Hasselblad 135 Bellows vs the 120 macro
Mark Rabiner
I'd like to do a lot of work in the near 1:1 region and I don't think the 120 is
quite optimized for that.
And with the 135 and the bellows I can dupe slides and so on.
They don't make that Variable extension thing anymore but I'm sure they can be had.
The reason they cost the same even though the 135 is a stop slower and doesn't
have a Helical is not because the 135's glass is more awesome. I'm sure it's
because they just don't make as many. And most photographers consider the 120 to
be basic.
But I have a sneaky suspicion the smart move might be with the 135 and get the
bellows and some extensions and maybe the variable extension which will let you
focus down to a meter.
Anyone agree? I think the modern acumats make a 5.6 lens not a problem. Anyone
know differently?
Mark Rabiner
Joe McCary
a 135mm & bellows. It is my most used lens. I read a later post suggesting
that it (the 135mm) is being discontinued. I am shocked. This is, IMHO,
THE best Ziess lens in the Hasselblad lineup with the possible exception of
the 38mm Biogon (don't tell me they are discontinuing that too). After I
had the 135 for some time I found a used variable extension tube that makes
the 135mm into almost the same lens as the 120mm. It has about the same
focus range when used with that tube. I do lots of copy work with the 135mm
lens in a very competitive place. I out shoot my competitors about 2:1 in
volume in the same time period when they are using 4x5. I have also done
lots of portraits with this lens but it needs some softening because it is
too sharp (the 120 would be too I suspect). When comparing the 2 lenses
(120 vs. the 135) head to head in practical use it may be true that their
sharpness is equal but the convince of not bothering with different
extension tubes more than makes up. It is a fast and easy lens to use for
any close-up work. I use mine on a ELX and this added bonus of film advance
helps too in that the camera is not moved in the least way when working
close.
Joe McCary
Mark Rabiner <ma...@rabiner.cncoffice.com> wrote in message
news:390B5D9C...@rabiner.cncoffice.com...
Mark Rabiner
>
> I have had both lenses. I had the 120 for several years and sold it and got
> a 135mm & bellows. It is my most used lens. I read a later post suggesting
> that it (the 135mm) is being discontinued. I am shocked. This is, IMHO,
> THE best Ziess lens in the Hasselblad lineup with the possible exception of
> the 38mm Biogon (don't tell me they are discontinuing that too). After I
> had the 135 for some time I found a used variable extension tube that makes
> the 135mm into almost the same lens as the 120mm. It has about the same
> focus range when used with that tube. I do lots of copy work with the 135mm
> lens in a very competitive place. I out shoot my competitors about 2:1 in
> volume in the same time period when they are using 4x5. I have also done
> lots of portraits with this lens but it needs some softening because it is
> too sharp (the 120 would be too I suspect). When comparing the 2 lenses
> (120 vs. the 135) head to head in practical use it may be true that their
> sharpness is equal but the convince of not bothering with different
> extension tubes more than makes up. It is a fast and easy lens to use for
> any close-up work. I use mine on a ELX and this added bonus of film advance
> helps too in that the camera is not moved in the least way when working
> close.
>
> Joe McCary
>
that other opinion.
I will take both under careful considering it is still a hard one but I am taken
aback about the lens being discontinued I didn't know that was the case.
Explains the reaction I got from the Hasselblad Rep. Friday here in Portland.
Mark Rabiner
By the way when I said the 120 was "basic" i meant it is most often seen as part
of any photographers lens collection. A useful tool widely regarded as something
you would not want to not have. And I'm sure for good reason. I just think as
Joe says the 135 may actually be the smart move.
Mark Rabiner
Q.G. de Bakker
"Mark Rabiner" wrote:
> Any suggestions?
> I'd like to do a lot of work in the near 1:1 region and I don't think the
120 is
> quite optimized for that.
> And with the 135 and the bellows I can dupe slides and so on.
> They don't make that Variable extension thing anymore but I'm sure they
can be had.
> The reason they cost the same even though the 135 is a stop slower and
doesn't
> have a Helical is not because the 135's glass is more awesome. I'm sure
it's
> because they just don't make as many. And most photographers consider the
120 to
> be basic.
