Makro Planar 120MM F4 CF

[chad_johnson]

<p>I recently purchased a Hasselblad Makro Planar T* 120MM F4 CF and I've noticed that the contrast suffers in harsh lighting conditions -- such as strong back-lighting on the subject. Even using a lens hood I see a loss of contrast that I don't see with my stock 80mm lens. I thought the 120mm would have better performance as it is a T* (I take this to mean that it is multi-coated) while the 80mm is not. Is this a known problem with this lens? Would the CFi or CFE perform any better? Are there are other telephoto lenses that perform better?<br>

By the way, the loss of contrast shows up as a black point that isn't truly black -- easily corrected by setting levels in post-processing, but still undesirable. The sharpness of this lens is wonderful and I would like to be able to use it.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your comments,<br>

Chad</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>CF lenses are good, the CFi slightly better. Which lens hood do you use? For extreme backlit conditions I suggest the compendium lens hood with a mask. If that does not work, nothing else will.</p>

[brad_clemens]

<p>For this specific lens, a long-time Hassy shooter told me to either go with the S-Planar 120/5.6, or the CFi MP for exactly the reason you described. I'm pleased with the performance of the CFi- it's in line with Contax lenses from the same era, but I haven't used the CF, so I can't say if the CFi is truly better.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 120 Makro CFI has somewhat better internal baffling to suppress reflections. I have not noticed veiling flare in mine from a bright sky or backlighting, nor excessive flare when there is an exceptional bright light source in the field of view. The Makro Planar is a simple lens compared to the 80mm Planar CF/CFI, which would ordinarily mean less flare in general. The only lens which I find problematic is the CF50 FLE, and then only under harsh conditions.</p>

<p>A filter, even plain glass or "UV absorbing" has a profound effect on contrast in the situation you describe. I don't use my Hasselblad in conditions that would require that degree of protection. I also use a compendium hood outdoors, although that won't protect the lens from a bright sky or backlighting.</p>

[chad_johnson]

<p>Thanks for your answers. I'm using a compendium hood at full extension. I may try to upgrade to the CFi or CFE version at some point, though for now maybe I'll try to make a mask out of black paper. I noticed that a tube out of black paper worked fairly well.</p>

[john_fishlock]

<p>I purchased the 120 Macro Planar F4 CF for my wedding photography.<br>

I thought it would be a perfect complement to my wedding kit, doubling as a portrait and close-up lens.<br>

On the first shoot I used it the slightest backlighting (correctly hooded) caused enough flare to render the lens unusable for its intended purpose. I ended up using my 150mm for portraits and an extension tube on my 80mm lens for close-ups. An expensive mistake.<br>

Under controlled conditions it is a very good lens but for many practical applications the flare renders it useless.<br>

I would definitely try the CFI/CFE versions before purchase.</p>

<p>Regards<br>

John<br>

<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[chad_johnson]

<p>Thanks, John. I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one having issues with it. I think it may be time to upgrade.</p>

 

[douglas_fairbank]

<p>Don't trade in just yet. Select a small aperture, stop down and hold the lens to a very bright light, do you see dust on the internal surfaces? There is a good chance that there is metallic dust from a blade problem and a service (CLA) will fix it.</p>

[ken_wayne1]

<p>I have sold a lot of 120mm CF's over the years. And never once have I had any photographers describe what you've described here. I've not known the 120mm lenses to be anything less than outstanding. This may be some specific issue to your lens.</p>

[chad_johnson]

<p>Thanks, Douglas and Ken. It could be an issue with this copy although I've read of other people having similar issues in other forums. Either way, I decided to exchange it for the CFE version and KEH very kindly did the exchange despite it being beyond the 14 day return period. I will report back my findings with the new lens when it arrives. If it has the same problem I will be rather upset since it costs more than twice as much!</p>

<p>Chad</p>

[Rob F.]

<blockquote>

<p>Under controlled conditions it is a very good lens but for many practical applications the flare renders it useless.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is my impression also. It's a great studio lens--controlled conditions--but not the right lens for use in the field, owing to the flare issue. I know. I've owned two of them.</p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>I've been using the 120mm CF lens since 1993 and, seriously, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone complaining about flare. In fact, seeing that two or three people had responded with seeing flare made me wonder if I just had been missing it all these years? However, after quickly going through some slides and negatives I shot that could definitely have been influenced by flare I just don't see it. Maybe I'm just lucky? Not sure but I've been happy with the lens ever since I purchased it all those years ago.</p>

[douglas_fairbank]

<p>The 120mm CF is one of Hasselblad's best and does not have a flare problem except when there is a blade breakdown and the inner surfaces have dust deposits.<br>

This is not a common problem but I have seen it enough times to make it a priority test on all 120mm lenses I receive. The good news is that if you are unlucky enough to have this problem a CLA + new blades will fix it!</p>

 

[nathan_wong2]

<p>This is probably the most flare I could probably get. There was some lights from a billboard to the right. <br>

<img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7432/11113914724_147629b2cc_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[chad_johnson]

<p>Here's an example. I know this is hardly a precise test, but it's a quick snapshot I made before I returned the lens. The scene is certainly back-lit, but nothing crazy (the sun is mostly overhead and the bright areas are coming from the sky and some pavement behind the subject). I'm using a compendium lens shade. <br>

<img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5559/15052730040_28c27232b1_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="769" /></p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>So the lack of contrast is what the problem is? I found that the CZ lenses had less contrast than the overly contrasty Nikon lenses (if that's where you come from). Luckily the portrait photo is easily fixed in post by adding more contrast, but I can see where the lower contrast can be bothersome. </p>

[chad_johnson]

<p>A little back light should not produce such a radical change in contrast -- when there is no backlighting, the contrast of this lens is perfect.</p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>A "little" back light? I'm hoping you're joking. That background is so bright it might as well be shooting into the sun. That's high key to the nth degree. You won't find any lens that will be able to handle that without changing the contrast. </p>

[chad_johnson]

<p>Well, you might be surprised what a modern lens is capable of, Nathan :-)</p>

<p>I just took possession of the CFE version of the lens and I'm happy to report that the contrast is good though not excellent. With a paper tube lens shade, the contrast is comparable to my Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro (which is the highest contrast lens that I own), without a lens shade the Hasselblad is not quite as good but still perfectly usable and represents a substantial improvement over the CF version of the same lens. The compendium shade is surprisingly useless. A simple roll of black paper is quite a bit better though obviously not as robust.</p>

<p>I did a quick and dirty comparison of the Canon to the CFE Hasselblad which you can see below. It is a purposefully badly lit scene in the sense that is is only lit from the side and back and about one stop over exposed.<br /> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3910/15246363816_2de2541e51_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="524" /><br /> Original photo can be found here:

[nathan_wong2]

<p>Hi Chad. I use modern lenses just as you do. I shoot with lighting behind the subject all the time and I guess I'm just not as critical as you because I don't seem to have the problems as you do. The lenses I've been using lately are the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G and 24mm f/1.4G so I know what modern, Nano coating can do for us. I'm not saying they're perfect, because they aren't and neither are the Hasselblad CF lenses, but again I've not run into the flare problems that you seem to be experiencing. <br>

For the examples you provided above you used f/16. Unfortunately that aperture normally introduces lens diffraction and that usually doesn't give you the best lens performance. Try the same tests using an aperture two stops down from your minimum (f/2.8). The performance will probably be much better. </p>