100 CF vs. 120 Makro Planar CF

I am considering purchasing a new 100 CF, as I often shoot

architectual detail and could use a zero distortion lens. I currently

own the 50 CF(FLE) and 120 Makro Planar CF. Could anyone who has used

or owns both let me know their opinion on the relative sharpness of

the 100CF compared to the 120 Makro Planar? Thanks!

I used both. I prefer 100 CF and sold the 120 Makro-Planar, which I found tern. For close shots, 120 Cf is surely better.

You may look some test pictures that I shot at

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Louvre/7842/textephot/photo2h.htm (in French - for pictures it does'nt matter)

Regards, Dominique

<p>No personal experience, but observe from the lens data sheets the following:</p>

<ul>

<li><p>The CF 120 has unusually low distortion, although not as low as the 100.</p></li>

<li><p>At long distances, the 100 is significantly sharper (except right at the image center) than the 120. You have to stop down a lot (f22?) before the MTF curves become similar.</p></li>

<li><p>The 100 may be a little easier to focus at large distances because the focusing helix covers less distance.</p></li>

</ul>

<p>Also, some people report problems with flare with the CF 120, although this problem may be fixed with the new CFi version of this lens. The 100 has an excellent reputation, even wide open.</p>

I have used both extensively. Also I have quite some background knowledge as head of Carl Zeiss camera lens applications department: The Planar 100 was developed for the very high demands of scientific photography. It will produce sharper pictures on every architectural detail the size of a window or larger. The Makro-Planar 120, on the other hand, will produce sharper pictures on anything the size of your computer screen or smaller. I do like both and use both a lot. If someone suffers from some loss of contrast with older types of the 120 mm check out the new 120 CFi, you will be pleased!

I guess this is really a question for Kornelius but would be pleased to hear any other views.

 

Having used a 60mm CB lens and a 120mm macro CF extensively for the last couple of years, I bought a 135mm macro mainly for the ease of 1:1 shooting on the bellows. Most of the work that I have been doing with the 120 are portraits (usually waist up or chest up in terms of size) with some landscape. I don't mind having two lenses with a macro designation since I use them in very different circumstances but I do wonder if I am likely to see any improvement in sharpness trading the 120CF for the 100CF or CFi planar in this kind of photography. I shoot exclusively black and white. All views gratefully received.

<p>The 120 CF is reputed to be one of the best lenses for the type of portrait work you describe. The only potential problem with this particular lens, reported by some users and said to be fixed in the new 120 CFi, is flare. The 100 would also be a good choice, but provides a slightly wider angle of view and slightly shorter working distance. At this moderate distance, either 120 CF or 100 CF should provide excellent image quality. According to Hasselblad literature, the 100 is very good at close distances---significantly better than the 80.</p>

<p>For landscapes, the situation is different. The printed data sheets give information on the macro lenses at infinity. The 120 CF is sharp only in the center of the image at infinity, wheras the 100 provides excellent corner-to-corner quality at all apertures. If you are looking for corner-to-corner quality in your landscape pictures, you might well see a difference. Also, the 100mm focal length would better fill the gap between your 60 and 135mm lenses.</p>

<p>The 135 has very good correction over a wider range of magnifications than the 120. By all accounts, it has very good quality at infinty if you stop it down. Before trading lenses, I suggest that you try using your 135 for landscape pictures instead of the 120 CF. You will need your bellows, but you will have a very versatile and reasonably lightweight system capable of excellent results at all magnifications less than 1.</p>

Thanks, that is a good idea. I will let you know how I go.

No sooner than today I got back to this thread, so please apologize my late answering:

As a clear recommendation for perfectionists from inside Zeiss: For landscapes I would by far prefer the Planar 100 over any Makro-Planar. (Yes, there are even arial photographers who use the Makro-Planar 120 successfully, but we at Zeiss would not encourage this usage.)

For portraits I find that the Makro-Planar gives me considerably more flexibility and 100 mm would be too short. To be honest, for my own portrait work I prefer a completely different caliber: A Tele-Tessar 4/350 on a 201 F camera.

 

The Makro-Planar 135 is meant to be a versatile tool for the dedicated makro-photographer working in scientific institutions, museums and the like, who becomes equipped only once, who doesn4t mind to use a bellows attachment, and has to work with this equipment forever.

The "all-in-one" Zeiss Makro-Planar 135 is the only lens in the Hasselblad range that I do not have in my working arsenal. I enjoy the situation to have a broad variety of special optical tools available, including a dedicated high-performance copying lens optimized for 1 : 1 (the Zeiss S-Planar 4/74 with a custom adapter for Hasselblad) and Zeiss Luminar lenses for greater than lifesize shots up to 20x magnification.

What about simply using the 100 CF with extension tubes? Even

if it's not as optimized for close focusing, that could prove to be

the best of all worlds. After all, both lenses presents quite an

investment. Thoughts? Kornelius?

Thanks guys for the replies.

 

From the above links and Dr. Fleischers comments in particular I understand that the 120 would be sharper for anything smaller than my monitor screen and the 80 sharper for anything larger.

 

Is this born out by anybodys personal experience?

<p>Yes, there is a slight softness to the Makro-Planar with distant subjects, say at 20M (about 66 feet) and more. It is not unacceptable, but it is not the razor-sharp performance the Makro-Planar delivers at close distances, say about 2M and closer.</p>