Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on February 01, 2012, 04:52:42 pm
-
Has anybody tried the new Hasselblad 120 macro?
I have used the old one and was not happy with it. Wonder if it's worth an upgrade?
Henrik
-
Just curious, what didn't you like about the original one?
-
Just curious, what didn't you like about the original one?
I agree, I have used both versions, and honestly can't say I noticed any major difference between the two versions, I thought the performed rather well personally. Used them on my H3Dii-39ms and H4D-50 cameras and never had any complaints.
-
Its been a while since I tested one and I do remember it was a very sharp lens but had a weird behaviour when you have highlights out of focus in the background. I can't 100% remember now what it was???? Magenta colour shift or similar but it was very ugly when it showed up in shots.
-
FWIW, and in my opinion, the older f5.6 "S" version was more of a "true" macro, err, "makro." Meaning that it was designed to perform at its best at a 1:10 distance, while being only mediocre at farther distances. The more modern version of the 120 (f4), as with other brands like Nikon, while still being a "makro" lens, has been designed to be more of a universal lens, with overall performance improved at infinity settings, but at the expense of some makro performance.
For me, a macro lens is chosen for its performance up close. And as such, I'd opt for the older 120/5.6 S. Today, the 120/4 version is often used as a short portrait lens, and it probably performs better in that distance range. The 120/4 may be a better overall performer, but I doubt it can ever match what the 120/5.6 S could do in the close-up range.
Same with Nikon. I'd take the 1970's 55/3.5 Ai or 105/4 Ai versions over the newer f2.8 auto focus versions any day of the week, if "macro" was my only intent.
-
I rarely use macro lenses to their full potential however I always own them for my system, in case I want to get closer to something. I found the 120mm to be a pleasing focal length. Also the Hasselblad 120mm f4 is built amazingly well....It has two focusing motors, a coarse and a fine adjustment which makes you feel like your using a microscope, and I found the autofocus to be spot on because of this extra precision it adds.
It was one of my 3 favorite lenses for this system, and would be three of the ones that I would purchase if I ever bought into it again....the others are the 100mm f/2.2 and the 300mm f/4.5, they are all built amazingly well, have great (although not especially fast as you'd expect) autofocus, and are a pleasure to use in no small part because of their all metal and rubber construction.
-
Just curious, what didn't you like about the original one?
I just don't think it's a very good lens. The sharpness is worse than most lenses at this price.
I think the Mamiya 120 macro is much sharper, even if some LF lenses are even better.
Is there any improvements with he latest version?
Henrik
-
I just don't think it's a very good lens. The sharpness is worse than most lenses at this price.
I think the Mamiya 120 macro is much sharper, even if some LF lenses are even better.
Is there any improvements with he latest version?
Henrik
Yes, the 120mm f/4 Macro MF is amazingly sharp, I own this lens, the 120mm f/4 AF looks rather nice as well.
-
Hi Brian!
Have you tried the 120 TS?
Henrik
-
The 120 mark 1 is terrific. I use it with an H2f and CF39 MS back. I use it for repro work and portraiture. If I needed a lens for infinity focus, I'd probably get the 100 or the 150. My understanding is that the mark 2 was developed and optimized for the HD4-200MS. The Mamiya 120 macro is a fine lens too. I had a manual focus version (not sure the newer ones are AF).
-
Hi Brian!
Have you tried the 120 TS?
Henrik
I played with it at PDN Photoplus 2011 in NYC and its built very well, and I had the functions explained to me, by I believe one of the designers, who was very proud of all of the different functions of the lens and how it differs from traditional tilt shift lens.....I did not get any sample images with it, however I do review it empirically in this post:
http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2011/12/07/pdn-photoplus-2011/
-
I wonder if that 90mm pc-ts macro-symmar is the same lens as the legendary 90mm macro-symmar for Rollei??
I see that the imagecircle is as big as 90 mm. Should be a very nice macro-lens for the Hcam!!!
-
FWIW, and in my opinion, the older f5.6 "S" version was more of a "true" macro, err, "makro." Meaning that it was designed to perform at its best at a 1:10 distance, while being only mediocre at farther distances. The more modern version of the 120 (f4), as with other brands like Nikon, while still being a "makro" lens, has been designed to be more of a universal lens, with overall performance improved at infinity settings, but at the expense of some makro performance.
For me, a macro lens is chosen for its performance up close. And as such, I'd opt for the older 120/5.6 S. Today, the 120/4 version is often used as a short portrait lens, and it probably performs better in that distance range. The 120/4 may be a better overall performer, but I doubt it can ever match what the 120/5.6 S could do in the close-up range.
Same with Nikon. I'd take the 1970's 55/3.5 Ai or 105/4 Ai versions over the newer f2.8 auto focus versions any day of the week, if "macro" was my only intent.
