Hasselblad 35-90mm HC Verdict?

[MarkKay]

I know i have heard this lens is good--- faster AF and better handling and balance compared to the 50-110 but I was wondering if anyone has done some reasonably careful side by side comparisons in terms of optical quality. I know the lens is more readily available but have only seen a few examples here and there.

Specific questions:

1) How does it compare to the 35mm, 50mm, 80mm HC primes at minimum, optimal, and max apertures?
2) How does it compare to the 50-110mm HC zoom  -- same question.
3) Edge performance?
3)  How does handling with the camera with the lens compare to the primes while shooting without a tripod?

In my opinion, the 50mm HC was my least favorite HC lens in terms of performance. In fact, I always felt my zoom out performed this prime.

[BobDavid]

I do not have direct experience with this lens.  I've heard from more than a couple people that it's as good as the primes, especially the 35mm. I have the 35mm prime; I'm generally satisfied with it.

[Kitty]

Sorry that I can't help. Just want to say I am using 50-110 and interested in this lens too.
I really wish it works with H2.
Is it true that it works on H3D only?
If yes, I guess may be at 35mm has a lot of distortion so it works with phocus only.

[Doug Peterson]

Sorry that I can't help. Just want to say I am using 50-110 and interested in this lens too.
I really wish it works with H2.
Is it true that it works on H3D only?
If yes, I guess may be at 35mm has a lot of distortion so it works with phocus only.

Capture One's lens corrections for the HC lenses (which are fantastic*) would be able to fully correct this lens. Allowing the use of that lens with the H2 would not prevent Hasselbald from doing their own lens corrections in Phocus.

Hasselblad has chosen to lock the lens to the H3D solely for marketing purposes.

Doug

*Hasselblad claims their use of additional input metadata makes a meaningful difference to the quality of the final image (e.g. including focus distance) as compared to Capture One's lens corrections. I've never seen an example that backs this claim up.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[perbernal]

I know i have heard this lens is good--- faster AF and better handling and balance compared to the 50-110 but I was wondering if anyone has done some reasonably careful side by side comparisons in terms of optical quality. I know the lens is more readily available but have only seen a few examples here and there.

Specific questions:

1) How does it compare to the 35mm, 50mm, 80mm HC primes at minimum, optimal, and max apertures?
2) How does it compare to the 50-110mm HC zoom  -- same question.
3) Edge performance?
3)  How does handling with the camera with the lens compare to the primes while shooting without a tripod?

In my opinion, the 50mm HC was my least favorite HC lens in terms of performance. In fact, I always felt my zoom out performed this prime.

It´s a very good lens actually even though I had it replaced after my first shoot due to a malfunctioning shutter. The new lens has worked flawlessly so far. I decided to keep the 50-110 as a back-up just in case and sold my 35 as I would no longer need it. This is my observations so far.

1. This is a very sharp lens. Looks good wide open with optimal performance at f-8 to f-11. Start to lose quality past f-16. I have not seen a difference between the 35 or 80 compared to the zoom.
2. It´s a better lens in every aspect. Better balanced, considerable lighter weight, sharper/more detailed glass and faster and more accurate focus. Feels almost like you´re shooting with a new camera:)
3. Edge performance is very good. No real artifacts or funky effects in the corners.
4. Easier to handhold than the 55-110 but either a monopod or tripod is recommended as it is a long lens..
5. My favorite lens when shooting 35mm digital is Canons 24-70. I always wished that I could get a similar "feel" when shooting medium format. The first time I used the new 35-90 it felt like a deja-vu. A very organic feeling with the 35-90 that I really never had before when shooting with the Hasselblad and the 50-110.

This glass costs a lot of money. But if I  could only pick one lens this would be the one. As always you should try before you buy and make up your own mind. Good luck!

Best, Per
 

[MarkKay]

Per.. The actual weight difference is about 240 grams but it seems the balance is what makes the difference. When you compare the images between the two zooms in a side by side is there any difference. I think the 50-110 is quite good wide open.

It´s a very good lens actually even though I had it replaced after my first shoot due to a malfunctioning shutter. The new lens has worked flawlessly so far. I decided to keep the 50-110 as a back-up just in case and sold my 35 as I would no longer need it. This is my observations so far.

