55 or 65?

[Powerdog]

I admit to being a prospective Hasselblad owner, but very close to taking the plunge with an X2D and, until my bank account recovers, one lens.

Trying to choose between the 55 and 65mm lens. In spite of the price difference, I’m leaning toward the 55 because I love a very slightly wide focal length. Years ago I used a 35mm camera with a 45mm lens, and I just wanted to shoot all day. I think a 55 in medium format would be similar.

I’m mostly interested in nature photography and not low light.

Are there any other factors you would consider in making the choice?

 

[MarkThompson]

The end result is the best thing to consider. Look at the field of view and depth of field you want. I shoot H series and loved the HCD28mm but I got the HCD24mm because of the field of view. You can crop back if you need, and often I do, but occasionally the full field of view is essential!
Keep in mind too that other lenses will become available (new and used) and your kit will grow. So start with the lens you actually want. You’ll get the most satisfaction out in the field shooting the style you want

 

[Powerdog]

Mark, I even considered the 35-75 zoom, but my credit card would really scream at that! (It would, though, be the perfect answer.)

 

[bladdered]

Hi Powerdog,
Good luck with your quest to buy an X2D. I've owned a set of Hasselblad bodies and lenses for 40 years, including 503Cx, 203Fe (sold), SWC/M and H3D. 18 months ago, when it became clear the the 907 wouldn't have IBIS, I bought an X2D and a 45mm f/3.5 lens (£950). I added 2 adapters and a converter an a Leica M adapter and I have 13 additional lenses that I can fit to the X2D. That's top class lenses from 15mm to 180mm and from f/1.4. The X2D copes well with them all and whilst I might end up with XCD lenses I can cope without spending more money. The 45mm lens provides a 35mm field of view which is my preferred FoV for street and it's also good for half-body portraits, it might not be my lens of choice if building a Hasselblad set. So, I recommend you look at your existing lenses an buy an adapter or two to get started.

 

[Powerdog]

Bladdered, I'm starting from scratch, with a FF Sony body and lenses that I'm going to sell to help pay for the Hasselblad stuff. It's my first adventure wtih MF, but that's something I've always wanted to try.

 

[MichaelErlewine]

I have had most of the XCD lenses, including the new XCD 55mm and the earlier XCD 65mm. If I wanted to hike outside, the 55mm is easier to use. If I just want quality output, IMO, the 65mm is the one to use. I sold my 55mm XCD because I could not appreciate it, whle many do like that lens. The XCD 65 and the XCD 80 and very fine lenses. If you like wide angle, then the XCD 21mm and the XCD 20-35mm are VERY fine lenses. So, my view is that if you want to use a tripod or take your time, the XCD 65 is the best of those two, yet if you want to do street photography and not slow, tripod work, you probably would be happy with the XCD 55mm.

 

[Patrick]

I’ve all the XCD V lenses and the 55V tends to be my general walkabout lens.

 

[Powerdog]

Patrick, the 55 gets mostly very positive comments, with a few saying that IQ is inferior to the 65. I wonder if they’re just being nit-picky, or they got bad copies.

 

[davidmknoble]

I had the 38 and 55 and traded them. The corners do not sharpen fast enough for my landscape work and some focus shifting makes it harder to get the DOF at lower f/stops. Some of the older lenses do not have those issues. The 21 and 30 are stellar in that regard as is the 35-70 zoom (for the most part) and the 135. The 65 is also strong. For landscape work the older lenses draw better. Portraits? The newer lenses are super crisp in the center and work great for portraiture, as does the 80 1.9. I will likely add a 65 while we can still get them!
Just my thoughts…