120 Makro for portraits as well as macro work?

I'm thinking instead of the 150 Sonnar instead getting the 120 Makro and use

it for both macro work and for short-tele portraits. I know it's a tad

shorter which is not a huge concern but perhaps I'm missing something not

being that experienced in Hassys and their lenses. I do like macro work and

would love to kill two birds with one stone. Thoughts?

No worries. Go for it!<br>The 120 mm is a bit shorter, of course, but whether it already is too short depends on your style of portrait photography.

I used to use my 120mm for wedding portraits. Perfectly fine.

I use the the 120 Zeiss on my Rollei system and it works great for both, I like the fact that I

can pull in really tight on a portrait without adding any close-up accessories like filters or

rings.

I own both. The 120mm was the first lens I bought. The ONLY thing negative about it is the aperture at f/5.6 is a tad dark to focus with, compared to the 150, but it is blazingly sharp close up. If you shoot portraits, you may want to find ways to soften the results, unless you like a lens that will read every line in the face.

 

To demonstrate this, in the days before Photoshop was widely used, I shot a bunch of models for a hair products manufacturer. The problem was that the images were too sharp because you could see wrinkles and spots too easily. Luckily it was all B&W and I could do some things in the darkroom to correct it, but I must have spent days retouching the images by brush.

 

It is a great lens for product shots too, but you need enough light to stop it down to a decent DOF. Using it with extension tubes is equally rewarding. I've always wanted the bellows, but never got around to it. And about it being shorter: the problem I have with the 80mm is it is sometimes too wide. The 100mm or 120mm is a very nice length IMO. It's also a slight shorter than the 150mm.

Michael,<br><br>The Makro-Planar 120 mm is f/4, no longer f/5.6 since the early 1980s.<br>Still the same great performance.

With the 150, you may find you need an extension tube to do very close portraits.

 

Other than that, either should be fantastic. If you're shooting women/glamour, you may

prefer the (slightly) longer lens. As well, the Makro is known to possibly be "too sharp,"

but i think that's splitting hairs - they're both going to be 'sharp.'

 

I have had both - 120CFE and 150FE. I kept the 150, but not because of any

dissatisfaction with the 120. I think the 150's Sonnar bokeh may be a little smoother, but i

also love the 120's....

 

How 'macro' do you need to get? You may need a tube on the Makro lens, as well, if you're

shooting small objects.

Oh, that's right. Well, I should upgrade that lens, shouldn't I?<g>

If you find the results too sharp, you can always get a Softar filter...

 

Focal lengths for portraits has more to do with personal style and vision than with a canned

formula. I've seen portraits using everything from a 30mm fish-eye thru the 350mm Tele-

Tessars. As someone mentioned, a short tube can get you closer focus, and you will probably

need at least one extension tube for macro work.

 

Taras

You will never regret having a 120 MP in your kit. I have it along with the 150 and 180 - different horses for different courses.

 

By the way the 120 is great for whole/most of the body portraits at a bit more distance. I really like its perspective as well as its performance.

I like the 150 better for portraits unless I am short on space then I use the 120...it is sharper....but soft is better sometime for portraits.

120 sharper than 150? I thought the 150 is pretty good. If that is really the case, 120 plus 180 would make a perfect pair. Any comments from users of both/all?