As you all know, there are two versions of the HC 120 Macro lenses for the H system. The revised version only external difference is that it bears the number "II", the two lenses are otherwise identical in shape and weight. The second version is supposed to have improved optics, but since the first version was already pretty good one may wonder what the second version improves. The two lenses have been compared by bzb at infinite distance here: http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php/topic,1448.msg10804.html#msg10804 (http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php/topic,1448.msg10804.html#msg10804). What we missed was a comparison at close distances, more common for a "macro" lens.
I had access to both lenses today, so I tried them on small objects. The scenario is more typical of product photography, for example watches or jewellery. I tried to use a common object for easy reference. The camera is at the same position for the two lenses, but the entrance pupil position is different between the two design, so there is a little difference in magnification, sorry for that. The camera used is a H4D-50.
First, the full picture, resized to 25% to fit forum size constraints. The first version at f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and f/16:
Again, the full picture, resized to 25% to fit forum size constraints. The second version at f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and f/16 (HC-120M-II):
Now, a crop of the previous pictures at native resolution. First, the first version of the lens at f/4, f/5.6:
The first version of the lens at f/8, f/11:
The second (HC120M-II) version of the lens at f/4, f/5.6:
The second (HC120M-II) version of the lens at f/8, f/11:
Here a small crop of the most obvious difference between the lenses at f/4 and the same crop at f/16. The main difference between the two lenses, as I see it, is that the second version has much better correction of longitudinal chromatic aberration. The difference is quite visible at f/4 and gradually disappears when the diaphragm is closed. At f/16, the two lenses appear almost identical.
Is the upgrade a must have? You'll have to decide for yourself, depending on your workflow:
-for someone reproducing documents (that is: flat objects like small paintings), the difference will not be visible, since the improvement concerns what is outside the plane of focus and also because one usually uses f/8-f/16 anyway.
-for someone using that lens for portrait, the bokeh did not appear much different to me, so I would also say that the improvement is not essential, but one may prefer less purple fringing from the new lens
-for someone reproducing small objects (e.g.: watches) and using f/16 or slower to increase depth of field, the improvement is not essential
-for someone reproducing small objects (e.g.: watches) and using focus stacking at f/4-f/8 to increase depth of field, the improvement will be much welcomed
-for someone reproducing small objects (e.g.: watches) and using f/4-f/8 for a limited depth of field, the improvement will be quite visible.
I should also remind everyone that Hasselblad has another solution for small objects like watches: the combination of the HC-50-II, Macro adapter and HTS. Tilting the plane of focus with the HTS is easier and faster than focus stacking, of course. I intend to test that combination when I get access to the macro adapter, but this could take a few months.
Thanks for all the hard work Jerome, very informative.
very useful Jerome.
as I'm considering buying a 120mm, I just found a great offer on a used version I.
so having evaluated your photos I'm a little bit worried about those CAs and fringing.
how was Phocus set when you took this photos? I mean, the lens corrections were turned ON or OFF? do you think Phocus will take care enough of the CAs and fringing?
any other experinces around here?
the difference in terms of price, even in the secondhand market, is quite big. I would mainly use this lens for food and still life (but not watches), so I can't decide.
any advice from you guys?
thank you
Quote from: raffa on February 27, 2016, 10:08:48 PM
how was Phocus set when you took this photos? I mean, the lens corrections were turned ON or OFF? do you think Phocus will take care enough of the CAs and fringing?
The lens corrections were turned ON. Phocus does not correct longitudinal CA (what you see here), only lateral CA.
Quotethe difference in terms of price, even in the secondhand market, is quite big. I would mainly use this lens for food and still life (but not watches), so I can't decide.
If you can close the aperture at f/8-f/16, the two lenses are basically equivalent, so if you shoot food the version I is probably just as good.
Also: if you shoot plates or pizza at an angle, the best solution is not the HC 120 but the HTS adapter, HC 50 II and macro adapter. Using the HTS will allow you to tilt the plane of focus so that the complete plate will be sharp front to end, even when taken at an angle.
thanks for replying!
I was aware of Phocus' corrections but I hoped that maybe some lens was even better corrected for its flaws than others.
I already have the HTS. for food photos I use it usually with the 80mm and/or also with the 13mm extension tube to get closer.
I'd like the idea of jumping to the 120mm for other reasons: to have a macro lens (when needed), to get closer to food or details, and since you can't use the 120mm on the HTS (is it true?) I would use it for shallow DOF, even if it's only f/4.
in your opinion/experience, those bad longitudinal CAs will only be visible on high contrast edges, or just always and everywhere?
do you have more samples to show me?
The 120 is not compatible with the HTS.
Quote from: raffa on February 28, 2016, 05:02:23 AMsince you can't use the 120mm on the HTS (is it true?)
The barrel of the 120mm is too wide for it to fit the HTS.
Quotein your opinion/experience, those bad longitudinal CAs will only be visible on high contrast edges, or just always and everywhere?
They are not very visible, actually. The 80mm is slightly worse. And as I said: they disappear at f/8-f/16, which is what one often uses for macro work.
Quotedo you have more samples to show me?
Not at hand, sorry.
what do you guys think about a 120mm I with 14500 shots at around 1500€/$?
I think it's a good price. what about shutter count?
any other opinions?
Quote from: raffa on March 01, 2016, 02:45:13 AMwhat about shutter count?
The shutter is designed for 50 000 clics.
so would you say it's a good deal?
Quote from: raffa on March 01, 2016, 12:15:47 PM
so would you say it's a good deal?
Well, the price is right, yes.
I also have the 150mm, I was wondering if it's a good idea selling it since I'll have the 120mm macro.
I don't use it so much after all, and I fear I can't justify it anymore since the difference from 120 to 150mm is not so much.
opinions? what do you guys think?
Jerome_M
Have you noticed that after F/18 the image starts to get a bit softer on the 120 when using in macro? I had that experience on a rented lens, but between 11-16 everything was very sharp.
Brian R.
Quote from: raffa on March 04, 2016, 05:38:58 AM
I also have the 150mm, I was wondering if it's a good idea selling it since I'll have the 120mm macro.
I don't use it so much after all, and I fear I can't justify it anymore since the difference from 120 to 150mm is not so much.
opinions? what do you guys think?
I have both of them. But since I have the 150 I only use this one for portraits anymore. the 150 is way sharper and lighter as well.and incredible bokeh at f/3.2.
Quote from: Stonemonkey on April 29, 2016, 07:42:06 AMHave you noticed that after F/18 the image starts to get a bit softer on the 120 when using in macro?
Yes, of course. This is the effect of diffraction. All lenses do that.
The fall off in sharpness when stopping down can be quite sudden, worth testing!
Jerome_m
Yes that is true, but not at F/18 and not as apparently. In fact in regards to simpler lenses such as those used in large format cameras, this may not occur until F/32.
Quote from: Stonemonkey on April 30, 2016, 03:17:37 AM
Yes that is true, but not at F/18 and not as apparently. In fact in regards to simpler lenses such as those used in large format cameras, this may not occur until F/32.
a
When one peeps at pixels, the first effects of diffraction can be noted at f/8-f/11 on 6 µm pixels, which is what our cameras have, so quite noticeable at f/18. On large format cameras, the effect will only be noted at very small aperture, because of the larger negative.
This being said, maybe your diaphragm is malfunctioning (e.g. stuck blade closing more than it should at f/18...). Just have a look at it from the lens front.