Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,533   Posts: 1,544,002   Online: 1029
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18

    Opinions on the Hasselblad 120mm Makro (Macro!) Lens

    I'm curious to hear about Hasselblad's 120mm Makro lens. I've read the other posts that discuss the lens, including the ones on photo.net and others, but I've yet to hear anything convincing, so I'm hoping someone here can give me the advice I need.

    Here's my situation: I only have one lens, the normal 80mm, and have been using a 2X converter and an extension tube (16mm) to get close up shots (the converter for things that are too far away to get close to, I always prefer the tube if I have a choice).

    I'm considering saving up for the macro lens but I'd like to hear some opinions. It is important to note that I'm really not doing macro photography, but more of close-ups (which I consider different but others might look at as being the same!) An example is the sunflower in my gallery- that's the closest I want to get. I'm really not interested in photographing the super tiny things, like individual petals, I'm more interested in relatively simple photographs; the swan photograph in my gallery is another good example of the sort of style I'm interested in right now. However, that photograph was taken without a tube or converter.

    Here are my concerns/questions; the maximum size I print is about 7x7 inches; will I really see better picture quality by using a dedicated macro lens? Does the macro lens have better depth of field, or is it just the same as an 80mm lens with 40mm of extension? How about the depth of the photograph? The lens is supposed to be optimized for photographing flat objects right? So is there going to be a loss of depth in the photograph?

    I realize the lens is expensive; but I've settled on this sort of "simple" style and will probably be sticking with it for a few years or so; however, I do also like to take snapshots and larger scale photographs (like landscapes) just for memories; my contact sheets are my photo albums.

    So, does anyone think I would be better off with the 120mm lens? Would the only benefit be that I don't have to take the lens off to take off the extension tube when I want to switch from focusing close to focusing at infinity?

    Honestly I'm happy with my current set-up, and really like only having one lens; I find the actual act of photography to be much more enjoyable and "meditative" when I'm not worrying about switching equipment. I don't mind the extension tube because I can store that in a pocket, but I'll be honest and say I don't like using the converter too much because I actually have to set my bag down to get to it; however, sometimes I find it to be worth it, and if the makro lens is the same then it might be something to consider. Most likely though, if I did get the Makro I would be selling the converter to help finance the lens (the converter a Vivitar converter, not the Mutar!)

    Thank you for any advice,
    Brent
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  2. #2
    André E.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,520
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by brent8927
    It is important to note that I'm really not doing macro photography
    Brent
    If you don`t do macro photography, for what a macro optic then?

    Quote Originally Posted by brent8927
    but more of close-ups...
    Brent
    Maybe a Sonnar 150 or 180 will do?
    CF optics aren`t that expensive used nowadays, think about it!

    Good luck!

    Cheers

    André

  3. #3
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18
    I was interested in the macro lens because it's optimzed for close-focusing, and I do a lot of close-focusing, though with the macro I probably wouldn't be using close-up tubes, which was part of the advantage; but maybe you're right, would I be better off buying the 180 or 150 (or the 160 CB) and just using close-up tubes with them? Would I really see any difference between them and the macro?
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,399
    If you never print larger than 7"x7", why are you shooting 6x6? How can you tolerate the weight and cost when 35 mm will do just fine for that size print?

  5. #5
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    I use a much cheaper 150mm CF lens and a 55mm tube. Will cost you half of what the 120 is.

  6. #6
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    The 120mm Makro Planar is really a superb lens. But, if you aren't doing macro, but work that is more like tight portraits and such, I think you'll be better off with the 150 or 180 with a tube that gives you the magnification you want. Personally, I like the 180 with a 21mm extension tube.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  7. #7
    Charles Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorfull, Canon City Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,723
    I don't actually own the 120mm Macro Planar, but I have had the pleasure of using one for many different subjects. It indeed is a wonderful hunk of glass a bit over priced perhaps, but it responds very well in all categories. I personally like to have a lens that can handle more than one task. The 120mm does exactly that. I used the 120mm as a normal lens, and was very satisfied, when photographing steam trains and historical items. I could also home in on a tiny detail without having to change lenses, add tubes or other close up lense/devices. I also believe that a macro lens designed for macro work does a better all round job than a lens with extension tubes
    or Proxars. I also think that the 120mm lens is what I call "tweener"
    between 80mm and my 150 mm. If I owned one I am quite sure the 80mm would sit in the bag and the 120mm would be my "normal" lens.

    That simply is my opinion. If I could afford one and could force myself to use the square format, I would save my coins to buy one!
    Charlie......

  8. #8
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    If you never print larger than 7"x7", why are you shooting 6x6? How can you tolerate the weight and cost when 35 mm will do just fine for that size print?
    Well... two reasons. The first is that I like the square format (and I don't like cropping so I wouldn't want to crop from a rectangle to a square), but the main reason is just that I like medium format. I love shooting with a waist level finder and I also love having the controls on the lens (my Bronica S2A didn't have that). That's it really.... I just like it more, and I was willing to spend the money on it (which made me broke of course... but what college student isn't?)

    Other big reason is the detail; you still see an improvement even at such a small size. Well... at least I do.
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  9. #9
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Webb
    I don't actually own the 120mm Macro Planar, but I have had the pleasure of using one for many different subjects. It indeed is a wonderful hunk of glass a bit over priced perhaps, but it responds very well in all categories. I personally like to have a lens that can handle more than one task. The 120mm does exactly that. I used the 120mm as a normal lens, and was very satisfied, when photographing steam trains and historical items. I could also home in on a tiny detail without having to change lenses, add tubes or other close up lense/devices. I also believe that a macro lens designed for macro work does a better all round job than a lens with extension tubes
    or Proxars. I also think that the 120mm lens is what I call "tweener"
    between 80mm and my 150 mm. If I owned one I am quite sure the 80mm would sit in the bag and the 120mm would be my "normal" lens.

    That simply is my opinion. If I could afford one and could force myself to use the square format, I would save my coins to buy one!
    Charlie......
    Thanks for your opinion Charlie; you brought up a good point that I had forgotten, which was the versatility of the lens; I would much prefer to have just one lens that did almost everything I needed, without having to stop and put on or take of converters or extension tubes. I'll have to see if maybe I can rent a 120mm lens and see what I think about it. Hopefully the professional store nearby has one available.
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  10. #10
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    A reasonable alternative is the 150 Sonnar with Proxar lenses. The results are superb. The 150 is abundant, and wonderful. You lose NOTHING with the Proxars, and are far more convenient than extension tubes.

    You gain convenience: being a little further from the subject, you can get out of your own shadow.

    The 120 is a wonderful lens, but was intended for high contrast reproduction of fine detail up close. In the field, I've always felt it was a little short.

    For a couple years, the 135 makro Planar was available with a focussing extension tube, and was the COOLEST lens you could imagine for portraiture, fashion, and so on. But it was slow. Still, you might find one laying around.

    good luck
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin