a Fuji GFX or 'blad with CFV IIc back, other examples perhaps not: depends on your needs, your sensor, your camera configuration. Ditto the 60mm Distagon: in general, yes, retrofocus is more suitable for sensor shooting than pure wide designs like the SWC Biogon. But in the particular case of the 60mm, its specific optical design proves disappointing for some photographers with some digital setups (covers 6x6 film with legendary quality, but loses some of its signature luster in some digital applications). Those photographers tend to report the 50mm CF-FLE or CFi as being a bit better if they swap it for the 60mm.

It is not unusual, unrealistic or sacrilegious to say so: the exact same phenomena are reported with several premium well-regarded Leica R, Olympus OM Zuiko, Nikkor AIS, Canon FD, even Zeiss lenses for the Contax RTS. Some lenses known to "knock your socks off" on film are unable to duplicate the same effects on a digital sensor, due to a variety of potential interactions. Would you personally feel the same disappointment? Maybe yes, maybe no: if you never shoot the type of image that obviously exploits the 'legendary' qualities of that lens, you won't have that reference of expectation, and might quite like the lens for your own purposes. All you can do it try all the glass you own on a borrowed or rented digital body before you invest in a new system, and make your own evaluations.

This sort of leads back into the crop sensor issue: I strongly disagree with those who insist "its no big deal". It is in fact a very big deal to those who specialize in the type of work that would be impacted most: architecture and landscape (the two categories OP of this thread mentioned were significant to him). More than a few V 6x6 film shooters already felt constrained iby having nothing wider than 40mm available, when that 40mm effectively becomes a 60mm on 33x44, they are none too thrilled. Telling those photographers "the crop doesn't matter" is a denial of their reality. Hasselblad itself point blank acknowledged this with some of the early marketing materials for their new CF-V50cII back + 907x mirrorless camera bundle: their concept being you would use the CFV back on your V camera with V lenses for moderate, portrait and tele projects, but have the option to slap the new XCD 21mm or 30mm sensor-optimized wide lenses on the 907x tucked in the side pocket of your camera bag. The 907x + XCD wide + CF-V50cII was meant to be a spiritual digital successor to the SWC (which itself performs rather dismally with many popular digital backs).

My observation that handheld use of the V lenses on medium format digital platforms will not maximize their performance stands, however on wants to parse it (as 'magnifying their flaws' or 'masking their potential' - a distinction without a difference). For better and worse, photographers often have brutally higher standards for their digital output vs their film work: what was acceptable for a 500cm and 80 Planar handheld with Tri-X may not necessarily translate to a Sony 33x44 sensor with the same degree of satisfaction. If you expect your handheld work with V glass on medium format digital to equal the tack sharp results from a Sigma Art 40mm on a Nikon D850, you'll be disappointed. You might get there with a tripod, but never handheld. You can get a nice taste of the medium format aesthetic (longer focal lengths + larger sensor = different focus falloff, bokeh, subject separation) handheld, but a tripod is required to get the very best pixel-peeping resolution from the V lens + 33x44 sensor combo.

The EVF and rear panel live view of the mirrorless Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D will certainly maximize focus accuracy, which may be of the highest significance to a given photographer. Unquestionably you will nail focus with a V lens faster and dead accurate to the sensor vs a V body with digital back. Even a perfectly calibrated V body + CFV combo can be hard to nail focus with to the precision needed for digital pixel peepers. Its true you can employ tethering to a tablet or laptop, but thats awkward in the field (and the small integral LCD panel of the CFV back is not as optimized for live view focus confirmation as an EVF). Pick yer poison: ironically the portable mirrorless bodies can often outshoot the V body + back when tripod bound.

That crop sensor thing. First, not all digital backs have a crop factor of 1.5. My 40 mm lens still is a 44 mm lens when used on my digital backs. When used on some other backs, it is still a 42 mm lens. So not much to worry about as an architecture or landscape photographer. (And if you want more, switch to the appropriate equipment. Put, for instance, a 47 mm lens on a 4x5" camera and scan, either film, or directly, using a scanning back. There are several reasons why that would be a good idea. Horses for courses. It's not for fun that Hasselblad introduced a shift converter, then the ArcBody.)

