120mm Makro Planar

Sorry for the question and for my english ...

But I have a problem.

My lens for my Blad are very nice (50mm Distagon CFI4FLE, 80mm Planar

CFE 2.8, and the last 150mm Sonnar CFI4).

I will buy a 120mm Makro Planar CFI4, is it a valid choice, or is better

the 110 Planar FE).

I don't make makro-photos and use 503CW and 203FE cameras.

Many thank's.

I think you already own the useful focal lengths and there is no need for an additional lens in the range 80mm to 150mm.

Luca,

 

the purchase of the Planar 120mm does not seem to make much sense here, its close to the Sonnar 4/150mm and you can do very fine makro shoots with the Sonnar 4/150mm as well. If I had your option, I would get the Planar FE2.0/110 as it is a very good universal lens and it fits the metering system of the 203FE. If you never flash in daylight, you could sell the Planar 80mm, otherweise I would keep it. An other option here is to buy a Distagon 40mm or a longer lens in the 250/350 range. A NOVOFLEX 5.6/400 T(riplett) will fit (Hasselbl. mount) to the 203FE (not 503CW!!) and you have a nice fast shooting tele, much cheaper than ZEISS glass. Regards ROLAND

swc

I believe Zeiss does not recommend 120mm Makro Planar lens for anything except macro work. The performance at infinity is very mediocre, as

photodo.com will tell you too. (I have the Rollei version of this lens,

and use it a lot for superb macro performance). Unless you dislike the 80mm cfe f/2.8 lens, why get a 110mm or 120mm? Why not something else

like a ultra wide or a tele lens?

 

Of course, you could also get the 100mm lens, whose MTF curves look very good indeed! And get rid of the 80mm.

Luca,

 

It sounds more as if you are just looking to spend some more money, than to solve an

existing issue with your current kit. Do you find yourself missing something between the

80mm and the 150mm? Might I suggest you look outside your range of focal lengths... the

250mm is a focal length that I like, and one can probably find a slightly used 500mm

Apotessar for a reasonable price, if one takes the time. The 350mm is also nice. Your

range of lenses 50-80-150 is the most popular trio of Hasselblad lenses. Since you have a

203, the 110mm may be a good choice if you do a lot of low/available light photography,

as well.

 

Other than that, just getting closer or farther from your subject should get the right

coverage. You only state that you do not shoot macro; your shooting style will have a huge

influence on your choice. Do you shoot landscapes? Portraits? Street? Journalism?

 

Taras

Lakhinder,<br><br>Please, please, please do <b>not</b> pay heed to anything Photodo says about anything.<br><br>The performance of the 120 mm lens at infinity is in fact very good. You will have to look very, very hard to find a difference with, say a 150 mm Sonnar. If you can find any at all.

Taras,<br><br>In that range i have 80 mm, 110 mm, 120 mm, and 150 mm lenses, and do not feel that any one of those is redundant. I find there is a use for each and any of them.<br>Of course, as the phrase goes, "your mileage may vary". But so may Luca's. ;-)<br><br><br>Luca,<br><br>You see here that lens choice is very much a matter of personal preferences: what do you need, what do you want to do.<br>The 110 and 120 mm Planars are quite different.<br> The shallow depth of field of the 110 mm is its main feature. It is a good lens, though you need to stop it down to get better performance. It is, in my opinion, too short to be used as a portrait lens, too long to be used as a "standard" lens. But as such it complements your 80 mm and 150 mm lenses beautifully.<br>The 120 mm lens is a superbly sharp lens, very well suited for portraiture (not too short, though i like the 150 mm's focal length a bit better). And very good as a "general purpose" lens too; again an ideal lens to fit in between the 80 mm and 150 mm.<br>The 120 mm lens does not add an extra feature on top of that (like the 110's shallow depth of field), except for its superb close-up performance (very sharp, good contrast, flat-field, no colour aberration), which you say do not need. So perhaps out of the two the 110 mm may be the better choice for you?<br><br>But still, it's up to you. ;-)

I have owned both the 150, the old 120, and the new one. My firm advice is: do NOT get

any of the 120:s if you do not really need the macro capability! The 150 is quite good

(the 180 is even better btw), even for macro with extension tubes. The new 120 is

noticeably inferior at infinity wide open. The old one is better, but one step slower, which

is often a nuisance for general work. Besides, the 120 is too close to the 80 to really make

sense; 60 + 120 would be better.