1. This is a very sharp lens. Looks good wide open with optimal performance at f-8 to f-11. Start to lose quality past f-16. I have not seen a difference between the 35 or 80 compared to the zoom.
2. It´s a better lens in every aspect. Better balanced, considerable lighter weight, sharper/more detailed glass and faster and more accurate focus. Feels almost like you´re shooting with a new camera:)
3. Edge performance is very good. No real artifacts or funky effects in the corners.
4. Easier to handhold than the 55-110 but either a monopod or tripod is recommended as it is a long lens..
5. My favorite lens when shooting 35mm digital is Canons 24-70. I always wished that I could get a similar "feel" when shooting medium format. The first time I used the new 35-90 it felt like a deja-vu. A very organic feeling with the 35-90 that I really never had before when shooting with the Hasselblad and the 50-110.

This glass costs a lot of money. But if I  could only pick one lens this would be the one. As always you should try before you buy and make up your own mind. Good luck!

Best, Per

[perbernal]

Per.. The actual weight difference is about 240 grams but it seems the balance is what makes the difference. When you compare the images between the two zooms in a side by side is there any difference. I think the 50-110 is quite good wide open.

You´re right about the weight . 250 grams doesn´t sound like a lot but the lens design and balance of the two lenses is very different. The 55-100 is very front heavy and there´s isn´t a lot of space to rest the lens in your left hand (at least for me) and operate it. The focus ring is placed to close to the camera body and zoom ring and it feels awkward to zoom the lens. You have to rest the camera body in the palm in order to reach the zoom ring which makes the lens even more front heavy. The 35-90 has a completely different feel to me. The lens is a little bit longer and thinner than the 55-10 and rest comfortably in the palm. It´s easy to operate the focus ring with the thumb and index finger and quickly change the zoom range with the thumb and ring finger without shifting the grip. The ergonomics of the lens is much improved.

When it comes to lens sharpness the 35-90 surpasses the 50-110. I find the details finer and the overall sharpness better. If I could use a number I would say a 20-25% improvement over the old 50-110 which is still a great, but heavy lens. If you don´t mind the weight there´s no reason to upgrade. What attracted me was the zoom range and that I was able to get a 35, 50, 80 and close to a 100 mm lens in one relatively compact design that pretty much cover everything I need:)

Best, Per

[MarkKay]

Per I have one more question.  When you say the 35-90 is sharper, are you referring to handheld shots or even those taken via a tripod?

You´re right about the weight . 250 grams doesn´t sound like a lot but the lens design and balance of the two lenses is very different. The 55-100 is very front heavy and there´s isn´t a lot of space to rest the lens in your left hand (at least for me) and operate it. The focus ring is placed to close to the camera body and zoom ring and it feels awkward to zoom the lens. You have to rest the camera body in the palm in order to reach the zoom ring which makes the lens even more front heavy. The 35-90 has a completely different feel to me. The lens is a little bit longer and thinner than the 55-10 and rest comfortably in the palm. It´s easy to operate the focus ring with the thumb and index finger and quickly change the zoom range with the thumb and ring finger without shifting the grip. The ergonomics of the lens is much improved.

When it comes to lens sharpness the 35-90 surpasses the 50-110. I find the details finer and the overall sharpness better. If I could use a number I would say a 20-25% improvement over the old 50-110 which is still a great, but heavy lens. If you don´t mind the weight there´s no reason to upgrade. What attracted me was the zoom range and that I was able to get a 35, 50, 80 and close to a 100 mm lens in one relatively compact design that pretty much cover everything I need:)

Best, Per

[perbernal]

Per I have one more question.  When you say the 35-90 is sharper, are you referring to handheld shots or even those taken via a tripod?

The only time I shoot handheld is when I´m using flash. For continues lighting I find it difficult to get sharp images with either zoom lenses just handholding the camera without support unless I´m shooting at 1/250 or faster. If I want mobility  I will use a monopod with a sturdy head, otherwise just a regular tripod with a RRS ballhead. But to answer your question I would guess it´s easier to reproduce sharper images with the 35-90 due to a better balanced lens. My referral of sharpness is based on commercial shoots I´ve done incorporating studio flashes either indoors or outdoors with the camera on either a monopod or tripod. As a fan of nature photography I have seen a difference as well in this area when it comes to sharpness and detail where the 35-90 comes out on top. It´s almost as you are shooting with a camera with higher resolution that shows more details overall.

Best, Per

[hobbsr]

Hi,

I had the opportunity to shoot over Easter with this lens and found the results to be great. For me the AF performance and balance on my H3D 31 was wonderful. I also have the 50-110 and I would have to say I like the lens better for the size and weight. I also feel from the results that it is a very sharp lens. I was shooting handheld and with higher iso and the results speak for themselves I can buy only highly recommend the lens.

regards

[MarkKay]

So I got the lens and I did some tests and comparisons with the H3DII-31 and the 50-110mm on a tripod.  Here are my preliminary conclusions. I liked the 50-110 because it is incredible sharp wide open through at least f11 at all focal lengths.  This lens is clearly more easily handled and the AF is much faster.