And yes, modern day lens design is somewhat less stringent as far as making good lenses is concerned, so the once unthinkable (say, a 28 mm lens that covers 6x4.5) is now available. That is made possible by in-camera and post/raw-processing, in which flaws are processed away. You do not get to see the truly raw performance of a lens anymore.

But my point is, apart from angle of view issues, that a crop sensor is like using a 6x4.5 or even 4x4 back on your 6x6 camera. It is not an inconvenience.

You know what lens can do what on that format, and you do whatever you have to do without worries. You, for instance, know you have to pull the 60 mm lens out of the bag instead of the 80 mm. Not such a big annoyance as you make it out to be. Not different from switching between different formats. It works intuitively.

For instance, how often have you mistakenly pulled out a 50 mm lens for your 6x6 camera because you thought it would be the 'standard' lens for that camera, as it is on small format? Or had to think whether you need a shorter or longer lens to get a narrower angle of view, because long and short differ in mms on different formats? Myself, never.

But indeed: your mileage may vary. Which brings me to that "some photographers"-stuff. Yes, there are many opinions on many subjects, and you can find all on the World Wide Web. What strikes me as rather odd is that we have found here, on PNet, the voice of all those different photographers combined. My mileage does indeed vary from yours. Should i, or anyone else, change my experience based opinion, because of the voice of "most photographers" telling us what in effect is your opinion?

Anyway...

And i still often do not know what it means what you say. "Blah". "Poor". "Excellent". What? I find i often do not share your view. For instance, i never noticed that the 135 mm Makro-Planar excells compared to the other lenses. In my experience, it is a poor second to the lenses that offer an alternative, because it is not better, but it is dark, and needs that variable extension tube (though it works well enough on it, yes). Your explanation of "extremely well", that should help us find that quality in which it distinguishes itself from its supposedly lesser companions, is that it "produces some gorgeous files". O.K. ... uhm...? It works more predictably. What does that mean? Why don't you explain, instead of attaching labels that keep us guessing?

In my experience, or opinion, if you own the 120 mm and the 150 mm, there is absolutely no reason to invest in the 135 mm. There is nothing it does that you cannot have using either one of those. It is not sharper. Has no distinguishing rendering of either colour or bokeh. It has the same poor performance (it gets remarkably soft out of the image center and in the corners) at long distance as the 120 mm variant, etc.

It was produced to have a lens that would make a good 'bellows head', a lens that could take you from infinity to really close up without having to insert tubes (which you must rather soon using Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses). But at the cost of having to use the awkward bellows at all time. Hence the variable exension tube, which however took away the wide range. Which it was made for to begin with... A bit of a failure.

You really do not need one. (But if you want one, do get one.)

Different people do indeed have different expectations. But the scope of what you can expect from a lens on film or sensor is limited. I really do not see how that 80 mm lens or 60 mm lens can both be one photographer's dream on digital, and detested by another one. They are just lenses that project an image on a sensor, and they do not do so in very different ways, or interact with sensors such that the results are that much different.

Could it be, then, due to sample variation? There always is some. But there is also strict (but not perfect) quality control that ensures that the majority of these are remarkably similar in performance. I can't see how that could cause such a wide difference in opinion about these two lenses (and why only these two?).

But yes, "many reports" and "in their work", and all that... So what are your (!) thoughts about those two lenses on digital?

Handheld use of any lens on any medium will not "maximize" any "performance". Of course not. Who would expect it would?

It also does not, because cannot, "magnify its flaws". That was and is a strange choice of words (quoted, not parsed). And it indeed is a quite different thing from "masking its potential"- that, it really does.

If handholding can do anything to a lens' performance, it is hide its potential and (!) flaws. That is: you do not get better images, but images that are impacted by handholding more than by lens flaws.

Rule 1: always (i.e. whenever possible) use a tripod. Else do not expect to get the best out of any lens, under any circumstances.

I recall using a Hasselblad without a tripod. Disappointing.

To put it in perspective, using a FF camera at a shutter speed of 1/FL, camera shake limits the resolution to the equivalent of 6 MP.

