XCD 120mm macro

[pdprinter]

I am trying to get back into macro photography and I just got a Raynox DCR150 achromatic closeup lens to test with a 45P on my 907x, which gave me decent images compared to using a single element close up lens (Marumi). But I would definitely like a longer focal length for macro images.
Obviously Hasselblad makes the XCD 120mm and I have no doubts about its optical performance but I have ergonomic concerns with that lens on a 907X. Adding the grip to the camera makes little sense to me as it would be as bulky as the X cameras.
For macro photography I need to use focus bracketing/stacking and my main concern is that this lens is too slow to use outdoors. I would appreciate any feedback about focusing speed and speed of focus bracketing with that lens.

[JCM-Photos]

I tried the XCD 120 in portrait studio and it was an AF nightmare compared to the XCD90 so I went to the XCD 135 who works well to in dimm studio environment.

Having AF difficulties doesn't mean that focus bracketing doesn't work well because this function has nothing to do with AF as it just moves the focus by little programmed steps at each frame.

i never used focus bracketing with the XCD 120, I use it a lot with the XCD21 HCD28 XCD45 XCD135 and it works well with all lenses and so I guess it should do with the XCD120

[pdprinter]

The reason why autofocus with the XCD 120 is so slow/erratic may be the focusing motor does not work as efficient in this lens design as in other XCD lenses, thus could also impact the speed of focus steps during focus bracketing.

[JCM-Photos]

The XCD 120 has 2 focusing ranges you choose in the menu to make the AF search faster, better; but it didn't help me as a tried it. My problem was that it didn't like the dimmed studio lighting. I also tried it in daylight in macro and at long distance where it was really fine

The XCD 135 and 135 + extender also have the 2 AF ranges and I find it very efficient, they also work fine in studio.

But the really AF problematic lens is the XCD80 at very short distance. Af simply never finds the focus when you let it work alone. Even when MF focusing fast I cannot see the sharp image appear because the depth of field is extremely shallow. I guess it's also a matter of the EVF refreshing speed of my X1D  that's slower than the sharp image appearence in MF.
The way to work with it is to prefocus slowly manually, after what back button AF nails the focus in fractions of a second at 100%.

[Bob Foster]

Take the following with a grain of salt. My first digital Hasselblad is an X2D that was delivered to me last November. One of the lenses I acquired is the XQD 120. Focus stacking/bracketing is not yet available on this camera.

Optically the lens very good. I have obtained excellent results at f8 outdoors in what I'd characterize as cloudy light that produced just a hint of shadows using manual focus to create a stack. The "fly by wire" manual focus throw is (in my opinion) way too short, about 180°. To focus manually the lens does give a series of "clicks" as the collar is rotated; I used each successive "click" as a point to take the individual images used for the stack.

In the studio my normal method (regardless of the tethered camera used) is to find the nearest point of focus in the stack with the overhead and modelling lights on, turn the lights off, take a shot to evaluate any necessary adjustment to exposure with the output setting of the strobes, then proceed to make the stack.

For what little it's worth I'll note that I still prefer manual focus for some subjects. I've never seen a fly by wire focus bracketing/stacking system properly set up for the conditions prevailing produce a stack that contained out of focus areas (blur banding etc). However, if the subject matter contains a surface that is both reflective/glossy and roughly spherical- say the back of a beetle or a golf ball- sometimes a specular reflection will appear to be stair stepped when it should be a smooth curve. The solution, if it is available, is to use smaller increments with a fly by wire system or to use manual focus.

Bob

[JCM-Photos]

All XCD lenses are designed to reach 1 pixel resolution in focus stacking on the 50 Mpix sensor, this is for AF or MF by wire

I guess, according to Hasselblad manual page attached, that the finest stacking step of 1 pixel depth of field on the X1D could also be the XCD lenses AF/MF step motor resolution.
This could explain why the X2D that needs 40% finer steps to reach 1 pixel DOF has not yet focus stacking.

But have the new V lenses finer AF stepping ?

[Usm]

All XCD lenses are designed to reach 1 pixel resolution in focus stacking on the 50 Mpix sensor, this is for AF or MF by wire

I guess, according to Hasselblad manual page attached, that the finest stacking step of 1 pixel depth of field on the X1D could also be the XCD lenses AF/MF step motor resolution.
This could explain why the X2D that needs 40% finer steps to reach 1 pixel DOF has not yet focus stacking.