Can I ask where this incorrect information originates?
-
Can I ask where this incorrect information originates?
Interesting.
In the mean time could you explain the main differences between the two lenses?
Best regards,
James
-
Yeah, I'm still waiting for that concise summary of the difference between the two versions as well. You can also add the 150/150N to the discussion, especially if the improvements are in the same ballpark.
-
Intersting. You sure you don't have a bad example? It is a bread and butter lens I use daily with and without extension tubes. And I found it to be extremely sharp, good contrast, excellent in details. Perhaps the Leica S 120 is sharper, but that only goes to 1/2 magnification.
I just don't think it's a very good lens. The sharpness is worse than most lenses at this price.
I think the Mamiya 120 macro is much sharper, even if some LF lenses are even better.
Is there any improvements with he latest version?
Henrik
-
i own the HC 120 mk2 and have rented the 120 mk1 quite a few times, I can't see a difference.
-
Intersting. You sure you don't have a bad example? It is a bread and butter lens I use daily with and without extension tubes. And I found it to be extremely sharp, good contrast, excellent in details. Perhaps the Leica S 120 is sharper, but that only goes to 1/2 magnification.
I have tried 2 examples. They are both the same. Look impressive, but perform no more than moderately
good. I think most people that are very macro-interested and have tried many lenses are unhappy with this lens.
Also if you compare the mtf from the lens and compare it to Mamiya 120 macro it is a big difference.
Henrik
I was just wondering what is the differences in the mark 2, and is it any better?
-
Interesting.
In the mean time could you explain the main differences between the two lenses?
Best regards,
James
Sure!
I don't think we have ever sat around a table and decided to worsen the performance of a product.
The 120 was redesigned to do a few things..
1) Improve resolution - Including in the Macro range! Its a popular lens choice with the H4D200MS so this makes prefect sense.
2) Improve on / Reduce the Axial Chromatic aberration (mentioned earlier in this thread)
The redesign is 'complete' in fact that it is a completely different layout of elements and groupings not just a tweak here and there.
If you want to see the MTF charts I can post those.
David
-
Yes, it would be very interesting to see the mtf-chartes compared.
Henrik
-
I upgraded my HC 50 for the HC 50 II because the Mk 1 was a bit rubbish at the edges (OK, harsh, but it was not great). The HC 50 II is soooo much better. However I have no problems with the 120mm macro Mk 1, which is my most used lens (on a H4D-50). Sharp, accurate focus, generally a fine lens and good for portaits too. If anyone can post samples showing the difference, I'd be interested.
-
I upgraded my HC 50 for the HC 50 II because the Mk 1 was a bit rubbish at the edges (OK, harsh, but it was not great). The HC 50 II is soooo much better. However I have no problems with the 120mm macro Mk 1, which is my most used lens (on a H4D-50). Sharp, accurate focus, generally a fine lens and good for portaits too. If anyone can post samples showing the difference, I'd be interested.
I think the points David mentioned are quite specific as to it's improvements.
1) Improve resolution - Including in the Macro range!
The more Mpix the camera the more resolution needed. The difference on your 50 will probably be not that great but would be interesting to see an MTF plot.
2) Improve on / Reduce the Axial Chromatic aberration (mentioned earlier in this thread)
If you've never come across this then you probably never will as you're not shooting the sort of subjects that show this unusual flaw. I've never experienced any other lens do this be it a macro lens or regular one with extension rings.
Magenta highlights........nasty! Especially as it means more computer time/retouching.
-
Can you please show an example of this? Am most intrigued.
.
2) Improve on / Reduce the Axial Chromatic aberration (mentioned earlier in this thread)
If you've never come across this then you probably never will as you're not shooting the sort of subjects that show this unusual flaw. I've never experienced any other lens do this be it a macro lens or regular one with extension rings.
Magenta highlights........nasty! Especially as it means more computer time/retouching.
-
Axial chromatic aberration results in blurred colours in front and behind the focus position due to differences in focal point by each colour.
Its different to lateral aberration which is what we are normally talking about - visible in high contrast areas towards the edge of the frame.
PDF attached to compare the Mk1 and II.
-
Thank you, David!
That is really impressive improvements!
Henrik
-
Can you please show an example of this? Am most intrigued.
I don't have any examples of this myself any longer as I ended up buying a Phase One system and trashed the Blad tests I shot but I did a quick search and found pictures of the issue in Alex Koloskov's test images of the Canon 1Ds vs the H4D-50 review on his blog.
http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/hasselblad-h4d-50-against-canon-1ds-markiii-what-do-we-get-for-the-money/ (http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/hasselblad-h4d-50-against-canon-1ds-markiii-what-do-we-get-for-the-money/)
Easily correctable but IMO shouldn't be there in the first place and since resolved (according to David) in the MkII.