Hasselblad 120mm macro vs. 110mm at equal f-stops

Anyone have any experience comparing these two lenses? Thinking of bokeh,

sharpness, flare, for portraits and at infinity.

 

I believe both close-focus identically at .8 meters.

 

I own the 120mm/503cw currently, but I figure if the 110mm performs similarly I

might swap the kit for a 200-series body+110mm and gain two stops more light.

I'd put my money on the 120mm for sharpness at closer ranges, but the 110mm is dang sharp. You can do some extraordinary effects with the 110mm's wide aperture when it comes to bokeh. Either lens is great for portraits, and the 110mm is maybe sharper at infinity, but you'd be hard pressed to put images from the two together and say one was a clear winner. The 110mm is definitely easier to focus for those of us getting a little older.<g>

David I agree with Michael.

 

And, keep in mind that it really is not a good idea to base your decision about moving to a focal plane shutter body on the relative performance of these 2 (or any 2) lenses. If you will benefit from the focal plane shutter and shutterless lenses with 1 or 2 stops faster apertures, then go for it.

I wouldn't say the 110 mm is sharper. It isn't. It's rather soft, and needs to be stopped down to begin performing decently.<br>But you do not buy an f/2 lens to use it stopped down, do you? So you don't use it stopped down, but keep it for when its peculiar qualities are needed.<br>And the 110 mm is indeed a special lens, when used wide open. It's shallow depth of field produces images you cannot get with any other Zeiss/Hasselblad lens.<br>Contrary to what is said now and again, that shallow depth of field can make it rather hard to focus the lens. Not easy. Especially with non-static subjects (portraits).<br>(That shallow depth of field, by the way, is also why you wouldn't see much of excellent sharpness, should the lens produce such a thing: unless you take pictures of very flat things, there's not much in the plane of sharpness... ;-))<br><br>So i wouldn't get a 110 mm to replace the 120 mm. It can't.<br>But get one anyway, perhaps, for the 'effect'.

At f5.6 and at infinity the 110mm will be sharper, at f5.6 and close-up (say any subject smaller than about 0.5m x 0.5m) the 120mm will be sharper.

The 110mm planar is the only reason I still have a Hasselblad over a Rollei (I had the 110

already in Hassie mount, and it is absurdly expensive for Rollei). It is a great lens with

beautiful effects. If I were shooting macros, I would go for the 120, but for people and

portraits, I think the 110 is perfect. Be aware, however, that since it is a non leaf shutter lens,

you will have a slow flash sync if you use flash. I believe it is 1/90th or 1/60th. But for

available light, it is second to none. Here is one I took last week at f/2 or f/2.8 <P><img

src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/rob-love-billy.jpg"><P>Here is an older close-up

shot (handheld)<P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/maples-and-

snow.jpg"><P>

Below is the sort of shot I tend to take with the 120mm...I have seen some 110mm shots by Mark Tucker (marktucker.com) that are similar but with that swirly bokeh/almost large format DOF (I'm speaking of the one he took before he went all digital+photoshop). Similar to a Lecia Noctilux shot in 'feel.'

 

Do you guys think if one stopped down the 110mm you could get equal sharpness when you wanted it? I like both the clinical and shallow DOF looks; with the 120mm mainly the clinical is forefront.<div></div>

Ok, you asked for it. Here are two shots, one at f/2 and the other at f/8, both scanned at

3000 dpi. I focused these as best I could and was careful. I cannot guarantee that film

flatness was perfect, or that I got the best possible focus. I did not focus bracket. That said, I

think this approximates what a reasonable person can duplicate in real conditions. At f/2, it

is soft and ethereal, stopped down, it is very sharp. <P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/110planar-f2-3000.jpg"><P> 100% crop<P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/110planar-f2-3000-crop.jpg"><P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/110planar-f8-3000.jpg"><P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/110planar-f8-3000-crop.jpg">

Thanks Stuart! It looks like it is worth a try on my part to give the 110mm a shot.

Nice comparison shot by Stuart. And, assumiing everything else was equal other than the f-

stop, it proves the point that Q.G. deB. was making, and that is, for certain effects you may

want the soft image produced with a f2 lens wide open, but if you want the sharpness shown

by the same lens at f-8, you have that already with your 120 mm.

 

So don't buy a 110/2 if you are going to use it all the time for the qualities it has in the 5.6

to 11 range because you are paying a long dollar for the f2 speed, not for sharpness. Spend

the money for something you really "need."