But have the new V lenses finer AF stepping ?

Maybe I am totally wrong, but does this mean that Hasselblad has to change every lens to reach 1 pixel depth of field for the X2D?
So we will see a complete lens exchange in the next couple of years?

[Bob Foster]

I verified the math prior to purchasing the 120/4 macro lens insofar as the 50mp sensor is concerned in the worst case- near maximum magnification with a wide open aperture. This lens is just a bit better in the corners stopped down to f5.6 or f8 where you'll have more depth of field to work with. However, I do often shoot macro wide open to seperate/soften the background form the subject when I do not let the background become darkened or black due to light fall off.

From what I can see the 120 is entirely adequate for use with the 100mp sensor; it appears to me that Hasselblad intentionally over specified this lens insofar as use with the 50mp sensor is concerned. Provided that you want a macro lens for mounting directly on camera and are comfortable with the 1:2 maximum magnification I suspect that you'll find that this lens is quite useful. Hasselblad will have to re-write the focus bracketing/stacking firmware to work with the 100mp sensor as the pixel pitch has changed from 5.3μ to 3.76μ. I do hope that they also include an extra extra small step size to help with the occasional issue of rough/strange looking reflections.

If you need more magnification the Rodenstock 105/5.6 β float used on a view camera with your CFV II 50c (or other sensor) mounted on the rear standard may be a better option for studio use provided that the movement of the rear standard can be controlled in fine increments. Cognisys offers a simple means to automate this sort of setup for Cambo Actus series cameras. A further advantage to this sort of setup is that the position of the lens is fixed: the size of the image does change, but the perspective does not. The result of this is that you'll spend far less time cleaning up artifacts that even the best stacking programs (Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker) leave.

I'll mention one other lens candidate: you might look at the Nikon Apo-EL Nikkor 105mm f5.6 (this is not the common enlarging lens from this manufacturer). Where the Rodenstock float yields an image with contrast and pop both versions of this diffraction limited old timer render the play of light across the surfaces of a subject with a subtlety that I've not seen matched.

Bob

[JCM-Photos]

Hasselblad automatic focus stacking is primary made for landscape, and it works really very fine.

For macro shoots the only perfect solution is an automatic motorized rail.

A made a lot a focus stacked landscape pictures with the X1D and 907X and 21, 45, 80, 135 XCD lenses, the system works perfectly well. 1 pixel DOF is in this case complete overkill, I'self work with 1.5 or 2 pixels even for big totally sharp prints.

For landscapes you have absolutely to start at infinity and AF focusing the infinity before starting to shoot.

When starting at the near end you mostly end at infinity with two following frames one slightly front focused and the other slightly back focused and never having infinity perfectly sharp.

[Bob Foster]

I do agree with what JCM Photos has to say about landscapes created with focus bracketing/stacking. 2 pixel pitch is more than adequate for many landscapes, 1.5 pixel pitch will sometimes be preferable if something relatively near to the camera is to be rendered in critical focus.

The original poster inquired about the 120mm f3.5. His reason for wanting the longer focal length is likely based on the need to obtain more working distance (from the end of the lens to the subject). Insofar as the speed of the stacking process is concerned Hasselblad did create a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvVhHXGSm3w a couple years ago that shows a stack being created with the 135mm lens on a X1D II.  Given that the focus increments for each lens are controlled by firmware I see no reason why the speed at which the stack is executed should differ to marked extent. If shooting outside I look for the following conditions- minimal wind (an umbrella, diffuser, reflector or a small transparent "light tent" can be helpful), reasonably constant light (a day where the sun is periodically blocked by rapidly passing clouds will cause severe problems with both exposure and color), and temperature (if, as an example, you want to make an image of an insect on a plant said insect is much less likely to move in a significant way when it is cool than when it is warm).

The reason that I suggest focusing with a lens (either manually by turning the focusing collar or using automated focus bracketing/stacking) or by moving the image sensor (or indeed moving the subject in true macro photography by using a micrometer stage or linear stage) is that as you enter the domain of close up photography any movement of the whole lens relative to the subject  produces an effect that gives all current stacking software a problem: from one end of the stack to the other the center of the image changes in scale (almost) only, as the edges of the image are approached change occurs to both scale, and to the shape. The closer the lens is to the subject the more pronounced this effect becomes. Different types of  macro processing algorithms handle aspects of this issue better than others (pyramid schemes versus depth mapping).