Wake me up when someone makes a sensor that's actually medium format, and not a pathetic 1/3rd bigger than 24x36mm. That's not even equivalent to the difference between full-frame and DX.

IMO, spending your money on wide-angle native lenses for your existing cameras would be a better investment. Especially for landscape and architecture, where a wider angle is often essential.

I think clinging onto old V lenses and not being able to use the image-circle they were designed for is a completely false economy.

"Look" and "feel"? From a few bits of inanimate glass stuck together - really?

Try this: Take the exact same picture with a 'blad lens, and another with a modern equivalent focal length. Show them to a group of impartial viewers, without telling them which lens is which, and ask which picture(s) they prefer. If the result is anything other than random, then decide where to put your money.

Sometimes the hype, reputation and 'mystique' attached to things clouds any objective judgement as to their true worth.

Those who insist that crop sensor effect on lens coverage "doesn't matter" baffle me. If a photographer chooses to use the V system for digital photography, most of the available camera configurations will limit them to the V lens lineup, which effectively taps out at 40mm on the wide end (unless one is wealthy enough to afford the 30mm fisheye, and their work lends itself to de-fishing post-process). This was adequate for 6x6 film but is decidedly limiting for many architecture and landscape photographers with 33x44 sensor. If your back is to a literal or figurative wall with the 40mm and 6x6 film, having its angle of view reduced to that of the 60mm on digital will likely cause major difficulty. There is no option to go wider digitally unless you switch to a different camera system altogether (or opt for Hasselblad's "CFV+907X+XCD wide lens" solution). If you can't make the shot on 33x44 sensor with the 40mm effectively functioning at 60mm, and no wider V lens was ever made that you can use as an alternative, its fair to say the crop issue would have an appreciable effect on your work.

Personal taste also comes into play: if you've mastered the 80mm Planar on film and rely on its particular optical qualities for your work, having to use the 60mm or 50mm Distagon instead for a "normal" AOV on 33x44 sensor could be jarring and disappointing. You lose the f/2.8 aperture, and the Planar rendering of image. There is a difference in how the lenses draw that is perceivable to some photographers: people didn't covet the Hasselblad or Rolleiflex with "any random lens" - the 80 Planar was (and remains) the prime attraction. Being faced with a choice of its AOV becoming 110mm, or switching to a Distagon, is not especially appealing to all Hasselblad photographers.

A similar dilemma was faced by Leica photographers with the M8 crop sensor digital body: the 50mm Summicron and Summilux are not exactly the same as the 35mm 'cron and 'lux, nor are those anything like the 24mm. Being forced to a wider lens alternative to maintain angle of view was the piss in the punchbowl for many Leica enthusiasts until full frame coverage was restored with the M9: shooting the 35-as-50 or 24-as-35 threw some off their game. Not every compromise is acceptable to every user: that is why the best course for some might be reserving their V system for 6x6 film work, letting the V lenses cover that huge frame the way Zeiss intended. Moving toward a fully-integrated new medium format camera/lens system optimized for digital (with lens focal lengths matched to the sensor size) may be the best path, filling in with adapted V lenses when they seem suitable.

There is optical science, and bench tests, and then there are our eyeballs and brain chemistry: sometimes they agree, often they do not. There are technology differences between film and digital capture, some of them of more significance with some lenses than others. Film captures an image in some ways similar to a digital sensor, and in others not at all. Film is not perfectly flat, and the image is captured at a range of emulsion depths. Film does not have a polished, highly reflective cover glass over it. A reflex body designed for a certain film gate size can have undesirable reflection paths and light spillover between rear element of large-coverage lens and smaller cropped sensor. Lenses perfected for film can therefore very easily go off the rails when placed in front of some digital sensors: confronted with a perfectly flat image plane, they falter, and the sensor cover glass can turn minor aberrations or flare issues into bigger problems than they seem on film.

Current sensors add microlenses to the mix, which throws another variable at a vintage optic that wasn't designed for it. The ultimate trainwreck example of this with the V system is the SWC camera: beloved for its extraordinary high performance on film, the Biogon lens completely falls apart on current digital sensors due to cover glass/microlens interference (plus its very raison d'etre, the 38mm super wide angle POV, gets cropped down to a pedestrian 55mm).

