Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
HC 120mm vs HC 120mm ii
- Thread starter montana13
- Start date
fitnessfoto
Member
Hi,
i have tested both lenses.
The new version has no more CA's.
That's all I have not been able to differ.
Regards
Dieter
i have tested both lenses.
The new version has no more CA's.
That's all I have not been able to differ.
Regards
Dieter
Here is a link you might find useful. At the bottom of the page there are shots directly comparing both glasses at different apertures:
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php?topic=1448.45
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php?topic=1448.45
Psmith2383
New Member
Thank from Phil
I appreciate those who took the time to help me sort out a few of the difference between the older and newer version of HC 120mm. Roger's inclusion of the link where I got to see the clarity of the eyelash of the guy in the portrait certainly upholds the integrity of the original unit. I'm sometimes dubious when a product is sold as an improved model and yet what's improved? Leica, a respectable company, often improves a lens and everyone rushes to buy the new version and the original has always been thought of as outstanding. I have not yet found a serious comparison between any of the Hasselblad lens upgrades produced over the last couple of years( and I have looked but admit I could have missed impt. reviews). I do not live where I would find a dealer where I could test the two lenses in the store. Chicago (Calumet) is 600 miles away. So I rely on the knowledge of experienced users of the lenses and the forum keeps me educated on the product I own. Thanks all, Phil
I appreciate those who took the time to help me sort out a few of the difference between the older and newer version of HC 120mm. Roger's inclusion of the link where I got to see the clarity of the eyelash of the guy in the portrait certainly upholds the integrity of the original unit. I'm sometimes dubious when a product is sold as an improved model and yet what's improved? Leica, a respectable company, often improves a lens and everyone rushes to buy the new version and the original has always been thought of as outstanding. I have not yet found a serious comparison between any of the Hasselblad lens upgrades produced over the last couple of years( and I have looked but admit I could have missed impt. reviews). I do not live where I would find a dealer where I could test the two lenses in the store. Chicago (Calumet) is 600 miles away. So I rely on the knowledge of experienced users of the lenses and the forum keeps me educated on the product I own. Thanks all, Phil
The linked Hasselblad forum comparison article is relatively old. I do not know which level of resolution camera was used for some of the shots. The H4D/60 and the 50 Multi-shots would be the better test of actual differences.
The 120 macro v-1 suffers from a fairly fast degrading diffraction and is substantially sharper at f/4 and through f/8, afterwards diffraction sets in quickly and proceeds to almost unusable past f/28 or so. This depends on size of use of course, as almost anything looks sharp at 8X10.
The elimination of CA with the 120 v2 when shot wide-open in certain lighting conditions would be a valuable asset I think, however even more valuable would be less diffraction effect at a smaller aperture ... especially for a Macro since we stop down to gain DOF with a Macro.
If you look at the cat photo it is really sharp at the point of focus, mainly due to the fact it was shot at f/4
Unfortunately the HC 120 macro is not recommended for use on the HTS/1.5 which would allow sharper, more open apertures (f/5.6 or 8) while gaining DOF with tilts. I've found the HC100/2.2 with a tube mounted to the HTS/1.5 to be more effective for close table top work than the 120 v1. In effect, the 100 on the HTS/1.5 with 26mm tube is a 150mm with approx a f/4 minimum aperture. The downside is that the HTS/1.5 is somewhat difficult to use unless tethered to a computer and the focus checked on a larger screen.
The best Macro work I've been able to get so far is the 60 back on a full movement Rollei Exact-2 with a digital 90 or 120 view lens ... which cost me about the same as the new 120-II. But again, this requires being tethered to a computer for critical focus check IMO.
-Marc
The 120 macro v-1 suffers from a fairly fast degrading diffraction and is substantially sharper at f/4 and through f/8, afterwards diffraction sets in quickly and proceeds to almost unusable past f/28 or so. This depends on size of use of course, as almost anything looks sharp at 8X10.
The elimination of CA with the 120 v2 when shot wide-open in certain lighting conditions would be a valuable asset I think, however even more valuable would be less diffraction effect at a smaller aperture ... especially for a Macro since we stop down to gain DOF with a Macro.
If you look at the cat photo it is really sharp at the point of focus, mainly due to the fact it was shot at f/4
Unfortunately the HC 120 macro is not recommended for use on the HTS/1.5 which would allow sharper, more open apertures (f/5.6 or 8) while gaining DOF with tilts. I've found the HC100/2.2 with a tube mounted to the HTS/1.5 to be more effective for close table top work than the 120 v1. In effect, the 100 on the HTS/1.5 with 26mm tube is a 150mm with approx a f/4 minimum aperture. The downside is that the HTS/1.5 is somewhat difficult to use unless tethered to a computer and the focus checked on a larger screen.
The best Macro work I've been able to get so far is the 60 back on a full movement Rollei Exact-2 with a digital 90 or 120 view lens ... which cost me about the same as the new 120-II. But again, this requires being tethered to a computer for critical focus check IMO.
-Marc