Longest telephoto for Hasselblad X2D?

[TechTalk2]

I know of no one who has tested many copies of the 500/8 APO on a 33x44 sensor and reported results.

Neither do I. What you can find online are image examples and opinions from photographers who own or have tested other individual lens samples.

I would recommend individuals search for as many image examples and opinions as possible. Of course, personal experience and testing is always the most rewarding.

 

[JimKasson]

I know of no one who has tested many copies of the 500/8 APO on a 33x44 sensor and reported results.

Neither do I. What you can find online are image examples and opinions from photographers who own or have tested other individual lens samples.

I would recommend individuals search for as many image examples and opinions as possible. Of course, personal experience and testing is always the most rewarding.

Tell us about your personal experience with this lens on a 33x44mm sensor, please,

 

[TechTalk2]

I know of no one who has tested many copies of the 500/8 APO on a 33x44 sensor and reported results.

Neither do I. What you can find online are image examples and opinions from photographers who own or have tested other individual lens samples.

I would recommend individuals search for as many image examples and opinions as possible. Of course, personal experience and testing is always the most rewarding.

Tell us about your personal experience with this lens on a 33x44mm sensor, please,

I've only used a borrowed version of the lens decades ago with film. I can point you in the direction of others who have used the lens with a 33 x 44 mm sensor if you would like.

Here's another video from the same photographer as my earlier post. This time photographing birds.

 

[Doppler9000]

A video featuring the Hasselblad Tele-Apotessar 500mm F/8 CF in combination with the CFV II 50C digital back being used to capture wildlife for anyone interested.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I found that lens couldn't keep up with the Sony 50 MP 33x44 mm sensor. It's not that it's really bad, but I found that the Nikon 500/4E FL ED was a lot better, even after you cropped away the corners.

One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model. So naturally, broad conclusions would benefit from a broad sampling.

Your dismay regarding sample size seems asymmetric - you complain only if the conclusion is unfavorable to you and your brand?

 

[TechTalk2]

A video featuring the Hasselblad Tele-Apotessar 500mm F/8 CF in combination with the CFV II 50C digital back being used to capture wildlife for anyone interested.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I found that lens couldn't keep up with the Sony 50 MP 33x44 mm sensor. It's not that it's really bad, but I found that the Nikon 500/4E FL ED was a lot better, even after you cropped away the corners.

One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model. So naturally, broad conclusions would benefit from a broad sampling.

Your dismay regarding sample size seems asymmetric - you complain only if the conclusion is unfavorable to you and your brand?

I don't have any complaints.

 

[madlantern]

Where's your brand loyalty?

The Hasselblad 350mm F/5.6 Superachromat CFE plus the brilliant 2x (two different options, but get the Mutar) can be had in good condition for around $5 or $6k.

It's internal focusing which puts.it in the same category as the 40mm CFE IF--maybe HB's sharpest V lens ever--conceded by the designer of the 38 Biogon.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFE350.pdf

And the multiplier of using a V lens + extender will give you > 1000mm equivalent. 500mm without the extender....

I'm rather new to vintage lenses, so if you could bear with me for a sec...

How did you get to 1000mm? With a 2x teleconverter, you get to 700mm. Where does the other 300mm come from? Are you stacking another teleconverter on top of the 2x?

Also, if you are stacking teleconverters, would that significantly degrade the image, especially in the corners?

 

[Doppler9000]

A video featuring the Hasselblad Tele-Apotessar 500mm F/8 CF in combination with the CFV II 50C digital back being used to capture wildlife for anyone interested.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I found that lens couldn't keep up with the Sony 50 MP 33x44 mm sensor. It's not that it's really bad, but I found that the Nikon 500/4E FL ED was a lot better, even after you cropped away the corners.

One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model. So naturally, broad conclusions would benefit from a broad sampling.

Your dismay regarding sample size seems asymmetric - you complain only if the conclusion is unfavorable to you and your brand?

I don't have any complaints.

Perhaps not a complaint, but you are compelled to comment, then, about sample size only when the conclusion is unfavorable to your brand.