I use a MF system with no focal length between 75 and 150 (Mamiya 6) and I would find something in between really useful for some portraiture. I admit that part of my problem with the 150 is the MF being a rangefinder, but that notwithstanding, a focal length around 110 really appeals.

<i><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0027nt">Here</a></i> is the information from Dr. Kornelius Fleischer of Zeiss regarding the 120mm lens, and its performance at Infinity. I believe, one can also conclude similar inference from Zeiss' website -- although it is not mentioned so directly.<br><br>

 

As for photodo.com, I have high regard for the technical accuracy of their tests. Zeiss/hasselblad mtf curves agree with photodo lens tests! It is the only independent lens test web site that comes to my mind!

<br><br>

 

<i>Incidently, what is wrong with photodo.com site?</i> Most of the MTF curves for Medium format lenses are not visible!

Lakhinder,<br><br>Yes, the 120 mm is designed to be best (!) used in close-up photography, the 150 mm is designed to be best used at long range. But that does not mean the 120 mm is not good at long range.<br>And in fact it is very good at long range too, despite mr. Marketing saying we need to buy two lenses.<br><br>And Photodo? Well, let's just say that many of their "scores" do not tally with the experience of many photographers using the lenses. They do present us with figures, yet there is no standarized test protocol, i.e. we do not know what the results mean, or how to compare them with other tests. And they perform very limited tests anyway.

<i>And in fact it is very good at long range too, despite mr. Marketing saying we need to buy two lenses.</i><br><br>

 

Q.G, I am not sure "very good" has necessarily a great correlation with MTF curves. The photodo test bench is very similar to Hasselblad, I believe. As for standardization of their test process, I am not sure it is any less stringent than any individual on photo.net! Oh, I do have the Rollei PQS Zeiss 120mm Makro planar (the latest), and use it a lot for Macro purpose. I use it for non macro purpose also, if it is the only choice. The performance for non-macro is not bad. But then, I am not testing it. It is not a objective observation. Mine too is subjective! As far as unified testing, I am not sure if Zeiss/Schneider/Fuji/XYZ have same testing methodology! Photodo is a third party. They have an important role!<br><br>

 

MTF curves have a purpose. They are scientific. "Very good" is not scientific. I think when Zeiss says that 120 is not for Infinity (landscapes etc..), it is not so much as Marketing, but perhaps more to cover up its poor performance (at infinity)! They did not say the same things about their old 135mm makro lens! <br><br>

 

In all fairness, Dr. Fleischer has never said that one should buy both 120 and 150! He is the only one from a lens company, and has only helped us with a view inside Zeiss. I would like other companies to participate too.<br><br>

 

My personal instinct is Zeiss would not in today's date design a lens like 120mm makro planar, where performance suffers as a general purpose lens! That is a poor market solution! Just like the Zeiss' seperate FLE ring on 40mm lens. I use Rollei, so instead of choosing zeiss 40mm FLE lens, I simply bought 40mm Schneider where one does not have to play with a second ring for adjusting the floating element. <br><br>

 

 

 

Lastly, Q.G, I am not disputing your evaluation of 120 mm lens. In fact, I value your input very much. But, let us not belittle independent testers. And let us not glorify just about any lens, even if it comes from Zeiss. I am sure there is a reason, why photodo ranks 120mm lens poorly, since they test lenses at Infinity. Frankly, Zeiss should be worried about superb lenses coming from Schneider and Fuji. As far as the 120mm makro lens, if I had a bias against it, I would not have paid 2000 dollars for it!

Q.G.,

 

I have the 80, 100, 110 (F), and 150 in that range as well as the 30, 40, 50, 50 (F), 250,

350, and 500 (CF), focal lengths (all C except where noted), and in general I agree with

your response to me, each of the lenses has a unique use. I just wanted to get more

information from Luca as to what the goals for a new lens were, whether there were any

problems needed solving. For example, if landscape photography was the main focus, and

due to DOF/perspective and compositional reasons a certain distance to the subject is

required that puts the desired coverage between the 80mm and the 150mm, then the

choice would be the 110, or maybe even the 100. For portraiture, a 120mm may be the

better choice. But if a person doesn't care that much about perspective, then moving

closer/farther from a subject is cheaper than a new lens, unless there is no place to set up

with the camera at that distance. In my specialized hobby, astrophotography, I am always

shooting at infinity, and can only change the coverage of my subjects by changing focal

lenght, as I can not get any closer to my subjects. The most important characteristics for

me in a lens are focal length and maximum usable aperture (usable for me for minimizing

coma/spherical aberrations in the corners as photographing bright dots is the severest

test of any lens).

