Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/1/2019 at 7:27 AM, Chaemono said:

Wide open they are a bit soft.  The only excellent in terms of sharpness and bokeh seems to be 80/1.9.  And I'm not even sure how much CA/PF it shows.  I'll likely rent the X1D II with the 90/3.2 and compare it to the 75 Summicron-SL on the SL2.  I used this lens before and it won't be a match for the SL Summicron, I'm afraid.  The real cheapo one, though, is the 45/3.5.

Rubbish!

The vast majority of the XCD lenses are extremely sharp wide open. Please refrain from commenting on gear you don’t own and have limited experience with. It reeks of fanboyism. The Leica SL Summicrons are stunning lenses. They don’t get better when we start putting down glass from other companies unnecessarily. We might as well call M lenses all soft if we’re going down this path.

AND, there are many here that will tell you sharpness isn’t everything. The XCD 45 draws very nicely. Like some M lenses wide open. Not everyone thinks that brutal, absolute sharpness is what makes a photograph great. I wouldn’t describe it as a *bit soft* wide open, just a bit less sharp. There’s still tons of detail in those images. I don’t like the 35mm equivalent very much but even I appreciate that the XCD45mm is a stunning environmental portrait lens.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FlashGordonPhotography]

31 minutes ago, meerec said:

+1

+2

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb FlashGordonPhotography:

Rubbish!

The vast majority of the XCD lenses are extremely sharp wide open. Please refrain from commenting on gear you don’t own and have limited experience with. It reeks of fanboyism. The Leica SL Summicrons are stunning lenses. They don’t get better when we start putting down glass from other companies unnecessarily. We might as well call M lenses all soft if we’re going down this path.

AND, there are many here that will tell you sharpness isn’t everything. The XCD 45 draws very nicely. Like some M lenses wide open. Not everyone thinks that brutal, absolute sharpness is what makes a photograph great. I wouldn’t describe it as a *bit soft* wide open, just a bit less sharp. There’s still tons of detail in those images. I don’t like the 35mm equivalent very much but even I appreciate that the XCD45mm is a stunning environmental portrait lens.

Gordon

I haven’t seen you post a single RAW file to prove your claims.  I will do so.  The XCD lenses are soft wide open. 

[Mr.Q]

3 hours ago, Fedro said:

agree 100%

+2

[insideline]

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Rubbish!

The vast majority of the XCD lenses are extremely sharp wide open. Please refrain from commenting on gear you don’t own and have limited experience with. It reeks of fanboyism. The Leica SL Summicrons are stunning lenses. They don’t get better when we start putting down glass from other companies unnecessarily. We might as well call M lenses all soft if we’re going down this path.

AND, there are many here that will tell you sharpness isn’t everything. The XCD 45 draws very nicely. Like some M lenses wide open. Not everyone thinks that brutal, absolute sharpness is what makes a photograph great. I wouldn’t describe it as a *bit soft* wide open, just a bit less sharp. There’s still tons of detail in those images. I don’t like the 35mm equivalent very much but even I appreciate that the XCD45mm is a stunning environmental portrait lens.

Gordon

Well said. I have taken friends out to shoot with my F1.2 Noctilux and my 35mm F1.4 Double Aspherical lenses so that they can try these rare lenses for themselves. We have also shot them against my Hasselblad XCD 45mm lens on my X1D, and while the overpriced collector market states my 35 AA lens is valued at roughly 10X the cost of a used XCD 45 lens using $1600 as a starting point, the images produced with a Leica SL2 with M-L adapter and the 35AA are not even in the same league compared to the X1D and 45mm XCD lens when one sees the amount of detail in the shadows, the breadth of dynamic range and the much more accurate colors, and yes both shot wide open. The 35 Double Aspherical "renders" in a wonderful even hard to articulate manner which I subjectively quite like, does it render better or more accurately than the XCD 45 or the Leica SL APO 35, no it does not. I pre-ordered the 35mm SL APO lens along with the 50 SL APO but I returned the 35 SL lens as I had both the Leica 35 AA for the unique way it renders and the Hasselblad XCD 45 for the best possible "image". This does not mean that an SL2 with the staggeringly good SL 35 APO lens would not make a stunning combination, it would and does, but again all of us need to determine what it is we are striving for as we photograph as an activity, and for what we yearn our images to look like. 

My F1.2 Noctilux is an even harder case to justify as it simply renders as if it lives in its own world without a care as to what anyone else thinks of the images it produces, and against the new SL50 APO or the Hasselblad XCD 80 1.9 it is a hopeless lens when it is measured with sharpness, detail, dynamic range and color accuracy are taken into account. Then when the SL2 combined with the 50 SL APO is shot against the X1D and 80 1.9, all shot wide open, I simply cannot get the SL images to render as accurately, with such fine detail, and with so much more information in the shadows and with a more real color palette that the X1D and 80 1.9 combination provides. 

To Gordon's point, all of the XCD lenses are incredibly sharp and capable lenses shot wide open and all the way past F16 and on. For sheer image quality measured for what I would guess what we all would look for, IE: accurate rendering, the amount of detail and dynamic range across the image, true to life colors and even sharpness, the Hasselblad XCD lenses take a back seat to no other lenses. 

I suspect we all have our own ways of enjoying photography and what our expectations are, yet I do feel there is a camera platform that better suits each of our own unique desires, be it the incredibly capable X1D and XCD lens combination for outright image quality, or the SL2 and any combination of old and new very different yet all incredibly capable Leica lenses. 

Possibly we should just be very thankful to have such amazing choices instead of talking negatively about different equipment that for each user may well be exactly what that person yearns for in their quest for their ultimate images, and all the while "enjoying" this wonderful photographic hobby we all care about with such passion. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by insideline
spelling error

[Guest]

Good to know that Canon RF lenses are not the only lenses that are bad...! 😉😎

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your 35AA, Noctilux, or any other M lens for that matter, aren't worthy of taking photographs. Way too soft wide open.

[insideline]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Your 35AA, Noctilux, or any other M lens for that matter, aren't worthy of taking photographs. Way too soft wide open.

Yup, just junk. But then again, they do "render" quite beautifully, and that of course is in the eye of the beholder and isn't that all of our rights to determine and enjoy on our own? 

[IkarusJohn]

On holiday, packed the X1D II, 21 & 80 mm XCD lenses on a whim (I need to get to know them better).  Today, I slung the X1D II and 80/1.9 over my shoulder for a 30 km bike ride - there’s no doubt in my mind this is an astonishingly good lens. The results were very pleasing.

No comparisons, can’t post here, very satisfying results.  At some point I will follow Gordon’s recommendation and add the 135mm XCD and teleconverter (I have a soft spot for the 180mm field of view).  That will fill the X1D gamut for me - 21 - 80 - 135/230.  Anything else is covered by my Leicas.

[Mr.Q]

4 hours ago, insideline said:

Yup, just junk. But then again, they do "render" quite beautifully, and that of course is in the eye of the beholder and isn't that all of our rights to determine and enjoy on our own? 

Yes they are. I was just messing around, love my M lenses and envy your 35AA 😉

[sillbeers15]

8 hours ago, insideline said:

Well said. I have taken friends out to shoot with my F1.2 Noctilux and my 35mm F1.4 Double Aspherical lenses so that they can try these rare lenses for themselves. We have also shot them against my Hasselblad XCD 45mm lens on my X1D, and while the overpriced collector market states my 35 AA lens is valued at roughly 10X the cost of a used XCD 45 lens using $1600 as a starting point, the images produced with a Leica SL2 with M-L adapter and the 35AA are not even in the same league compared to the X1D and 45mm XCD lens when one sees the amount of detail in the shadows, the breadth of dynamic range and the much more accurate colors, and yes both shot wide open. The 35 Double Aspherical "renders" in a wonderful even hard to articulate manner which I subjectively quite like, does it render better or more accurately than the XCD 45 or the Leica SL APO 35, no it does not. I pre-ordered the 35mm SL APO lens along with the 50 SL APO but I returned the 35 SL lens as I had both the Leica 35 AA for the unique way it renders and the Hasselblad XCD 45 for the best possible "image". This does not mean that an SL2 with the staggeringly good SL 35 APO lens would not make a stunning combination, it would and does, but again all of us need to determine what it is we are striving for as we photograph as an activity, and for what we yearn our images to look like. 

