Hassy 120 or 150 for...

[goldyjackson]

Hi all,
Just a quick question for someone who's had experience with both. I'm interested in either the Hasssy 120/4 Makro or the 150/4 for head shots. I have an 80/2.8 and I can't really get as close as I'd like with the min. focusing distance. Do I need the 120 if I want to have someone's head take up more than the entire frame? Or does the 150 focus close enough for that. I hope this question makes sense.

Thanks in advance.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 150 is the preferred lens for portraiture. I have shot with the 120 Makro-Planar, and while it is an acceptable portrait lens, and will let you get very close, it is a rather harsh lens for portrait work and I recommend against it if you have the choice. If you are worried about close-focusing with the 150, get an 8mm or 16mm extension tube. You'll be at 5% (or 10% on the 16mm tube) of focal length, so you'll have no exposure comp to worry about.

 

[nze]

The 150 won't do it without a tube. But for such protait I'll go for a 250 and tube..

 

[Gary Holliday]

I have a 120 which will give me a nice head and shoulders, or a cropped head if needed. If you need closer I would go for an extension tube. Think of where you will be taking most of your portraits in future. Most of my portraits are in small rooms, so longer lenses present problems if you need more than a tight head shot. There's always the Softar I if you need to soften skin tones.

 

[Q.G.]

A 120 mm is too short for a tight head shot. Perspective is horrible. A 150 mm is too short too, but better.
The suggestion to go to a 250 mm with (32 mm) tube is perfect. It's not just the right focal length, but a great lens too.

 

[benjiboy]

I have never owned one but have used a friends Hassy with the 150 Sonar several times, it focuses down to 1.4 meters, and is ideal for portraiture It's roughly equivalent to an 85 mm on 35mm I found it fine to use in a domestic room, or a small studio.

 

[Barry S]

I've found the 150mm and a 16mm extension tube is a great combination. If there's an alternative, it would be the 180mm Sonnar. The 250mm feels too long to me.

 

[Allan Swindles]

For many years I have used the 150mm, on its own and with the 10 or 21mm tube on my 500C/M for portraiture. I have also used the 250mm to good effect but bear in mind which might best suit any other work. I think either would be preferable to the 120mm, unless you're into macro of course, in which case you have a dilemma.

 

[eddym]

I've found the 150mm and a 16mm extension tube is a great combination.

Another vote for this combination. It's relatively inexpensive and works quite well. Just needs 1/4-1/2 stop additional exposure for lens extension.

 

[Claire Senft]

Do not forget that there was a 120mm f5.6 S (makro) planar and that there is a 135mm f5.6 Makro planar that is bellows mounted and which will surely focus close enough for what you wish. If you have wishes above and beyond taking potraits then the Makro lenses should be given very serious consideration. Although I have not used one I would think that a 120-135mm Makro Planar with softar 1 & 2 would be very nice.

 

[Q.G.]

Don't just focus () on how close you can focus a lens, like the S-Planars or Makro-Planars. Also consider what the sitter will look like when being so close to him or her.
I you want to "have someone's head take up more than the entire frame", 120 mm and 135 mm lenses are way too short.

The field of view you are then after measures about 150 mm square.
Using an 120 mm lens, the focussing distance (film to subject) will be not even 600 mm, the subject distance about 440 mm, the front lens to subject distance not even 400 mm. A 135 mm lens is not much better.
Even when using a 150 mm lens, the front lens wil not even be 550 mm away from your subject.
(Of all these lenses, only the 135 mm on the bellows will reach close enough without aid of extension tubes.)
Much too close to worry about whether you need a softar or not. With a tack sharp lens, or a lens that is toned down using softeners, the sitter will look groteskly misformed from these distances. If only faces were flat...

A 180 mm lens is beginning to get you somewhere, but still not quite far away enough to get better perspective. A 250 mm lens takes you back to a focussing distance of (only!) about 1300 mm, front lens to subject distance of still only 970 mm (who thought you need a big studio when using a lens of this length? )
It will take some serious extension (about 62 mm extra, above what the lens brings along itself) and 1.5 stops more exposure. But it will create a good picture.

P.S.
If you want to have a look at what you can do with these lenses, play around with the online Close-Up Calculator you can find here.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Makro-Planar lenses have very unflattering bokeh (out-of-focus areas). I don't recommend them for portrait lenses for that reason. The transition from sharp to out-of-focus is also rather abrupt with these lenses. Get at least the 150 with the extension tube, or if you have the space, go for the 180 or 250.

 

[Gary Holliday]

Just follow everyone's recommendation and buy four lenses and a set of extension tubes.

 

[Terence]

150mm and 16mm extension tube for me.

 

[takef586]

Both the 120 and the 150 will be too short for a tight head shot in terms of distorting the face. I'd suggest either the 250+32mm tube as others have suggested, or the 140-280 Variogon, which combines the possibility to use the longer end of the zoom or the 140mm in makro mode if you really want this sort of shot. The only problem with it, is that it is damned heavy - you really need a tripod with this one...