Differences between Carl Zeiss 150mm f4 zoom and 120mm f4 Macro

Hi

I currently own the Carl Zeiss 150mm CF f4 lens.

I am looking to save up for a Macro lens, and the Carl Zeiss 120mm CF f4 Macro (http://www.ffordes.co.uk/product/12011916183181) is what I am aiming for.

Naive Question : I assume there is a huge difference between the two, both in terms of quality and performance? i.e. in terms of mm, there's not a huge difference between 120mm and 150mm, but I assume the Macro abilities of the Macro obviously allow for close-up work whereas the 150mm normal lens has a min focal range of several feet but is better for zooming in on things a far. And because the 120mm is a Macro lens, I assume the lens elements are also better quality, or not?

I realise of course all Carl Zeiss lens are superb quality always, but I assume one is notably better than the other here?

My point, overall, is that I assume there would be no point selling the 150 as it will be needed for things the Macro cannot do, and visa versa? Or are they similarly matched, in which case I could sell the 150 and use the money towards the 120?

Ted

if you are talking Hasselblad, keep the 150 as there hardly is a better portrait lens. I know nothing about the 120 but use extension rings with the 150 for close ups,which works just fine.

I use the 120/4 Zeiss Makro Planar-S in a Rollei mount, but I believe the glass part is the same as the Hassleblad. The 120mm will have a flatter field for closeups, compared to the 150. Mine is mounted in an extended helicoid to allow closer focusing than the 150mm. I believe the 150 has a better MTF curve at infinity. The data to compare the two lenses used to be on the Carl Zeiss site. I found links below but I'm not sure those are the exact two you are looking at. Neither lens is a zoom, of course.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

I have what I think is the same 120/4 Makro Planar lens in Rolleiflex SL mount. The MTF graphs linked to above and below indicate that the 150 is superior at infinity and long distances but the Makro is especially good at close range.

Dead Link Removed

Sharpness is a product of the whole system, getting a lens that tests sharper under given circumstances won't necessarily translate to sharper prints. Just because a lens is called Makro/Macro/Micro/...-S, doesn't guarantee better performance generally, only that it's optimised (also) for close-ups. In the latter category fall for example the new 50 mm and 100 mm Makro Planar lenses for 35 mm cameras, that both feature floating elements.

The 120 mm Hasselblad lens does not, as far as I know.

Identify your need, then look for a solution. I'd get an extension ring first and see what your 150 mm Sonnar gives you close up, at your intended enlargement. For example I don't mind if a lens gives me corners a little soft compared to the centre if by the time I reach the enlargement for this to become easily noticable I'd already have used a larger negative, which I might not have of course of the same image.

I haven't used these lenses, but when it comes to quality, we can only give you suggestions. You really have to try them out to see for yourself what's good enough. Context is everything: there is a difference between technical photography and the one that doesn't require absolute, eye-cutting sharpness for self-expression. If you can, rent the lens for a couple of days first. With even half-decent equipment it's pretty easy to get to the point of diminishing returns.

I have both in the "C" version. The 120 is too sharp for people portraits but excellent for macro work. It also works well for landacapes as does the 150. The 150 with extension tubes can be used for macro but will not give optimial results compared to the 120 but is outstanding for people portraits. At todays modest prices for used Blad equipment just buy both.

Huge difference between the two? Yes and no. They're intended for different things. The 120 has extra built-in focusing extension so you can focus closer, and it is optimized for closeup/macro work. The 150 is a moderate telephoto/portrait lens. The 120 tends to be edgy-sharp, the 150 has a rounder, smoother look to it. There's a reason a zillion portrait photographers use/used that lens!

I own the CF 120, and use it for every type of subject. It is an excellent lens and the focal length often matches my vision for many subjects and situations. I use it for the occasional portrait. Would I buy the 150? No. The focal length would be so close it would be redundant. Same in reverse, if I owned the 150, I probably would not buy the 120, since I rarely do macro or very close-up work. I like that I can focus the 120 close enough to do a head/shoulders shot without adding a short extension tube. 120 too sharp for portraits? There are many ways to soften a picture.

I own the 120, in part, because it was part of a package deal when I bought a 3-lens kit, but I would prefer to have it over the 150 anyway. It's a great lens, and I like it for its versatility. If I need more magnification, I can always add an extension tube or two, but I'm not a big macro shooter. The 120 focuses down to a 1:4.5 or so reproduction ratio, which is plenty for 99% of my needs.

If you're going to do a lot of heavy macro work, consider the 135mm macro lens. Not great for the field, since it uses a bellows on a track, but it is a fabulously sharp lens. It will be harder to find and more expensive than the 120, but it's an amazing optic.

hi
I have a rollei sl66e with the rollei version of the sonnar 150mm f4 and the 120mm s-planar f5,6. At the beginning I have had the same dilemma between wich one choose .... I bought for first the sonnar because my first interest is portrait but when I find a 120mm s-planar at at 250 euro I didnt resist and now I have both !
My 120 mm is the 5,6 version that should be great for macro but no so good for infinity distances but i still havent done test about this as have both since only 20 days !; the f4 version should be a compromise and very good for macro and infinity distances. I can say I have done a portrait of my 25 year old son at a distance of 3,5 meters with both lenses (at f8 )using across 100 film, on a tripod, and the results are both very good but every person wich I show the two picture ( developed on ilford galerie) say that the one from the 120mm is more sharp and with more defined tonal nuances. The only problem with the 120mm is that is more difficult to focus as it is f5,6 !
I will done more tests in future ; even compared with the mamiya 7 N 150mm I have .
Regards

hi
I have a rollei sl66e with the rollei version of the sonnar 150mm f4 and the 120mm s-planar f5,6. At the beginning I have had the same dilemma between wich one choose .... I bought for first the sonnar because my first interest is portrait but when I find a 120mm s-planar at at 250 euro I didnt resist and now I have both !
My 120 mm is the 5,6 version that should be great for macro but no so good for infinity distances but i still havent done test about this as have both since only 20 days !; the f4 version should be a compromise and very good for macro and infinity distances. I can say I have done a portrait of my 25 year old son at a distance of 3,5 meters with both lenses (at f8 )using across 100 film, on a tripod, and the results are both very good but every person wich I show the two picture ( developed on ilford galerie) say that the one from the 120mm is more sharp and with more defined tonal nuances. The only problem with the 120mm is that is more difficult to focus as it is f5,6 !
I will done more tests in future ; even compared with the mamiya 7 N 150mm I have .
For more details look at http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_cute_DFR_DDR_lenses/00_pag_English.htm
Regards