The  most noticeable  improvement in image  detail was at  35mm between f4 and 4.5.  At 50mm and 90mm at all apertures,  the center (all but the corners)  portion of the image was a bit sharper with the 35-90mm.    The difference was more noticeable at 50mm compared to 90mm. This is consistent with what others have said. However,  I found that the extreme  corners were a bit softer on the 35-90mm.  The extreme corners were softer on the zoom at 35mm compared to what I remember seeing on my 28mm but I did not compare them directly yet.  This is a bit disappointing but I went and read through the MTF charts for the two lenses and if I am reading them correctly perhaps this was not unexpected.  I just wonder what the difference will look like using the 39, 50 or 60 megapixel sensors.  

I am going to see how i can do with hand held shots with this zoom.

[MarkKay]

I did additional test shots today against an old brick wall gate.  I can conclude that the 35-90mm is sharper than the 50-110mm at the lower focal length-- 50mm  with the exception of the corners (H3DII-31). At 80 and 90mm, the difference in sharpness is very marginal and I could not honestly saw there was a noticeable difference except at the corners where the 50-110 was a bit better albeit the difference in the corners was much less noticeable than what I observed at 50mm.  This pretty much held true at all focal lengths I examined. So far that was 4.5-8.  I have not carefully looked at the f11, 16 images.  

I would really be curious as to results of others and if anyone has taken shots with the H3DII-39, 50 or 60. Mark

[MarkKay]

Here are some of the issues i am talking about.  These were taken with the H3DII-31 at f5.6 but f8 is only slightly improved. The images are AdobeRGB color space so the colors are a bit dull
Resized 35mm image
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116202727.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116202784.jpg

100% upper left crop@35mm
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116207791/original.jpg



100% upper left 50mm crop
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116202732/original.jpg

[BobDavid]

Here are some of the issues i am talking about.  These were taken with the H3DII-31 at f5.6 but f8 is only slightly improved. The images are AdobeRGB color space so the colors are a bit dull
Resized 35mm image
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116202727.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116202784.jpg

100% upper left crop@35mm
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116207791/original.jpg



100% upper left 50mm crop
http://www.pbase.com/markay/image/116202732/original.jpg

This doesn't look right. Especially being that you're using a cropped sensor.

I bought a used 120mm makro from someone, tested it, and found similar problems. I sent the lens back to him for a refund and bought a new. The new one is perfect.

I think your lens is out of alignment. The good news is that it can probably be fixed in New Jersey. I'm assuming it's under warranty.

[MarkKay]

I just got it so they should just replace it with a new one..  I wanted to see what others have found. I do not like to complain unless there is a reason.

This doesn't look right. Especially being that you're using a cropped sensor.

I bought a used 120mm makro from someone, tested it, and found similar problems. I sent the lens back to him for a refund and bought a new. The new one is perfect.

I think your lens is out of alignment. The good news is that it can probably be fixed in New Jersey. I'm assuming it's under warranty.

[Cfranson]

Mark,
These images do look problematic to me. Give us a call tomorrow and we'll get that sorted out.
-Chris

[MarkKay]

Hi Chris. I was just getting ready to send you an email.  Thanks. I will give a call in the am (pacific time). thanks

Mark,
These images do look problematic to me. Give us a call tomorrow and we'll get that sorted out.
-Chris

[BobDavid]

Ulsaker is awesome. They'll take care of you.

[markowich]

Mark,
These images do look problematic to me. Give us a call tomorrow and we'll get that sorted out.
-Chris

i tested both H zooms on the H3DII 50 and the 35-90 won on all (comparable) focus lengths, at all  (comparable) f stops (only tested as far as f 11).
clearly the margin becomes smaller when the f stop increases. also it beats my HC 35mm (particularly in the corners) and performs about equal to my HC 50mm.
peter

[MarkKay]

IN my case there is definitely a problem.  Anyway, my dealer has contacted Hasselblad. Thanks for the input

i tested both H zooms on the H3DII 50 and the 35-90 won on all (comparable) focus lengths, at all  (comparable) f stops (only tested as far as f 11).
clearly the margin becomes smaller when the f stop increases. also it beats my HC 35mm (particularly in the corners) and performs about equal to my HC 50mm.
peter