My experience of the 135mm Makro Planar disagrees with q.g. (not the C mind you, the CF version): the example I borrowed was much more predictable and repeatable over the full focus and aperture range, with infinity being less of a crapshoot than it is with the 120mm CF. At closer distance I think it is a bit sharper and more vivid in color, and it is much less prone to random flare interference than the 120CF (of course those product shots were done in a commercial studio by a pro, not by me- I only observed the results). Is it worth twice as much as the 120mm CF? Probably not for most people, which is why I "settled" for the 120 myself and find it works perfectly for 85% of what I need it to do.

A dedicated pro or macro- specialized enthusiast might feel otherwise. In any event, I was not suggesting OP run out and buy a 135mm: he asked about V lens performance on the Sony "mini MF" sensor, and I gave an overview of typical opinions for each focal length (OP did not specify which lenses he already owned). That q.g. vehemently disagrees the 135mm has advantages over the 120mm carries no more or less weight than my perception that it does: each opinion adds to the matrix of data points. The 135mm was never popular, even less so in CF form, so not as many reports on it as the 120, so its that much more necessary to evaluate personally if it interests you.

The 80mm Planar: a classic on film, it wanders all over the map in digital performance depending on the specific sample of 80mm, and esp the specific sensor and camera body arrangement. Its a legendary lens, which (usually) works together with film technology to make amazing images. Certain digital setups, however, rip away that film symbiosis advantage to ruthlessly reveal optical flaws that film largely masked or minimized (spherical aberrations, etc). That doesn't mean the 80 Planar is "bad" per se: it is great on film and does well with several types of digital sensor, esp for portrait work. But there are enough reports of disappointment from landscape and architecture photographers using the 33x44 Sony sensor to merit closer testing if one is thinking of using such a setup.

Ditto the 60mm Distagon: a sensation when released for its low distortion, tack-sharp resolution across the field, and vivid colors- on film. Pair it with the 'wrong' sensor/camera combo, and it loses some of those advantages. When I used it with a Phase One CCD back, I found it reasonably good but not nearly as impressive overall as on film. On the Sony 33x44 CMOS, I didn't like it at all: the notably good color it has on film (and to a lesser extent CCD) vanished altogether. This required more post-process effort than I like to make it match my other 60mm images, which it never quite does.

Comb thru web reports, and you'll find 50-60% have experiences similar to mine: the 60mm is considered killer on 6x6 film, on crop CMOS sensor not so much ("blah", "meh", "indifferent" are among the nicer terms reported, other photographers are more harsh). But once again, that is just a starting data point: it can help establish a range of expectations, but any individual might find them far exceeded. Depends on your larger system, how you work, how you see, and what you're comparing to (i.e., while I was disappointed by the 60mm Distagon, I still preferred it on the Pentax 645D/Z over Pentax own "designed for digital" 55mm DFA).

The 50mm CF-FLE seems better-regarded than the 60mm on the Sony 33x44 50MP, but was none too popular on the larger higher-resolution Phase/Leaf CCD backs (oops. theres that "YMMV depending on" gotcha again). The final, scarce 40mm CFi-IF is highly sought after for its performance on crop MF sensors: as expected, since Hasselblad/Zeiss deliberately designed it for such sensors at the expense of some 6x6 film performance sacrifices). The earlier more common 40mm CF slots somewhere between the 60mm and 80mm: depending on sensor it ranges from very good to adequate. The 30mm Fisheye gets severely cropped, but performance seems undiminished on 33x44 sensor.

If there are any complaints or disappointments with the 100mm Planar, 180mm Sonnar or 250mm SA, I haven't seen them: these seem consistently high performers across film and digital, and a variety of sensor sizes/types. The 120mm Makro slots in here as well, with the caveat its optimization for closeup vs infinity is even more obvious on digital (so perhaps not quite as versatile as with film). The traditional 150mm and 250mm Sonnars have the same pluses and minuses on digital as they do on film, with some sensors/cameras favoring them more than others. Used incorrectly, the standard 250mm will show more CA than desirable, and the 150mm can seem softer than the 180mm in tests. But if you've mastered them with film, you should be able to get very good to excellent results on the crop sensor.