The various programs do not always produce nearly identical results even when the corresponding algorithms are selected. Helicon Focus creates your stack far more quickly than Zerene Stacker and is arguably easier to learn to use well. On the other hand Zerene Stacker offers wider control of the stacking process and what (in the Prosumer and Professional versions) are, in my opinion, markedly better retouching tools.

Bob

[pdprinter]

I am not too concerned about focus stacking for landscape or architectural as it involves only a few frames. Using my large format camera mostly tilt can achieve focus from infinity to near but sometimes stacking would be the easier solution not reasonably possible for large format (I am not considering tilt presently for my 907X).
For a studio situation I think a bellow option would be quite optimal if focusing is on the rear standard to keep the distance between lens front and subject and thus perspective constant like it's is possible with Novoflex and Cambo bellows.
My main concern is closeup outdoors (1:6 to 1:2) where speed of focus bracketing is important even when using a tripod as motion is always an issue.  One of fastest system I think is Olympus but I had very often issues with dynamic range causing blown out colors (like flower petals with out structure). That is not an issue with medium format with a least 3 stops more DR.
I used both Helicon and Zerene. I have a Zerene license but I am considering Helicon if direct raw import of HB files works well.

[Bob Foster]

I often use a diffuser to both help in considerably blocking the effect of wind and/or to cope with the very bright light that can cause dynamic range issues. The products from the Chimera range yield far better color neutrality than many cheap diffusers.

For raw conversion I prefer to use Phocus for use with my Hasselblad and C1 for use with my Nikons. I'd never say that Adobe's raw converters are in any way bad, but I will say that the results of the raw conversion done by the Phocus and C1 converters is, to my eyes, almost invariably a better match to what I have seen. YMMV. That said, if I understand correctly, the current situation with Helicon Focus is that to load raw files directly it has to be used as a plug-in for one of several Adobe programs. You can, of course load tif files created by any software of your choice.

That said, I've stuck with Zerene Stacker because in side by side comparisons I've seen that usually (but not invariably) I have less retouching to do once I've exited the stacking program.

And yes, use of the movements on a view camera can produce images that can made in no other way. I have, on occasion, decided not to stack and use my Cambo Ultima/Actus XL on a very heavy Sachtler tripod despite having to cope with a challenging environment..

Bob

[JCM-Photos]

Oh yes Bob insects are a huge problem in stacked landscape photos.

Insects appear like sensor dust in the image and now imagine stacking perfectly clear and sharp insects on the same image over a say 100m depth. In a one shot image all these insects are never sharp enough to be  visible but in focus stacked images they are.
This problem occurs mainly in telephoto shots as a great subject depth is compressed.

I have several photos of lavender fields in the hot afternoon were thousands of bees fly over them in the sky, this appears in the image like thousands of dust specs on the sensor.

The first time I had this problem I thought it was dust and cleaned the camera sensor 

[pdprinter]

One of my first attempts in focus stacking was a mushroom and I found a fly on most of the shots but on a different position each time, a little more obvious than sensor dust.
I tried a diffuser as wind blocker before but I should investigate that more

[Bob Foster]

I've got to admit that an image would have to be exceptional for me to decide to spend the time to attempt to spot out thousands of insects. Even if the image looks very good on my monitor more often than not a close examination of a print will show telltale signs of retouching somewhere.

In dealing with a short stack (say no more than 15 frames) where a single insect present in no more than 3 frames, is in focus in one frame and if the insect has moved to an entirely new position in each frame I've had very limited success (say ~ 10-15%) with retouching from appropriate frames. Far more often than not even a concerted attempt will result in a pretty obvious distortion related to the difference in scale of the adjoining frames.  I've never had much luck trying to use the distortion tools available in Photoshop or Affinity to fix this sort of distortion. If possible, it's simply easier to retake the sequence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've admitted to use of a view camera to get greater depth of field at times. I'll also readily admit to having used the range of normal to very wide angle lenses for close ups in place of a macro lens in some situations- even knowingly sacrificing a bit of image quality- to make a photo that I just couldn't resist.  The results of such practice on my part have been mixed. 

Edit: typo