I am not so sure that the Schneider would produce "much better" results. A quick search on this forum and the competing getdpi forum shows that Schneider Digitar 35 users complain about fuzzy corners when shifted 10mm, magenta shifts, enormous falloff only partially mitigated by the additional center filter, etc... Also: the few published samples are not directly comparable, since they were taken on 39 mpix back. This is a 50 mpix back and therefore a stronger strain on the optics.
I would be interested to see a direct comparaison.
The SK35 got a bit bad reputation because Dalsa 6um sensors don't handle it well for larger shifts. The Kodak sensors does it better, so Hasselblad 39 and 50 megapixel backs should work very well with the sensor concerning color cast, but
all tech wides does require LCC correction. It should not be any bad cast with the Kodaks.
Concerning sharpness the comparison again is Rodenstock Digaron-W, often the 32, which is indeed on yet a sharper level than the SK35 when it comes to shifted positions. On center the SK35 is extremely sharp.
Tech camera users are generally the most insane people you can find concerning being picky about sharpness, so don't take it too seriously when you hear us complain without seeing an example first.
On Dalsa 6um or smaller (IQ160/IQ180) the SK35 should not be used with large shifts at all (too severe casts/crosstalk), on larger pixel sensor and Kodak 50 megapixel you can use it unrestricted in the whole 90mm image circle, but you want center filter. On center and small shifts f/11 is the optimal aperture and then it's as sharp as any Digaron. For large shifts if corner sharpness is important to you, you should shoot at f/16. Added bonus with the symmetrical design is that it's almost distortion-free.
I've attached a 100% crop of a detail from my 7.2um pixel back (33 megapixel, that is a bit lower res than the 6um 50 megapixel in your test) with the SK35 shifted about 12mm, shot at f/16. I could have sharpened more, the render is just a conservative standard setting out of RawTherapee. You do see some trace of chromatic abberation on the cross and it's a little blurrier in the center, but still quite okay. Note that the difference between 7.2um and 6um pixels is not too large when you pixel peep, only 20% difference along the side. You can find SK35 samples with 6um pixels on the web, problem is that I don't think I've found a single one that is shot at something else than f/11 and a Dalsa, and for larger shifts and if you value corner sharpness it's better to step up to f/16, and of course Dalsa 6um get issues with crosstalk unlike the Kodak 6um.
Added a second crop which is from a position which corresponds to edge of 20 mm shift up of a horizontal 49x37mm sensor. Here the picture is starting to get a bit worried and smeared.
A more direct comparison to the HTS would of course be better, with some very fine detailed high contrast structure at the shifted edges. I'm quite sure that the SK35 will be markedly better and also with lower distortion, but if it matters in real image making is another question. If you predominantly shoot with the H system it can be nice to stay with one system. I do have samples from an H3DII-50 shot on SK35 and SK28 with extreme shifts and the result is in line with my own crops, but as it's not my pictures I can't publish crops from that. Hasselblad 50 megapixel backs are unique in that by being both high MP and playing well with the two SK wides 28 and 35 with larger shifts, and compared to other MF wide angle solutions it's probably the best price/performance you can come by.
The most demanding tech users would use the Rodenstock Digaron-W 32 which performs markedly better than the SK35 concerning sharpness in shifted positions, but is on the other hand much more expensive and not distortion-free.