At one point some years back I had an absolutely ridiculous array of V lenses in my possession: I couldn't make up my mind whether to standardize on C or CF lenses. I tested most of them for digital performance on a Hasselblad 500cm or 503cx with Phase One P25+ CCD back (and a few with the first version CF-V50c CMOS). I've also tried the majority on a Pentax 645Z body, which has the same 50MP Sony 33x44 sensor as the CF-V50c (both also similar to the one used in the Fuji GFX and Hassy X1D). My experiences paralleled what I've seen from other photographers, with some exceptions here and there. I also found sample variation applies to our Holy Hasselblad lenses as much as any other premium lens line: nothing is perfect, and lenses designed for film had more tolerance range than you'd imagine from the legend.

Of eight 80mm Planars, I found the three "New C" versions I owned (harvested from 501c camera kits) worked best for digital, better on the Phase CCD but still quite credible on the Sony CMOS. Surprisingly close to those newer Planars was a silver T* "C" lens, My 80mm CFe (surprisingly) was mid-pack, the two CF Planars bringing up the rear followed by a very disappointing mint-condition black C T* placing dead last. I would not hesitate to use the "New C" or silver C T*, the CFe was certainly good enough, but my CFs gave me pause and the black C T* was not good (yet was fine on film).

Of six 50mm Distagons, again I had a surprise: the oldest silver T* was perhaps my most pleasing Hasselblad 50 on either film or digital. Two much newer CF-FLE were just a tad behind: notably sharper in the corners, but not as pleasing overall for typical foreground-background compositions. A black C T* and two non-FLE CFs were well behind. Of four 60mm Distagons, one black C T* and a CB were reasonably good on the Sony sensor, the other C T* and a CF were just "OK". The 40mm C T* was not tested on digital: too clumsy and I owned it too briefly.

Both my 100mm CF were faultless on film or any sensor, as were both 120mm Mkros (even the one that has been cleaned of major fungus). One 150mm CF and a black C non-T* were pretty good on the Sony 33x44 sensor, the other CF and a silver C non-T* less so (not bad, but not great). Both 250mm CFs I own really pleased me on CCD and CMOS sensors, but I must be mindful of high contrast details like tree branches against the sky to minimize potential CA issues. Both silver and black C non-T* examples of 250mm I owned did not measure up to the CFs on digital: nice on film but weirdly lifeless on sensor.

Around 2014, this was about half the 'blad lenses I owned for one crazy obsessive year. After that, I cut way back to just one set of favorite CFs, with a couple spares:

The bottom line for me-I live and die by wide angles.

The 50mm DIstagon is the widest I find practical for use on a reflex Hasselblad, and mine is a "don't leave home without it" lens. I've been watching for a 45mm for my Pentax 67.

On 35mm(or full frame digital), I use a 35mm lens as my standard lens quite often. Not by accident, I often pack a 20mm as part of my prime kit, and my 14-24mm f/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses.

I'm not every photographer, and yes I own and use longer-much longer-lenses than that. I love that "standard zooms" now often go down to 24mm, which is a very useful FL for me.

Back when Nikon first dipped their toes in the water with digital with the D-1, they pretty quickly followed with the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S as a standard zoom(yes, it's a heavy beast that also covers full frame, but it was targeted to D-1 users). The 14mm f/2.8 prime came quickly also. These were expensive, high dollar lenses, but they realized that they needed to get practical wide angles out for the target market of the D1(PJs). Of course, crop sensor lenses came later.

Still, though, I have a hard time making a leap to MF digital knowing that a lens that is very useful to me suddenly becomes a lot more like a normal lens.

Some photographers love crop bodies. In 35mm format, I have what IMO is the best crop body on the market-a Nikon D500-but it's a niche use camera for me and my FX cameras are more likely to accompany me. Even something like 50x50 might be close enough for me to be interested, but until then for my use I'm sticking with MF film.

Wake me up when someone makes a sensor that's actually medium format, and not a pathetic 1/3rd bigger than 24x36mm. That's not even equivalent to the difference between full-frame and DX.