 

[madlantern]

Curious what is the longest telephoto lens you can theoretically can get for the X2D? I’m assuming it’d have to be adapted. If I don't really care if I need to use electronic shutter or having to manually focus. But do care about corner to corner sharpness is highly desired though. Aperture pass though is a nice to have, but not a deal breaker.

I’m assuming it’d have to be more or less vintage, since nothing comes close to this recently. Anything in the 400-500mm + range, including with teleconverters?

SMC Pentax-A* 600mm F5.6 ED [IF] ?

Thanks for the advise! It also seems there’s a 800mm version? But I couldn’t find much reviews of the lens on modern cameras. Do you happen to have any experience with its contrast / sharpness characteristics?

Reviews for the 600mm are here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-Star-645-600mm-F5.6-Lens.html

There are some reviews for the 6x7 800mm f/6.7 lens here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-Star-67-800mm-F6.7-Lens.html

It seems to be better than the heavier F/4 version, which is reported as being soft.

Pardon my simple questions. but I've always wonder how you'd control the aperture for these lenses on either the GFX/X2D cameras? I'm assuming the adapter for these lenses is just for the mount - i.e. no electronics carry over.

Curious if you have first hand (or even second-hand) experience with any of these, especially the 800mm 5.6? Thanks!

 

[Bags27]

Where's your brand loyalty?

The Hasselblad 350mm F/5.6 Superachromat CFE plus the brilliant 2x (two different options, but get the Mutar) can be had in good condition for around $5 or $6k.

It's internal focusing which puts.it in the same category as the 40mm CFE IF--maybe HB's sharpest V lens ever--conceded by the designer of the 38 Biogon.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFE350.pdf

And the multiplier of using a V lens + extender will give you > 1000mm equivalent. 500mm without the extender....

I'm rather new to vintage lenses, so if you could bear with me for a sec...

How did you get to 1000mm? With a 2x teleconverter, you get to 700mm. Where does the other 300mm come from? Are you stacking another teleconverter on top of the 2x?

Also, if you are stacking teleconverters, would that significantly degrade the image, especially in the corners?

I'm getting to the equivalent, as there is a multiplier effect using V lenses on the smaller digital sensors.

If you use a FF on the standard digital sensor, there is a "shrinkage" (multiple by ~ .75); if you use a lens for a 6x6 MF, there's a multiplier of ~ 1.45x (Jim will have the actual numbers; I'm an eejit about that stuff).

 

[madlantern]

Where's your brand loyalty?

The Hasselblad 350mm F/5.6 Superachromat CFE plus the brilliant 2x (two different options, but get the Mutar) can be had in good condition for around $5 or $6k.

It's internal focusing which puts.it in the same category as the 40mm CFE IF--maybe HB's sharpest V lens ever--conceded by the designer of the 38 Biogon.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFE350.pdf

And the multiplier of using a V lens + extender will give you > 1000mm equivalent. 500mm without the extender....

I'm rather new to vintage lenses, so if you could bear with me for a sec...

How did you get to 1000mm? With a 2x teleconverter, you get to 700mm. Where does the other 300mm come from? Are you stacking another teleconverter on top of the 2x?

Also, if you are stacking teleconverters, would that significantly degrade the image, especially in the corners?

I'm getting to the equivalent, as there is a multiplier effect using V lenses on the smaller digital sensors.

If you use a FF on the standard digital sensor, there is a "shrinkage" (multiple by ~ .75); if you use a lens for a 6x6 MF, there's a multiplier of ~ 1.45x (Jim will have the actual numbers; I'm an eejit about that stuff).

Jokes and brand loyalty aside for a moment, do you think the Hasseblad 350mm with 2x TC will be sharper or softer than the Pentax 800mm? Do you happen to have any experience with either of them?

 

[Doppler9000]

Curious what is the longest telephoto lens you can theoretically can get for the X2D? I’m assuming it’d have to be adapted. If I don't really care if I need to use electronic shutter or having to manually focus. But do care about corner to corner sharpness is highly desired though. Aperture pass though is a nice to have, but not a deal breaker.

