That is really impressive. Much better than I had expected. Unfortunatly larger format cameras often dont have the resolution in their lenses that smaller formats do, because they have such a large bit of glass it is not as critical to get perfect optics as it is on smaller formats so often conversions to smaller formats dont turn out ver well, but this really seems to be the exception. How is it when you pixel peep?
Bear in mind that the phots posted have been reduced in size from 6000x4000 to 1000x800 (or so), so whatever the lenses lack has been well covered.
However, in some snapshots of my SO I did see some reflections in her eyes that showed details on the dining room table... IOW: stunning resolution with even the basic 80mm f/2.8 lens.
I haven't taken the time yet to compare the Minolta 100 f/2.8 Makro and the Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8 to the 120 f/4 Makro for absolute resolution. I would expect both to out-do the Hasselblad lens in such tests, but with the result of the 80mm, I'm not really sure...
In a detailed macro shot, the 100 f/2.8 macro (1:1) should kill the Hasselblad 120 f/4 Makro for the simple reason that the later is 1:3. But if the 100 f/2.8 is backed off to the same ratio, then it's up in the air.
I expect the Sony/CZ 135 f/1.8 to beat the 150 f/4. Again: not sure given the results of the other day.
Will the lowly 50 f/1.7 beat the basic 80 f/2.8? We'll see.
I don't have an 85 f/1.4 unfortunately to test against the 80.
To be determined... I'm just not in the mood for such testing right now...