Do you consider 6x4.5 medium format? Then wake up, Rodeo Person.

For a bit of money, you can get a 150 mp 54x40 mm (which is full frame 6x4.5) PhaseOne sensor.

Those who insist that crop sensor effect on lens coverage "doesn't matter" baffle me. If a photographer chooses to use the V system for digital photography, most of the available camera configurations will limit them to the V lens lineup, which effectively taps out at 40mm on the wide end (unless one is wealthy enough to afford the 30mm fisheye, and their work lends itself to de-fishing post-process). This was adequate for 6x6 film but is decidedly limiting for many architecture and landscape photographers with 33x44 sensor.

[Cropped more talk based on the assumption that all you can get is a 33x44 mm sensor.]

You really should investigate the available digital backs.

For instance, the already quite old (but still good) PhaseOne P-series turn that 40 mm lens into a 44 mm lens, a 38 mm lens into a 41.8 mm lens. No worries.

You could also put that 40 lens on a 54x40 mm sensor as mentioned in my reply to to RJ, and have no crop factor whatsoever.

You apparently do not know about these, already long available, thingies. I told you yesterday as well, but you missed that. or chose to ignore it. But trust me. I know. From personal experience. There is no such problem.

Unless you insist on using a too small sensor to put your V-System lens on. Yes. But then the problem is all of your own making. Begging the question, and all that.

If you really think the 80 mm Planar is the lens for you, and that the 60 mm or any other lens would not be able to replace it, then the only thing to do is use that 80 mm lens like you did before.

How, i wonder, would you manage if 6x6 or 6x4.5 is not the format to be used, but you have to use either smaller or larger formats? Would you still miss that 80 mm Planar, or would you happily use a Nikon or Canon 50 mm, or a nice Rodenstock 150 mm?

"Most photographers" ;-) never give this any thought at all when deciding what format camera to use. They select whatever they need to get the picture.

Current sensors add microlenses to the mix, which throws another variable at a vintage optic that wasn't designed for it. The ultimate trainwreck example of this with the V system is the SWC camera: beloved for its extraordinary high performance on film, the Biogon lens completely falls apart on current digital sensors due to cover glass/microlens interference (plus its very raison d'etre, the 38mm super wide angle POV, gets cropped down to a pedestrian 55mm).

Again...

The Biogon does quite well on digital sensors. Your assumption that they all use microprims (now) is false.

You used a P25+? Than you must know that there also was a P65+, with that 54x40 mm sensor size. No crop factor.

And now that one comes to mind: if anyone wants to move his or her V-system into the digital realm, try to find one of these P65+. Still as good as anything you could get today.

My experience of the 135mm Makro Planar disagrees with q.g. (not the C mind you, the CF version): the example I borrowed was much more predictable and repeatable over the full focus and aperture range, with infinity being less of a crapshoot than it is with the 120mm CF. At closer distance I think it is a bit sharper and more vivid in color, and it is much less prone to random flare interference than the 120CF (of course those product shots were done in a commercial studio by a pro, not by me- I only observed the results). Is it worth twice as much as the 120mm CF? Probably not for most people, which is why I "settled" for the 120 myself and find it works perfectly for 85% of what I need it to do.

 

A dedicated pro or macro- specialized enthusiast might feel otherwise. In any event, I was not suggesting OP run out and buy a 135mm: he asked about V lens performance on the Sony "mini MF" sensor, and I gave an overview of typical opinions for each focal length (OP did not specify which lenses he already owned). That q.g. vehemently disagrees the 135mm has advantages over the 120mm carries no more or less weight than my perception that it does: each opinion adds to the matrix of data points. The 135mm was never popular, even less so in CF form, so not as many reports on it as the 120, so its that much more necessary to evaluate personally if it interests you.

There is no "crap shoot" using the Makro-Planars (both of them) at infinity. They are not good at infinity. Always. Use the 150 mm Sonnar instead.

Is the 135 mm twice as expensive as the 120 mm? If so, it must be collector's value. For a user, the 120 mm is more valuable, is equally good, brighter (though only 1 stop), handles better, has a closer focusing limit. I would advise against getting a 135 mm S- or Makro-Planar, unless you indeed want one to complete a collection.

Yes, i disagree with the suggestion that the 135 mm would be a more usefull lens than the 120 mm, yes.

I do not do so "vehemently". I do so pointing out why that is instead. Which is something you (again/still) do not.

I still don't recognize anything you say about the variation in 80 mm and 60 mm lenses. I have quite a number of those myself, old and newer, with and without shutter (80 mm), and do not see any difference.

I haven't tried the different design CB extensively. I sold it not long after giving it a go. Did not really like it (it is not as good, enough to notice) and with so many 80 mm lenses, no need to hang on to it. (I still do have that other, not that good, CB lens, the 160 mm. As Fleischer/Muller (who couldn't decide on a, occupational, name) the Head of Strategic Marketing at Zeiss once told us: We do not always need a good lens).

And yes, the older, slower 60 mm Distagons are not that good. (Nor was the old one made for the 1000-series). I have yet to put either of them in front of a digital sensor though. But i do not think it would surprise me.

I do not know where you got the idea that the 60 mm was "a sensation" due to its low distortion. It's distortion is, in comparison, quite bad, worse (2 times as much) than that of the lenses that flank it in the line up, the 50 mm and 40 mm lenses (old and new versions) and the 80 mm lens. In fact, worst of all Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses, bar the fisheye. The CB 80 mm is almost as bad, but not quite.

I would not like to "comb thru web reports" if that is the sort of knowledge doing so would teach me.

It teaches us, though, the importance of not spreading such "most photographers", "seems better regarded", etc. talk.

I think it is more honest to other PNet members and readers to stick to what you know from personal experience, and not spread such unverifiable nonsense, suggestions that something is as you say ot is because "most photographers"... which you can gather "combing thru the web".

I think it would really much, much better if you only tell us what you know, from personal experience. And then also explain what you mean when sticking labels such as "excellent" etc. on things. We do not need suggestive references to the Authority of the Great Unknown who Rule(s) the Web. Not helpful.

Anyway: what you are describing when talking about your experience with these lenses on digital sensors, sound a lot like differences between (a limited selection of) sensors. (And you must know now there are those that are much larger than 33x44 mm).

I seem to recall that the 135 Macro lens can separate from its focusing helix. When mounted on a Hasselblad bellows, it will focus from infinity to whatever. Of course the 120 will focus to infinity and almost to macro range. It works admirably with extension tubes. I have an automatic bellows attachment, but haven't used it - ever. I am an unrepentant GAS victim.

Yes, the 135 mm was made to work from infinity down to 1:1, on the bellows. (And it was made as a bellows head, made for the bellows. The tube came much later.)

Its intended use was for the industrial photographer, who did not need anything but a camera, that lens and the bellows to get detail shots from whatever. The advantage was that you did not need to switch lenses (and do all that this involves: find a place to put everthing down, remove one lens and put it away, take out the other lens, etc.) in an industrial or equally uncomfortable setting.

As mentioned earlier, the thing with that was that you always had to use that large, uneasy on the hands, bellows. An advantage? Maybe. Uncomfortable certainly.

So for the range from infinity down to 1:2 (with a single tube. Or 1:4.5 without), the 120 mm is much easier to use. And the CF version of the 120 mm also gained a stop, so there is also a speed advantage (though myself i do not think 1 stop is that much to cheer about). Image quality of the two lenses is close enough the same.

Because of the inconvenience of always having to use that bellows (you haven't used the bellows, ever. Why? Same reason?), Hasselblad introduced the variable extension tube: a separate focussing helicoid made specially for the 135 mm lens. On that, it focuses from infinity down to about 1:6.

More convenient than on the bellows, but still: where is the advantage over the 120 mm lens? It needs extra tubes to be able to focus as close as the 120 mm without such aids.

Good performer, close up. Just as the 120 mm lens. But less popular because of the above.

I do not know where you got the idea that the 60 mm was "a sensation" due to its low distortion. It's distortion is, in comparison, quite bad, worse (2 times as much) than that of the lenses that flank it in the line up, the 50 mm and 40 mm lenses (old and new versions) [...]

That's not quite correct.