> But I have a sneaky suspicion the smart move might be with the 135 and get
the
> bellows and some extensions and maybe the variable extension which will
let you
> focus down to a meter.
> Anyone agree? I think the modern acumats make a 5.6 lens not a problem.
Anyone
> know differently?
The 120 mm and 135 mm Makro-Planars are equally well suited, both are
optimized for best perfomance in the same range. In fact, there is no
difference in performance worth mentioning at all.
The only differences that must be adressed are, as you yourself already
have, that the 135 mm cannot be used without the bellows (or the, no longer
available, variable extension tube), and the fact that it is one f-stop
slower. This is why it never has known the same popularity as the 120 mm,
and the 135 mm is being discontinued.
The variable extension tube was an attempt to boost the popularity of the
135 mm, but failed to do so. This means that it might be dificult (though
not impossible) to find one (a variable extension tube, that is).
Here in Europe, the 120 mm and 135 mm do not cost the same: the 135 being a
good 15 % percent less expensive.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by considering the 120 to be "basic". If by
this you mean that it is less well designed, and delivers lesser results,
you're wrong. If you mean most photographers prefer this lens over the 135
mm because it is more practical, you're right.
You can dupe slides with the 120 mm and bellows just as easy, and just as
good as with a 135 mm. No difference here either. (In fact you need less
extension using a 120 mm, but this hardly merits mentioning).
The acute-matte screens are indeed a whole lot better than the first
generation Hasselblad screens. But doing macro-work with serious extension
is still no pleasure. One f-stop more or less, in my opinion, does make a
difference. (I like to use a clear screen whenever i get beyond the 2:1
range. Even when using even faster f/2.5 and f/3.5 Zeiss Luminar lenses...)
So. If you can find a variable extension ring and can live with the one stop
slower lens, you *could* buy a 135 mm (though i can not see any reason why
you should). If you can not find a variable tube, stay away from the 135 mm,
and go for the 120!
Q.G. de Bakker
"Joe McCary" wrote:
> [...] This is, IMHO,
> THE best Ziess lens in the Hasselblad lineup with the possible exception
of
> the 38mm Biogon (don't tell me they are discontinuing that too).
I can't imagine Hasselblad even considering dropping the Biogon... (They
might, but i can't imagine them doing so... ;-) ).
It seems that everybody has his or her own candidate for the title "Best
Zeiss lens for Hasselblad". This might tell us that out of this line-up each
lens is as good as the other. And i believe they can all be labeled "quite
good enough". So, Mark, either way, there is no need to worry about
performance.
> [...] but the convince [convenience?] of not bothering with different
> extension tubes more than makes up. It is a fast and easy lens to use for
> any close-up work. I use mine on a ELX and this added bonus of film
advance
> helps too in that the camera is not moved in the least way when working
> close.
What you call convenient, i call cumbersome. I bet you never ever take your
135 mm + bellows + ELX combo out for a walk!
Joe McCary
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:8eg25v$7q$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
> What you call convenient, i call cumbersome. I bet you never ever take
your
> 135 mm + bellows + ELX combo out for a walk!
Why sure! But I have a small cart that my case fits perfectly on... This
rig is not designed as the perfect candid camera. for that I might use my
35s.
Joe McCary
Hywel
normal telephotos.
I am about to purchase a long focus Hasselblad lens and was considering one or other
macro, versus a 150mm.
It seems from the various books and earlier comments that the 135 + bellows is
easier to use for macro, or moderately close use. The 135+bellow giving 1:1 up to
infinity without swapping anything..
On the other hand the 120 would be easier as a "normal" lens but would be less
convenient if used with a bellows by having a gap between close up and far away -
hence needing tubes in addition.
I would also assume that both are top quality, at least for close up purposes.
I can't guarantee getting hold of the variable tube designed for the 135, but would
of certainly look out for one if I went for the 135.
I have a 503 + 80 which does not focus particularly close without accessories.
Apparently the focal plane models and their lenses are better in this respect.
I am immensely pleased with the results so far, which does seem to justify the
excessive price of this make.
Question 1
Does anyone have any thoughts on using these lenses for landscapes say ?