I’m assuming it’d have to be more or less vintage, since nothing comes close to this recently. Anything in the 400-500mm + range, including with teleconverters?

SMC Pentax-A* 600mm F5.6 ED [IF] ?

Thanks for the advise! It also seems there’s a 800mm version? But I couldn’t find much reviews of the lens on modern cameras. Do you happen to have any experience with its contrast / sharpness characteristics?

Reviews for the 600mm are here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-Star-645-600mm-F5.6-Lens.html

There are some reviews for the 6x7 800mm f/6.7 lens here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-Star-67-800mm-F6.7-Lens.html

It seems to be better than the heavier F/4 version, which is reported as being soft.

Pardon my simple questions. but I've always wonder how you'd control the aperture for these lenses on either the GFX/X2D cameras? I'm assuming the adapter for these lenses is just for the mount - i.e. no electronics carry over.

Curious if you have first hand (or even second-hand) experience with any of these, especially the 800mm 5.6? Thanks!

Periodically I develop a need for this lens. In 1999, it sold for almost $12,000, slightly more than a new Honda Civic.

The lens is heavy and hard to stabilize, though I will probably succumb at some point.

 

[madlantern]

Where's your brand loyalty?

The Hasselblad 350mm F/5.6 Superachromat CFE plus the brilliant 2x (two different options, but get the Mutar) can be had in good condition for around $5 or $6k.

It's internal focusing which puts.it in the same category as the 40mm CFE IF--maybe HB's sharpest V lens ever--conceded by the designer of the 38 Biogon.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFE350.pdf

And the multiplier of using a V lens + extender will give you > 1000mm equivalent. 500mm without the extender....

I'm rather new to vintage lenses, so if you could bear with me for a sec...

How did you get to 1000mm? With a 2x teleconverter, you get to 700mm. Where does the other 300mm come from? Are you stacking another teleconverter on top of the 2x?

Also, if you are stacking teleconverters, would that significantly degrade the image, especially in the corners?

I'm getting to the equivalent, as there is a multiplier effect using V lenses on the smaller digital sensors.

If you use a FF on the standard digital sensor, there is a "shrinkage" (multiple by ~ .75); if you use a lens for a 6x6 MF, there's a multiplier of ~ 1.45x (Jim will have the actual numbers; I'm an eejit about that stuff).

Wait, you're referring to crop-factor right - e.g. a 100mm full frame lens on a APS-C body will yield a full frame equivalent of 150-160mm or so?

But the 1000mm figure is a medium-format equivalent focal length right? I'm used to thinking in terms of FF 35mm equivalent numbers, in which case the 700mm mounted on a FF body is still 700mm (the extra imaging circle is just not used). You can mount it on a lets say 44x33 sensor (let's say the GFX/X2D) and it gets you a ~560mm 35mm-equiv focal length (0.79 crop factor)

Am I understanding the calculations correctly?

 

[Doppler9000]

Where's your brand loyalty?

The Hasselblad 350mm F/5.6 Superachromat CFE plus the brilliant 2x (two different options, but get the Mutar) can be had in good condition for around $5 or $6k.

It's internal focusing which puts.it in the same category as the 40mm CFE IF--maybe HB's sharpest V lens ever--conceded by the designer of the 38 Biogon.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFE350.pdf

And the multiplier of using a V lens + extender will give you > 1000mm equivalent. 500mm without the extender....

I'm rather new to vintage lenses, so if you could bear with me for a sec...

How did you get to 1000mm? With a 2x teleconverter, you get to 700mm. Where does the other 300mm come from? Are you stacking another teleconverter on top of the 2x?

Also, if you are stacking teleconverters, would that significantly degrade the image, especially in the corners?

I'm getting to the equivalent, as there is a multiplier effect using V lenses on the smaller digital sensors.

If you use a FF on the standard digital sensor, there is a "shrinkage" (multiple by ~ .75); if you use a lens for a 6x6 MF, there's a multiplier of ~ 1.45x (Jim will have the actual numbers; I'm an eejit about that stuff).

The field of view equivalence is based on focal length and sensor size, not the origin format of the lens. A 350mm lens on the 33x44mm sensor will have the same horizontal field of view as a 286mm lens on a full frame sensor.

A useful resource: https://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html#top

 

[madlantern]

Periodically I develop a need for this lens. In 1999, it sold for almost $12,000, slightly more than a new Honda Civic.

The lens is heavy and hard to stabilize, though I will probably succumb at some point.

Well I think the lens goes for about $3000, which is much better than the depreciation on a Honda Civic

Curious if you have any recollections of the lens, especially in the corners?

 

[Doppler9000]

Periodically I develop a need for this lens. In 1999, it sold for almost $12,000, slightly more than a new Honda Civic.

The lens is heavy and hard to stabilize, though I will probably succumb at some point.

Well I think the lens goes for about $3000, which is much better than the depreciation on a Honda Civic

Curious if you have any recollections of the lens, especially in the corners?

I have no experience with the lens, but I suspect the corners will be very good. “Analog”telephoto lenses do pretty well in general on digital, and this was a super-premium lens designed to cover 6x7cm film.

 

[TechTalk2]

One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model. So naturally, broad conclusions would benefit from a broad sampling.

Your dismay regarding sample size seems asymmetric - you complain only if the conclusion is unfavorable to you and your brand?

I don't have any complaints.

Perhaps not complaint, but you are compelled to comment, then, about sample size only when the conclusion is unfavorable to your brand.

I'm not compelled to comment about anything either.

My statement: "One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model." applies to any brand of lens.

I don't think there's much controversy to be had there. If there is... I'm not interested in pursuing it.

 

[Doppler9000]

One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model. So naturally, broad conclusions would benefit from a broad sampling.

Your dismay regarding sample size seems asymmetric - you complain only if the conclusion is unfavorable to you and your brand?

I don't have any complaints.

Perhaps not complaint, but you are compelled to comment, then, about sample size only when the conclusion is unfavorable to your brand.

I'm not compelled to comment about anything either.

It doesn’t seem like it, but if you say so.

My statement: "One lens sample is not necessarily representative of other examples of the same lens model." applies to any brand of lens.

I don't think there's much controversy to be had there. If there is... I'm not interested in pursuing it.

A few days ago you posted about a test of a single sample of the 90mm f/2.5 with the rather clickbaity title “The XCD 90V isn't just Hasselblad's finest lens – it could be the finest lens we've ever tested”. I was simply noting that you declined to give your “sample of one” caveat in that case.

 

[madlantern]

The field of view equivalence is based on focal length and sensor size, not the origin format of the lens. A 350mm lens on the 33x44mm sensor will have the same horizontal field of view as a 286mm lens on a full frame sensor.

A useful resource: https://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html#top

I'm basically interested in such lenses for moon shots and other far away landscapes.

How I think about it is basically in terms of pixel density as opposed to field of view, since I'm cropping in regardless. And since the highest megapixel FF body right now (the A7R V) has about the same pixel density as the GFX/X2D bodies, it's basically the same resolution shooting full frame or shooting in 33x44 and cropping in later.

A 350 lens on a 33x44 sensor has a 35mmFF-equivalent of 350 * 0.79 = 276mm

If one uses the "276mm" equivalent lens on a FF body, then the calculation gets cancelled out: 276 / 0.79 = 350mm

That's the way to thinking about it right?

 

[Bags27]

Always helpful to check Flickr or other boards (there are a couple of Blad-devoted boards, such as: https://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php) for examples. Some of these here are with the X2D; some with the less desirable Tessar. Just work through them.

Here's one with the 50mps Fuji. You get a sense of possibilities.

https://flic.kr/p/2j8t4wx

 

[Bashir Lunat]

...... OTOH, the 250 SA did very well on a 33x44 sensor, but suffered from a helicoid that was more optimized for speed than accuracy.

Uncle Jim, do you mean focusing accuracy?