Hassy 120mm MP for portraits AND macro?
Karl Winkler
slime...
Oh esteemed MF masters...
I'm finally getting to the point where <GHASP> 35mm isn't doing it for
me with some types of work. Mainly, macro and portraiture. I know, old
news. And so I've been considering a move to a MF SLR system and
Hasselblad seems to offer what I'm looking for in terms of
availability, quality and reliability. Other opinions considered.
My main issues is that due to the cost of lenses for this system, I'm
thinking of going with three lenses: the 50mm f/4 for semi-wide (i.e.
landscapes and group portraits), the 80mm f/2.8 for full length
portraits, and the 120mm makro planar for macro work and head shots.
I've read some of the earlier debates about the 120 vs. 150 vs. 180
for tight head shots, and I recognize that perhaps the 150 is a great
all-round lens for portaits. But since the macro work is so important
to me as well, I'm hoping I can get good quality for both applications
using the 120.
Does anyone have experience with this quandry who can shed some light?
Thanks in advance,
-Karl Winkler
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler
Fred
The macro ratio for the 120 is 1:4
The 120 is used a lot for portraits. However, for tight headshots, I
have to be pretty close. I almost never use this close with portraits.
Some people get uncomfortable when I approach them with a big
Hasselblad with the 120 and bellows lens shade, they practically take
a step back.
On 13 Sep 2002 06:42:14 -0700, kwin...@sennheiserusa.com (Karl
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...]
> I've read some of the earlier debates about the 120 vs. 150 vs. 180
> for tight head shots, and I recognize that perhaps the 150 is a great
> all-round lens for portaits. But since the macro work is so important
> to me as well, I'm hoping I can get good quality for both applications
> using the 120.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this quandry who can shed some light?
The 120 mm Makro-Planar is a very good 'all-round portrait lens', and widely
used as such. And excellent as macro lens too,of course (though you will
need extension tubes and bellows). No problem.
Really tight head shots will benefit from using a longer lens, like the 180
mm or (my favourite) 250 mm. I think that even the 150 mm is too short for
that.
Christopher Gonzaga
most landscape, interior architecture and group shots. The 120 is very nice
for still life and portrait. I just recently purchased the 120mm S-planar T*
and it is very handy for table top. It is also very good for portrait if you
and your subjects don't mind the short working distance. It is about the
same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera so faces are a little
rounder than with a 150 or 180. It is extremely sharp at close range and
it's ok for landscapes (not optimised for infinity). I use it with a 21mm
extension tube with excellent results. Even with tubes the corner to corner
sharpness of this lens will outperform many lenses you may try to use for
close-up work I've tried close-up with the 80mm and it's not good enough for
me. The 100mm is very sharp but it's too close to my 80mm and not long
enough for portraits so I didn't get it. I would recommend the 120 lens if
you shoot table top still life and close-up but would like to do portraits
as well. For true macro you would need the 135mm with bellows.
good luck,
chris
"Karl Winkler" <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in message
news:779042cf.02091...@posting.google.com...
Evanjoe610
Are you referring to the older 120mm S-Planar that has the 5.6 aperature? Or
are you referring to the newer F4.0 aperature version?
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...] For true macro you would need the 135mm with bellows.
Not so.
Both 120 and 135 Makro-Planars are equally well suited for true macro. The
difference (apart from the a bit longer focal length) is that the 135 must
be used on the bellows, or variable extension tube, and it's a full stop
slower, making the 120 mm lens the more versatile and easier to use lens of
the two. That is why the 135 mm lens was discontinued.
J. Burke
like the older 120 better as a tight headshot lens. Yes, its an "in your
face lens" but using T-Max 100 I get some super sharp portraits. I think
you will be happy with either lens but considering I gave $2700 for the 150
CFi and $400 (including shipping) for the 120 Makro in flawless condition on
Ebay Germany, well, that 120 really rates up there on my list. I find I
prefer it as an all around portrait lens. Had I not purchased the 150 first
I may have been quite satisfied with the 120 as my longer lens. I have a 50
C T*, 80, 120 and 150. I also have both a 501CM and 503CX.
Would like to try a 250mm sometime though.
J. Burke
"Karl Winkler" <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in message
news:779042cf.02091...@posting.google.com...
nathantw
photography. The 180mm and the 350mm are the only lenses I want, but cost is
pretty prohibitive. It's really weird because when I was shooting 35mm I
used a 24mm almost exclusively and I was looking for an 18mm and 16mm. I
wanted to go wider. In medium format I found that wider didn't mean better
and so I liked the telephotos better. There was just too much distortion in
the corners of the wider Hasselblad lenses. In fact people looked fat, flat,
and wide with the wider lenses, starting with the 50mm.
"Karl Winkler" <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in message
news:779042cf.02091...@posting.google.com...