Obviously the 150 (or 120) would be more convenient, but would the quality be
comparable, perhaps with stopping down ?
Question 2
Although the 135 + bellows would be less convenient as a normal telephoto, is it a
complete pain or just about useable ?
Also any thoughts on the convenience of the latest auto bellows versus the dual
cable release model for non-macro use with the 135.
Many thanks
Hywel
Jan Schledermann
even used my bellows for portrait works with a 250mm lens for totally
negative filling facial shots.
I own 50mm, 80mm, 150mm and 250 mm lenses. Probably 60% of all shots I make
with the 150mm lens. 20% with the 50mm lens. Another 10% with the 250mm lens
and the remaining 5% with the 80mm lens. Out of these 5% I estimate that 90%
would be with the 80mm lens on the bellows for extreme close up.
Because of cost considerations I would be reluctant to buy an additional 135
or 120 for bellows work when the 80,150 and 250mm are getting me all the
way.
Based on experience I would like to swap the 50mm for a 40mm lens, if only
the 40mm wasn't that expensive!!!
For real close-ups the combination of 80 and 150mm with bellows will cover
basically al needs.
I am going to exchange my old bellows for an automatic one, one of these
days though as the adjustment of the two cable releases is a pain in the
butt.
best regards
Jan
"Hywel" <hy...@hywel-ros.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:391ECE7C...@hywel-ros.freeserve.co.uk...
Q.G. de Bakker
> I am using bellows quite a lot for various still lifes/macro shots. I have
> even used my bellows for portrait works with a 250mm lens for totally
> negative filling facial shots.
> I own 50mm, 80mm, 150mm and 250 mm lenses. Probably 60% of all shots I
make
> with the 150mm lens. 20% with the 50mm lens. Another 10% with the 250mm
lens
> and the remaining 5% with the 80mm lens. Out of these 5% I estimate that
90%
> would be with the 80mm lens on the bellows for extreme close up.
> Because of cost considerations I would be reluctant to buy an additional
135
> or 120 for bellows work when the 80,150 and 250mm are getting me all the
> way.
> Based on experience I would like to swap the 50mm for a 40mm lens, if only
> the 40mm wasn't that expensive!!!
> For real close-ups the combination of 80 and 150mm with bellows will cover
> basically al needs.
> I am going to exchange my old bellows for an automatic one, one of these
> days though as the adjustment of the two cable releases is a pain in the
> butt.
Jan,
Hang on to your non-automatic bellows, even if you buy the automatic. Using
two cables is a "pain in the butt", but the protruding rail of the automatic
bellows is too!
Try getting real close to your subject (which is what we need the bellows
for) and you'll wonder where it has gone. See how you like it when you
discover that your bellows has pushed it away...
I'm using the non-automatic bellows whenever my setup is tripod mounted (and
that's always, isn't it?). You can use only one cablerelease, attached to
the bellows, if you release the whole setup in large format style.
1) Press the cablerelease until the lens shutter closes (No further!)
2) Prerelease the camerabody using the prereleasebutton (of course) on the
side of the camera. This will flip up the mirror (always a good thing in
macro work) and open the auxilliary shutter.
3) Wait for shake.
4) Press the cablerelease all the way, making the exposure.
5) Release the camera using the normal releasebutton. This will close the
auxilliary shutter.
6) Transport.
7) Recock the lensshutter.
It may seem awkward, but is less so then trying to synchronize the double
cablerelease. (Mine is gathering dust somewhere. The same place where i left
my automatic bellows.)
As for the 135/120 Makro-Planar choice: pick the 120. It can do everything
as well as the 135, but can be used as a normal lens at long range
photography. There definitely is no advantage in having to haul a bellows
around, and fiddle with it, when you don't need it (try focussing *and*
holding the camera + bellows! You'll need weight-lifting practice and three
hands!).
A bellows-mounted lens is a plus only when you need your lens to be mounted
on a bellows... A 120 can do that too!
Using your 80 mm, 150 mm, or even 250 mm (nice lens, isn't it?) on bellows
for close-up photography will give you some quality photos indeed. They will
be better still when using either Makro-Planar. ;-)
Groet.