My F1.2 Noctilux is an even harder case to justify as it simply renders as if it lives in its own world without a care as to what anyone else thinks of the images it produces, and against the new SL50 APO or the Hasselblad XCD 80 1.9 it is a hopeless lens when it is measured with sharpness, detail, dynamic range and color accuracy are taken into account. Then when the SL2 combined with the 50 SL APO is shot against the X1D and 80 1.9, all shot wide open, I simply cannot get the SL images to render as accurately, with such fine detail, and with so much more information in the shadows and with a more real color palette that the X1D and 80 1.9 combination provides. 

To Gordon's point, all of the XCD lenses are incredibly sharp and capable lenses shot wide open and all the way past F16 and on. For sheer image quality measured for what I would guess what we all would look for, IE: accurate rendering, the amount of detail and dynamic range across the image, true to life colors and even sharpness, the Hasselblad XCD lenses take a back seat to no other lenses. 

I suspect we all have our own ways of enjoying photography and what our expectations are, yet I do feel there is a camera platform that better suits each of our own unique desires, be it the incredibly capable X1D and XCD lens combination for outright image quality, or the SL2 and any combination of old and new very different yet all incredibly capable Leica lenses. 

Possibly we should just be very thankful to have such amazing choices instead of talking negatively about different equipment that for each user may well be exactly what that person yearns for in their quest for their ultimate images, and all the while "enjoying" this wonderful photographic hobby we all care about with such passion. 

Cheap talk. Show images to prove your point!

[BernardC]

11 hours ago, insideline said:

the images produced with a Leica SL2 with M-L adapter and the 35AA are not even in the same league compared to the X1D and 45mm XCD lens

Congratulations, you have (re)discovered medium format! I am surprised that you are surprised, given your previous experience.

In the end it's all a big compromise. A woodworking friend has 15 different hammers. They all have their uses. A rare and highly collectable M lens is a very fine thing, but it's not the right hammer if you want huge prints.

[Chaemono]

One of the biggest issues with the Hassy and that voluptuous XCD 80/1.9 is that in lighting conditions like these: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-7qQZzW/ one has to bump up the ISO to 1600 due to the lack of IBIS.  The 50 Summilux-SL on the SL2, on the other hand, can be shot at 1/10 sec. handheld with ISO at 100 on the SL2.  See how many shots there are in that gallery with the 75 Summicron-SL at 1/15 sec. handheld!

BTW, I’ll put that XCD 80/1.9 to the test vs. the 50 Summilux-SL, but not in low-light, obviously.  There it’s totally useless with ISO at 1600 on the camera. 

[Mr.Q]

Those shots could have used better lighting (strobes) imo. And for lighting Hassy has a clear advantage. Again, horses for courses...

[insideline]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

Congratulations, you have (re)discovered medium format! I am surprised that you are surprised, given your previous experience.

In the end it's all a big compromise. A woodworking friend has 15 different hammers. They all have their uses. A rare and highly collectable M lens is a very fine thing, but it's not the right hammer if you want huge prints.

I agree completely but no surprises, which is why I still shoot Hasselblad medium format film, Leica SL2 with varying SL, M and R lenses and with the X1D2 with XCD lenses, all different, all just wonderful and spectacular in their own ways. Understanding what and how one mostly uses a camera system along with our expectations in the resulting images will guide us to the system that best suits each of us, which is why I do not understand the negative comments on different equipment as every combination spoken of here will provide astounding images but to obtain them takes a different approach given the equipment. 

[Chaemono]

Ladies, the XCD 80/1.9 is smaller than the 50 Summilux-SL.  They put smaller but equally heavy glass in there, it seems. 😁 I wonder how it does in terms of PF/CA, flaring, chroma smearing, softness in the corners, distortion, and so on wide open.  I get the sense we'll have some fun with that XCD lens over the next couple of weeks. 😁

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

21 hours ago, Chaemono said:

I haven’t seen you post a single RAW file to prove your claims.  I will do so.  The XCD lenses are soft wide open. 

1. I never post raw images. I have neither the time or interest in taking those type of images except for my own testing, which I know is suited only to the way I shoot and my shooting style and envelope. They never make it out of Lightroom.

2. There are vast resources that do that type of thing already. Of those I'm really only interested in the Lens Rentals tests because....

3. Short term and single use user tests are almost inevitably flawed, including mine. To truly test a lens it takes time, patience and consistency. Something we can't really replicate. Handheld tests are useless, except to test IS systems. Lenses need to be tested over a variety of distances and lighting conditions, all of which need to be able to be replicated exactly if comparisons are to be made. From your posts is seems you don't use a tripod for your testing. Therefore those results can't be trusted due to varying hand holding techniques. I know that I can handhold at different degrees based on the time of day or how much coffee I've had. Also different cameras handle differently. Is the X1D or SL2 a better fit for your hand? I have no idea. I do know it'll affect the results. Tripod. Cable release. No vibrations. Manual Focus. Same shot time. Same subject. Same exposure. Then, MAYBE, we have a starting point for a single sample comparison. I'm far too busy travelling on photographic trips for that.

Also don't forget you're not capable of testing just a lens. You're testing a SYSTEM. Camera and lens combined. Plus the tripod stability as well. You're even testing how clean the sensor is. Oh, and the raw processor. Would doing a comparison with a Fuji Xtrans sensor be fair if I use Lightroom? For me yes, but not for anyone using Capture 1. Will you be doing your processing of the X1D images in Phocus? If HB come out with an X1D-100C tomorrow all your tests are mute.

When I see a set of user tests I can't tell if the focus point is exactly the same. It doesn't need to be off in one shot by much to see a big visual difference. A passing cloud or change in wind direction can change conditions enough to make the images slightly different.

Not to mention lenses have copy variation and we get to test one copy usually. Did you get one that's above or below average? What distance was the lens optimised for. Do I need my macro lens checked at infinity?

I only comment on gear I own and use regularly. Gear that I have used over a period of time in a variety of situations. I have a good overall idea of how things compare in a much wider variety of user scenarios than a two day rental and some uncontrolled, undocumented tests can do. You'll also note that I'm not the only one on this board with both cameras and pretty much all of us have come to the same conclusions. It's only you, who doesn't own an X1D who disagrees with the consensus of the actual owners and X1D users. 

And to be quite honest, I think you're biased. I may be wrong but you come across as a fanboy rather than objective. Too many "tests" and statements that fly in the face of what real testers have found. How am I supposed to trust a biased test?

So, no, I don't post raw files.

Gordon

[Chaemono]

I sense some anxiety here. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

Quote

I get the sense we'll have somefun with that XCD lens over the next couple of weeks. 😁

Shoot me now ...

[thighslapper]

11 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

1. I never post raw images. I have neither the time or interest in taking those type of images except for my own testing, which I know is suited only to the way I shoot and my shooting style and envelope. They never make it out of Lightroom.

2. There are vast resources that do that type of thing already. Of those I'm really only interested in the Lens Rentals tests because....

3. Short term and single use user tests are almost inevitably flawed, including mine. To truly test a lens it takes time, patience and consistency. Something we can't really replicate. Handheld tests are useless, except to test IS systems. Lenses need to be tested over a variety of distances and lighting conditions, all of which need to be able to be replicated exactly

...... and once you have done all that you are left with the thorny problem of deciding your criteria for defining 'better' ..... or do you just see 'differences' ..... and at what point you decide it is significant ..... and that in itself depends entirely on the medium the resulting images are viewed on. 

The whole subject is a minefield and subject to a great deal of bias and selective interpretation .... particularly by self styled 'experts'. Habitual use of one format or brand tends to train the brain and eye into accepting that as 'normal' and 'good', so it is difficult to pass an unbiased opinion. The fact that the majority of users have 'chosen' their systems means they are precisely the wrong people to test them. 

Of course you could use a panel of non photographers to assess quality ..... but they would be assessing images on a completely different set of criteria to the sort of people that argue about this on this and other forums, so you may be no further forward.

MF and FF plus the required optics both have inherent strengths and weaknesses that are well documented, but I don't think anyone can deny that technological advances in recent years haven't reduced the differences. 

For me, I cannot see significant image quality differences between any of the current high end FF camera systems when used with their makers premium lenses,  and not enough difference between FF and MF in the sort of price bracket we are discussing to make me change. Ideally I would add an X1D to have the benefits of both ..... but then I fear I would be back into the game of 'playing with gear' and pixel peeping rather than taking photos. 

Happy New Year !

Edited December 31, 2019 by thighslapper