OOps, I've just been reading the further comments about Zeiss and Hassy lens developments. Wow - and I'm the guy on Morphine!
My reading of this (and I'm fascinated by some of the history that QG has added since I never knew of the TTP and some of the lenses developed since my use of and interest in Hassy lenses is really limited to recent mainstream product) is that Hasselblad has had a close interest in optics that necessarily enhance its cameras and commitment of users to them. But, we users are never really privvy to all the specific lens/optics developments when the camnera company itself is not the lens manufacturer.
Leica's lens developments are clearer to users since the company designs and makes (mostly) the lenses and most of the components that go into them - even has specified glass requirements of its suppliers like Schott AG.
So, Hasselblad's often (to me) "cloudy" explanations or descriptions make it harder for people like me to fully understand the design and even the manufacturing source. Now, there is no compelling reason for them to tell us really, but sometimes I'm a bit nosey and like to know - it simply adds to my understanding about what I'm buying and why it ends up with Hasselblad's brand on it.
I don't think QG has (in the time I have read his interesting contributions) ever "bagged" Zeiss (possibly the opposite if anything), but he has often commented within a context of "reality" that sometimes we need to separate "marketing speak" from fact; or at least translate the marketing speak into facts that tell us something real. He has fairly pulled me up on that a few times. It certainly can awaken us from a cloud of brand "illusion" - it's not the only lens maker capable of producing outstanding products.
My thinking is that Hasselblad and its brand had become very tightly bound with the Zeiss name and brand - to good effect (and user results). But like most things in life, the strengths can also be the weaknesses! In a way Haselblad's Achilles heel was/is its dependence upon Zeiss.
I've learned 2 significant things in recent years as my hobby has become more intensive - 1. don't get too caught up in brands' "mystique" as others also produce great lenses (look at Mamiya's 7 series lenses for one ex&le); 2. superlative lens performance (and the cost that comes with that) is not always visible to the naked eye.
I once posted a question about any source of good "field" / practical and technical evaluations of MF lenses like are available for Leica lenses; but, alas there is none other than scattered one-off commentaries.
Back to what I think caused the disagreement above. I suppose Hasselblad and Zeiss felt the market for Zooms (for reasons of size/bulk among other things like QG suggested) is limited. Marc as a pro has specific requirements (and showed a fine ex&le of that above) when a zoom is essential and otherwise uses primes.
Maybe amatuers that use Hassy gear limit their MF shooting to the domain of primes like I do. But in 135 SLR format, zooms dominate my kit (wow
imagine an LF zoom - maybe the world's most useless tool!).
But, I wonder to what degree Hasselblad actually works on optical design and specification and how closely its people work with Fuji and Zeiss? This is where I find a "cloud" of marketing speak.
Marc's point about the unfortunate thing it was that Zeiss did not do the lenses for the H cameras makes me wonder what would have been the case if Zeiss was not Hasselblad's partner in the V series way back then?