 

Luca mentions a problem, but did not elaborate what the problem is (my guess: choosing

the next lens to buy, but I could be wrong and mean no disrespect). I was just trying to

see if there really is a photographic problem that needs a solution, or whether Luca is just

looking to expanding choices for oneself or possibly clients. If it is the latter, then a wider

or longer lens may be a consideration. Or filling in the gaps in the current kit may work,

depending on what the goals are.

 

Taras

Lakhinder,<br><br>"Very good" indeed is not scientific.<br>MTF results as produced by Photodo are not scientific either.<br>We do not know how they test, what their figures mean, or how to compare them to, say, the ones produced by Zeiss.<br>The thing with Photodo is that they have produced some quite remarkable test scores in the past. Quite remarkable, not because of the "strictly scientific" way they arived at those results, but because they fly in the face of everything people actually using the lenses know. (And don't ask me to produce examples; i can't. It's too long ago that i last paid any attention to Photodo. So yes, my opinion may be outdated. But i doubt that. ;-))<br><br>And no, we do not know what Zeiss figures mean either. So a "third party" vs "first party" comparison is out of the question. So much for that "important role".<br><br>"Very good" is a perhaps not very specified, verdict based upon collective experience of people who have used the lens. Observation, the thing on which anything that wants to be "scientific" has to fall back. So don't dismiss that too quickly. (And i won't even begin about what "objective" now really is ;-))<br><br>Anyway, yes Zeiss's spokesman has indeed said the same about the 135 Planar. Less so, because it would not fit this product's Marketing Strategy (and don't forget that this person's job title was/is Head of Strategic Marketing).<br><br><i>"Yes, there are even arial photographers who use the Makro-Planar 120 successfully,</i><br><br>"Successfully", right? Same person speaking. Though he does continue <i>"but we at Zeiss would not encourage this usage"</i>. Why not, if they use this lens successfully? Dare i say Marketing again? ;-)<br><br>Yes, i too like the input from dr. Fleischer (even when he changes name to Müller). But still, i don't forget where his allegiances lie, what his job is.<br><br>What is poor marketiing is not (!) selling one lens because it is very well suited for a special, though not uncommon, purpose, not so hot for other purposes, and at the same time offering another lens that does good what the other is supposed to do not well. What is bad marketing, a "poor market solution", is offering just one lens, saying that that one does everything. Why sell one lens where you can sell two?<br><br>Anyway (again), it's not about all that really. It's just that we mustn't obsess about minute differences that do not show up in everyday practice. As long as many people are still taking photographs hand-held, even a "better" 150 mm could be replaced by a Holga lens. ;-)

<i>We do not know how they test, what their figures mean, or how to compare them to, say, the ones produced by Zeiss.</i><br><br>

 

<b>(Here is a cut and paste from Photodo website:)<br></b>

We have been testing lenses with Hasselblads Ealing MTF equipment since 1991. All MTF reports are made with the same equipment and by the same operator (Per Nordlund at Victor Hasselblad AB).

So far we have tested lenses only at infinity.

We measure MTF at 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm, where 10 lp/mm (line pairs/ mm) means 10 black lines with 10 white lines in between, for each millimeter.

I wanted to add a couple of more links, <a href="http://www.normankoren.com/phototechnique.html#Lens">First</a> at Norman Koren's wonderful website, and the <a href="http://www.photodo.com/nav/artindex.html">other</a> is the detailed article at photodo.com itself. Click on the article <i>Understanding the MTF graphs, numbers and grades</i>. This will explain Photodo.com's tests better.

Get the 110 THe extra opening is wonderful.

Lakhinder,<br><br>I know who does the testing. I also know that even at photodo there is no great deal of confidence about 'comparability'. I could give you a direct quote, but i feel i have overstepped the boundaries of confidentiality already.

Lakhinder,<br><br>One more brief note: i <i>do</i> understand MTF. ;-)

QG, what can I say to Insider information ;-) I simply bow to you.

 

Anyways, I never assumed you don't know MTF curves. That link had I thought more detailed explanation of Photodo test methodology.

 

And now I am going out to take a shot with my 120 Makro Planar...