XCD 120mm macro

[KC2020]

It's interesting to read what others have experienced with the XCD 120.

I'm very happy with this lens for both food/product photography, small table top setups, and portraiture. In both cases I'm working with plenty of modeling light, typically a Para 133 or a Mola Setti or Euro. So I've never had an issue with slow or finicky AF.

I think it's an exceptional lens.

[boojum]

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 

FWIW, as an old beekeeper I can tell you that different blooms have different nectar flows.  Basswood/Linden is notorious for shutting down its nectar flow around noon.  A tree will be covered with bees working the flowers.  When the flow stops those bees get cranky and will sting anything.  Beware.  Other plants vary in nectar flow.  Temperature is very important.  An early morning might have been best for shooting focus stacked lavender before it was warm enough for the flow to start.  And FWIW one breed of bees is notoriously lazy and sleeps in.  This is true.  So it may pay to befriend a local beekeeper when you are doing floral shoots.

[JCM-Photos]

i admit that lavender fields shooting in the south of France is special in this regard as the fields are huge and everywhere, hundreds of hives are installed along the fields to get lavender honey.
It can be quite dangerous entering into a field during a summer afternoon end of July.
A friend of mine got a sting near the eye while entering a field at his first shooting day, ithe day ended at the hospital and the shooting week was lost.

My own opinion is that when not doing very close shooting the XCD135 is the better solution as it opens at 2.8 and has the a superb extender even if the XCD120 is crazy sharp at all distances.
The XCD135 is specially sharp at longer distances (even with the extender).
I made a lot of pictures from plane and hot air ballon that can show sole pixel details on my X1D.
Such a file goes then easily from. 50 to 200 Mpix in Topaz software without any artefact or visible default.
The only contender in image details I have, but with less contrast, is the Zeiss CF 250 SA

The image shows a completely different image rendering with the Mamiya 645 Sekor  C 500mm reflex, the sharpest reflex lens I've ever seen probably because it's a complicated mix with reflex and conventional optics.

[JCM-Photos]

An example of an image shot from a hot air ballon with XCD135 and x1.7 extender on X1D
details on road sign and phone wires clealy visible on full res. image out of Phocus.

[boojum]

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

Can you not do the retouching in another editor, like Phocus after the stack has been melded into the final image?

[boojum]

i admit that lavender fields shooting in the south of France is special in this regard as the fields are huge and everywhere, hundreds of hives are installed along the fields to get lavender honey.
It can be quite dangerous entering into a field during a summer afternoon end of July.
A friend of mine got a sting near the eye while entering a field at his first shooting day, ithe day ended at the hospital and the shooting week was lost.

My own opinion is that when not doing very close shooting the XCD135 is the better solution as it opens at 2.8 and has the a superb extender even if the XCD120 is crazy sharp at all distances.
The XCD135 is specially sharp at longer distances (even with the extender).
I made a lot of pictures from plane and hot air ballon that can show sole pixel details on my X1D.
Such a file goes then easily from. 50 to 200 Mpix in Topaz software without any artefact or visible default.
The only contender in image details I have, but with less contrast, is the Zeiss CF 250 SA

The image shows a completely different image rendering with the Mamiya 645 Sekor  C 500mm reflex, the sharpest reflex lens I've ever seen probably because it's a complicated mix with reflex and conventional optics.

If the bees are stinging they are cranky because of poor nectar flow. When the flow is good you can handle the blossoms with bees on them safely.  I know.  I have done it.  But when the flow slows or ends those little girls get really cranky.  Gathering nectar and pollen is what the want to do.  If you are going to be doing a lot of shots where the bees are stinging buy a bee veil.  Gloves can be helpful, goatskin is favored.  Don't smoke.  The odor of tobacco on you helps them find their target even more easily.  Befriend a local beekeeper.  Happy shooting.  And if you befriend a beekeeper buy some honey.  You will both be happy as a result.  ;o)

[ALAIN]

Good morning,
I own a 120 edition 1 and I am in discussion with a seller of an HC120 edition II.
This 120 II could interest me provided that we have AF with the X2D.
(I correspond with the seller via the internet and he does not have a box to see the software version)
I would like to know if all HC120 IIs are compatible with the X2D in AF?
On the other hand, are there any rendering advantages in version I and II?
(I use it for portraiture and especially for reproducing paintings.
Thank you in advance and a beautiful year full of beautiful visions!
Alain (from France)

[JCM-Photos]

Sorry, but no HC120 version is AF compatible with X cameras, even the 120 II with last firmware

[Bob Foster]

Quote from boojum on 12/14/2003

"Can you not do the retouching in another editor, like Phocus after the stack has been melded into the final image?"

Yes. But editing the stack to remove typical stacking artifacts using the tools available within the Prosumer or Professional versions of Zerene Stacker yield superior results in markedly less time.

[Bob Foster]

Hello Alain,


I have both the XCD 120 and the HC 120-II (orange dot). I can confirm that when using the HC 120-II with the X2D autofocus is not available. However, stacking does work with the HC 120-II.

[JCM-Photos]

I use focus stack many time with my X1D and 907X.

I use Phocus in batch processing to make 16 bit TIFF's

if needed, in rare cases TIFF's are blown up in Topaz

The stacking is done as a final step in Helicon Focus.
The software parameters have to be optimized to minimize stacking artefacts, completed with finding and discarding or partial masking of some images that still make artefacts.

[ALAIN]

Hello Alain,


I have both the XCD 120 and the HC 120-II (orange dot). I can confirm that when using the HC 120-II with the X2D autofocus is not available. However, stacking does work with the HC 120-II.

Hello,
Thank you for informations !
You have both, and what can you say about the difference of quality of the images ?
Best Regards,
Alain (from France)

[Bob Foster]

Hello Alain,

Wide open (at f3.5) the XCD 120 is the clearly better lens within its' magnification range. I'll happily put up with the very narrow depth of field that makes a large stack necessary to get a nicely blurred background in some situations.

When the lenses are stopped down to f8 you'll likely need to pixel peep at 200% or print very large to see that the XCD 120 is a bit better than the HC 120.

At 1:1.5 magnification using f8 on both lenses with the XCD 120 image cropped or produced with a supplementary lens, it is my opinion that the HC 120 produces a slightly better result.

I've not attempted to prove it but I have the sense that the HC 120 handles highly reflective surfaces without some of the problems I've seen with the X2D 120.

Used on a view camera with the X2D as the sensor neither lens approaches the technical image quality that can be attained with the Rodenstock 105 f5.6 variable β, though for some subjects this lens is far too sharp. Other favorite lenses for some images with this setup are the Nikon AM ED 120 f5.6, the Nikon Apo EL 105/f5.6m and the Schneider Kreuznach 85mm f4.5 Macro Varon.