120 vs 150 lenses

[alan_higgins]

Hi there everyone

 

Can anyone tell me please what the difference is between the 120 and 150mm

lenses for Blads (Apart from 30mm) I would like to purchase one specifically

for portraiture but would like to be informed about both lenses. What also are

the pitfalls if any between the lenses?

 

Many thanks

 

Alan

[Ed_Ingold]

There are no pitfalls, both the 120 and 150 are superb lenses. All traces of the Coca-Cola logo have been blended ouyt of the glass :-)

 

The 120 is, of course, a macro lens optimized for performance at close range and the 150 optimized for 1:15 and less magnification. Both make good portrait lenses. Because it is shorter, I like the 120 for group photos, whereas the longer 150 is better suited for individual portraits.

 

The term "brutally sharp" is often applied to the 120. IMO, all Hasselblad lenses are as sharp or sharper. In any case, there's nothing you can't fix in post or up front using one of the Softar filters.

 

If you are still shopping, I suggest getting the 150 first. It's a great lens in a compact package, a bit cheaper and the traditional "portrait" focal length.

[paul_gardener]

The 120 exists as a 120 S-Planar a lens from the C series.

Early S-Planars, chrome versions, do not have T* coating.

 

The black barrel S-Planars have T* coating at 5.6 they are both one stop less fast than the later Makro-Planar.

 

S-Planars are more Macro lenses compared with the later Makro-Planar that can be used at infinity as well.

 

Less fast and less expensive you can pick up a good S-Planar around 250 USD.

 

The 150 C or CF has been laid out as most lenses to perform best at infinity.

No pitfalls just completely different lenses.

A small extension ring 8, 10 or 16 mm will help to make close up shots.

[kparratt]

In spite of it's lack of T* multicoating, the S-Planar, if correctly shaded (ie pro-shade) is capable delivering stunning, crisp and clear images. I use mine for macro, portrait and in-studio repro quality photos of paintings. It's one of the best I've ever owned.

 

Stopped down to f11 or f16, it will also perform well with landscape work. The lens shade is then very important to eliminate light from outside the picture format.

[russ_britt3]

I have both, but for portraits I would choose the 150mm first.

[paul_gardener]

Kevin,

 

You are right a good shade, preferably a professional type of shade with the correct mask, means more than T* coating.

 

Some may be turned off by the 5.6 aperture for the S-Planar.

Those who take the plunge at todays friendly prices will be amazed by what the S-Planar delivers.

 

120 or 150 is a personal matter for portraits.

With the 120 you are closer to the subject.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Paul,<br><br>I have never seen a source, indicating that the S-Planars are "more Macro lenses compared with the later Makro-Planar", and would be interested to see one. On what do you base that assertion?<br><br>The bit that says that "the later Makro-Planar [...] can be used at infinity as well" might give people the impression that you cannot use the S-Planar at infinity. Just so it is clear: you of course can. (And i never noticed it being worse at infinity than the Makro-Planar.)

[kparratt]

Yes, and following on from your comment Paul; "120 or 150 is a personal matter for portraits. With the 120 you are closer to the subject." ... the use of an extension ring, even the shortest, 8 or 10mm can take one just that bit closer for more intimate studies.

[enw]

I would agree with the opinion of most of the contributors that the 150 would be the better first choice. It can generally be found at lower prices than the 120. I would not disregard the 180, however. It is a fine portrait lens in its own right and it may better suit your style of shooting.

[paul_gardener]

Q.G. de Bakker,

 

Look at the MTF data for a start I am sure you know where to find those....

Second test these lenses and compare results both for the range they were laid out for that is up till about 1 m object distance and at infinity.

 

If you are interested in a source that clearly describes the difference between the S-Planar and the Makro-Planar look at:

Hasselblad Das groߥ Handbuch edition Laterna Magica page 59.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both these lenses do not perform well at infinity.

They cannot perform well at infinity as they were designed to give optimum results at close range.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Paul,<br><br>Thanks for the reference to Das grosse Handbuch. I have a copy, but never noticed what they said about the S-Planar.<br>Now we only need an independent corroborating source, and it's "science". ;-)<br>The MTF curves are different, yes. But that could be due to a number of things.<br>And i have "tested" both lenses, and not found a difference worth mentioning. Maybe i should have used a microscope to examine the result?<br><br>That they "cannot" perform well at infinity is a bit strong. They can, and indeed do. Just as well as a lens optimized for infinity, like the 150 mm Sonnar, still performs great at close range. And the Planars are even less scale-sensitive than this Sonnar. So anyone considering an S- or Makro-Planar: don't worry!

[paul_gardener]

Q.G. de Bakker,

 

I do not need an independent source I trust my own judgement.

Furthermore I have found Carl Zeiss to be a good source for useful information.

Up till 1 m object distance Macro lenses are recommended.

From 1m till infinity the 100 mm Planar is strongly recommended.

[desmond_kidman]

The 120 is one of the finest Zeiss lenses. The notion that they are not suitable, or at their best at more than 1 meter, is just not reality.

 

I love the oof areas of this lens when using it for portraits...just beautiful. And the in-focus areas are not just sharp, but uniforly sharp in their rendition. As far as distances, I one day set up a very controlled test on a graphic artis's font reference chart at a distance of 3 meters. All shots were withing 10 minutes of each other in open shadow. I was astounded at the results. The 120 Makro outperformed, in terms of "perceived sharpness", which is not just resolution but includes contrast, the 80, 150, 180, 250. This is a wonderful lens. I would much rather use it for portraits than the 150, which I owned before the 120, and used much less after I bought the 120.