The latest version of the 40 mm lens, the internal focusing one (i forgot about that one. Apologies), is worst (bar the fisheye), having twice the amount of distortion still.

That however didn't matter, they told us, because it was 'particularly suited to be used with digital backs in professional studio photography', read: small sensors would crop away the worst affected part. (But also the exit pupil position, further away from the sensor compared to its predecessor, suited digital sensors better).

Too bad that sensors grew in size... ;-)

Sharp it is, though.

There are a couple of tilt-shift adapters for Hasselblad V lens to a Sony E-mount.

FotodioX Pro TLT ROKR Tilt-Shift Adapter for Hasselblad V Lens to Sony E Camera

That was more than I wanted to spend just to find out if Hasselblad optics were up to use with a small, 42 MP sensor. $80 for a simple adapter was more attractive than $200 for a look-see. I found that Hasselblad lenses compared favorably to Zeiss lenses made for Sony in terms of resolution, good corner sharpness and less vignetting.

Tilt-shift capability makes sense if you use a 2 pound lens on a 1 pound camera, taking advantage of that huge image circle and back-focus distance (zero cover glass effect). I don't find the limited focal length range a drawback, for landscapes anyway. Somewhat over half of all my travel photos are taken at 50 mm and longer. I may come back to this later.

For a bit of money, you can get a 150 mp 54x40 mm (which is full frame 6x4.5) PhaseOne sensor.

That's not a 'bit' of money. That's a small fortune.

The cameras under discussion have slightly under 33x44mm sensors, and yet are billed as being 'medium format'. If you'd have classed 127 film as medium format then OK. But really, I can see almost no difference in image quality between the likes of Sony's Alpha7riii or riv, and a Fuji GFX 50. Apart from the price tag being twice as high.

Using the V lenses on the Fuji or 'blad compact mirrorless MF cams is one of those "sounds interesting, is doable, then when you try it you discover its not terribly practical" ideas.

 

The first disappointment is the crop factor: these cameras have 33x44 sensors vs the 6x6 field the V lenses were designed to cover. So the 80 Planar functions more like a 105mm, the 50mm or 60mm Distagon wides become your "normal" lenses, the 40mm Distagon becomes just marginally wide, and the tele/portrait focal lengths become significantly longer than you might be used to with 6x6. Depending on your preferred V focal lengths for various shooting situations, this can be very frustrating.

 

The next hurdle is handling: the 80 Planar is pleasant enough, and perhaps the 60mm Distagon, but everything else is very front-heavy, large and clumsy. The mirrorless EVF makes focusing accuracy technically easy, but in practical terms the lenses remain rather difficult in the field (C and CF have very heavy, long-throw focus helicals, the CB and CFi/CFe are better but still a bit awkward, and you need to remember to manually stop the lens down with its DOF button or slider). All of this gets easier with tripod shooting, but handheld "V-on-mirrorless" is a challenge that tends to nullify the fun/charms of handheld work.

 

Finally you have the shutter issue to contend with. The Fujis at the moment are the best (really only) fully usable mirrorless option for V glass, because they contain their own standard electromechanical focal plane shutter. The Hasselblad X1D relies on the leaf shutter in each of its bespoke lenses for exposure control: with adapted lenses like the Vs one is forced to rely on its sensor-based electronic shutter, which tends to create problematic artifacts in many common shooting situations. The X1D can be used effectively with V lenses, but you do need to be mindful of its shutter limitations.

 

Reduced to a nutshell: if you're very serious about wanting to continue V lens use with medium format mirrorless, you'll probably be happier with one of the Fuji bodies. The Hassy X1D is an extraordinary compact MF system when used with its own native lenses as intended, but loses much of its appeal with adapted glass. You might also consider getting the new Hasselblad CF-V50cII digital back for your existing V film body: it is very advanced compared to previous V backs and has much the same sensor/color as the X1D. What you lose in mirrorless EVF convenience, you gain in familiar V-body handling and ability to quickly shift between film and digital formats: a subjective preference. At present it retails for about $7500 (USD), including the novel new 907x camera body which converts the basic back into a supplementary compact mirrorless that takes X1D lenses.

thanks a lot for taking you time to share your huge experience!