 

Long time readers of this forum might remember reading that I became very partial over the RZ67 and rated many lenses as highly as some Zeiss counterparts. Probably the 120 Marko's particular blend of uniform image quality across the plane in the plane of focus and the out of focus areas is one lens that I probably have never found an equal in another line.

[paul_gardener]

Armando,

 

Are you suggesting Carl Zeiss do not know what they are talking about when recommending lenses for different applications?

 

In that case the design of lenses that perform better at close range, also called Makro lenses, is completely useless.

 

I did not mention the 120 is best at distances larger than 1 m.

I pleaded they are best used for distances up till 1 m.

Any lens laid out to perform best at close range cannot be optimized for infinity. It is as simple as that.

I did not say they cannot be used at infinity.

I mentioned they will not perform well. For Infinity use any other lens but a Makro lens.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Paul,<br><br>You are suggesting that Zeiss say what you say they say, which again asks for a reference... ;-)<br><br>Hans Sauer, the man behind the 100 mm Planar, once ("Hasselblad" magazine 1971/3, and leaflet "1.006 E 93.5 71") said that the 100 mm Planar is nothing special, "really no better than the 80 mm f/2.8 Planar", for "close-up work". Now the question is of course where "close-up work" stops and "long focusing distances" (where Sauer says the 100 mm Planar's "outstanding quality" is "especially apparant") begin.<br>But you are right, of course: the 120 for close-up, the 100 mm for the rest.<br><br>Interestingly, Sauer continues to say about the S-Planars that they "[...] are especially distinguished by the fact that the definition is only very slightly affected by the scale of reproduction [...]" / "[...] eine sehr geringe Abhängigkeit der Abbildungsleistung vom Abbildungsmassstab".<br>So though the 100 mm will unquestionably be better "im Bereich grössere Objektentfernungen", there indeed is no need to worry about using a 120 mm at long range.<br>The performance of either S- or Makro-Planar lens will be less, but still outstanding.

[paul_gardener]

Q.G. De Bakker,

 

Confusing is not it?

Mr. Sauer states "the 100 mm Planar is nothing special and really no better than the 80 mm Planar for close up work"

 

I think he is right. Both lenses were not laid out for that sort of jobs and will both underperform.

 

Carl Zeiss advises to use the Makro-Planar or the S-planar for distances up till 1 m. From 1m onwards the 100 mm Planar is an excellent choice.

[desmond_kidman]

Getting back to Alan's original question, if you really are interested in portraiture you simply must experience the 120 Makro results, expecially when shooting at larger f-stops. I've owned and used the legendary 85mm Zeiss for 35mm cameras, the fast Canon 85 1.2, all RZ lenses, Hassy/Zeiss 80, 100, 120, 150, 180, Bronicas, and still the 120 Makro is, for me, the best portrait lens I have ever shot with. It's more than sharpness and contrast, which at 10 feet are fantastic, it's the type of rendition, the even qualities, the out of focus qualities, the transition from in-focus to out of focus areas. Get a used one, shoot with it, then sell it for the same price if you don't like it. Whatever you do, don't fall for the 180, it is uncomfortable hand-held due to changing the balance of the camera compared to 150 and 120, and although it is sharp, its evenness of focus and out of focus areas leave much to be desired. It's a step toward the standard 250 in image quality, a step away from perfection. It is hard to explain what I mean by this even focus quality, but I have found that lenses that do not have it seem to always have very divergent curves for contrast in the radial and tangential directions. Again, try the 120, I bet you love its image qualities, and the close focus ability is really nice if you do move in very close on occasion.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Paul,<br><br>I think he is right too. The 100 mm Planar is a great lens. It is sharp, and (most of all) practically free of distortion. And it is that at long range; and wide open or moderately stopped down. Get closer, or stop it down, say, half way, and it is better than the 80 mm Planar only (!) in its absence of distortion. And even distortion increases somewhat when not set to infinity.<br><br>Compared to an S- or Makro-Planar, the 100 mm will be better too, at long range. So far, so good.<br>The question now is - whatever we may think about the 100 mm Planar - whether the S- or Makro-Planar is bad when used at long range. And even though the 120 mm is best at close range, it certainly is not bad at infinity either.<br>You will have to look very, very hard to notice a difference in performance between it and the 150 mm Sonnar, at infinity. And when you do, you may indeed be able to see the Sonnar have an edge on the Makro-Planar. But is is very slight, easily lost by 'casual technique' (no tripod, sloppy focussing, etc.).

[desmond_kidman]

In a way I have to agree with Q.G. here. I say "in a way" as I have not compared the 150 and 120 at infinity. I only cared about distance up to 10 or 20 feet. However, one afternoon I was in Venice and the sun was setting behind a steeple with exact alignment, and I knew that I could not waste any time changing lenses. I quickly mounted the camera on a tripod and bracketed a roll of images, set nearly at infinity. The 120 happened to be mounted when I pulled the camera from the bag. I expected a soft image but I was very impressed when I saw the slides. They were quite sharp, with very good detail and contrast. I remember thinking "I don't know if I would have come up with anything sharper if I had the 150 on the camera."

 

Now, I'm not in love with the 150, I think it's a good lens, but not a lens that makes the image pop and makes me say "WOW"! The point is, the 150 is certainly not a dog. For the 120 to remind me of the quality I get from the 150 when the 120 was way out of its intended range is pretty impressive. Again, this is a very worthwhile lens for any Hasselblad enthusiast to own, even if one already has the 100 and 150.