Sony 135 f/1.8 v. Hasselblad 120 f/4 Makro - last test

Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the
same aperture.

On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.

On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.

Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant
power/sync).

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the colour
of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

(Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two
shots "as shot" before cropping).

note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony
is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).

Alan Browne wrote:
Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the
same aperture.

On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.

On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.

Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant
power/sync).

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the colour
of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

(Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two
shots "as shot" before cropping).

note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony
is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).


Looks more like difference in focus points to me. Sony lens is sharper
at the top, hassy at the bottom. I guess the color is subjective, I like
the color in the sony lens shot better. I assume you shot these at a
fixed WB setting?

Stephanie

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the
same aperture.

On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.

On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.

Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant
power/sync).

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the
colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

(Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two
shots "as shot" before cropping).

note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony
is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).


Looks more like difference in focus points to me. Sony lens is sharper
at the top, hassy at the bottom. I guess the color is subjective, I like
the color in the sony lens shot better. I assume you shot these at a
fixed WB setting?

Good observation on the focus points. I intended to focus in the middle
and it looks like towards the top on the Sony shot (AF) and towards the
bottom of the Hassy shot (MF). It was awkward to focus ... I should
have used a step ladder to get above the VF.

WB was for flash, flash was a monolight at the same setting for both
shots. I suppose I should have removed the filter (a Nikon NC MC) from
the Sony lens. The Hassy lens had no filter.

I may try another test at f/4 (sweet spot of the Sony - wide open for
the Hassy).

"Alan Browne" wrote in message ...

Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the same aperture.

On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.

On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.

Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant power/sync).

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

(Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two shots "as shot" before cropping).

note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for
close-up work...
--DR

David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ...

Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the same aperture.

On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.

On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.

Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant power/sync).

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

(Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two shots "as shot" before cropping).

note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for

There is no serious problem with the focus other than it being at a
slightly different spot on the coin. I was shooting at a slight oblique
and it was very awkward to focus as I was set up. With a focusing rail
and a step ladder (so wouldn't be contorted while focusing), the focus
point would have been much closer/the same on the coin face. As
Stephanie rightly pointed out, where the focus is sharpest on the coin,
the detail appears every bit as sharp with both lenses.

Further, as mentioned, the sweet spot of the 135 f/1.8 is at f/4 or so.
So add that as well as its supposed better far field performance (as
well as the fact that the 120 f/4 Makro is known to be a little soft in
the far field - which isn't fair!) and the results should favour the
Sony - but possibly not so much that one would notice in such a test.

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
(ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl Zeiss
quality.

David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ...

Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the same aperture.

On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.

On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.

Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant power/sync).

The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the colour of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg

(Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two shots "as shot" before cropping).

note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for
close-up work...

I should add that at some point I'll do a test comparing the 135 f/1.8
to the Hasselblad 150 f/4 at about 20:1. Should be a more
representative test. My 150 is an old syncro-compur that doesn't have
the coatings of the 120 CF - but in studio conditions this should not
matter.

Question: what is minimum distance to far field for lenses of these
sorts? I assume that 1:20 is in the far field.

Further, I wouldn't qualify the test I did as "macro" - at least for the
Sony, whereas for the Hasselblad lens it was right at the limit of its
close-up macro range.

Here are some 1:1 (or close enough) 100% crops with the Minolta 100
f/2.8 macro on the a900.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8355540&size=lg
from: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8355519&size=lg

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8355522&size=lg
from: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8355477&size=lg

Certainly more detail than the 120 Makro (1:3) could hope to pick out.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for

There is no serious problem with the focus *other than it being at a slightly different spot on the coin*.

*Ahem...! ;-)

I was shooting at a slight oblique and it was very awkward to focus as I was set up. With a focusing rail and a step ladder (so
wouldn't be contorted while focusing), the focus point would have been much closer/the same on the coin face. As Stephanie
rightly pointed out, where the focus is sharpest on the coin, the detail appears every bit as sharp with both lenses.

They are hard to compare *exactly* - but they do look close.
To me, though, the 135mm image looks slightly darker, which
would also affect sense of sharpness...

Further, as mentioned, the sweet spot of the 135 f/1.8 is at f/4 or so. So add that as well as its supposed better far field
performance (as well as the fact that the 120 f/4 Makro is known to be a little soft in the far field - which isn't fair!) and the
results should favour the Sony - but possibly not so much that one would notice in such a test.

The 135 is very impressive - and for use under a wide range of focus
distances, likely superior (and certainly "good enough" ;-).

This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony (ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl
Zeiss quality.

Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
of some other companies...).
--DR

David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for

There is no serious problem with the focus *other than it being at a slightly different spot on the coin*.

*Ahem...! ;-)

It's of no real issue and (ahem) you know it.


I was shooting at a slight oblique and it was very awkward to focus as I was set up. With a focusing rail and a step ladder (so
wouldn't be contorted while focusing), the focus point would have been much closer/the same on the coin face. As Stephanie
rightly pointed out, where the focus is sharpest on the coin, the detail appears every bit as sharp with both lenses.

They are hard to compare *exactly* - but they do look close.
To me, though, the 135mm image looks slightly darker, which
would also affect sense of sharpness...

It's lighter, actually. And yes, darker appears to be more contrasty
which suggests (but isn't necessarily) sharper.


Further, as mentioned, the sweet spot of the 135 f/1.8 is at f/4 or so. So add that as well as its supposed better far field
performance (as well as the fact that the 120 f/4 Makro is known to be a little soft in the far field - which isn't fair!) and the
results should favour the Sony - but possibly not so much that one would notice in such a test.

The 135 is very impressive - and for use under a wide range of focus
distances, likely superior (and certainly "good enough" ;-).

It's fricken magic, to tell you the truth, esp. for BG separation from
the subject.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6297008&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9408316&size=lg

or FG from subject
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9408314&size=lg



This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony (ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl
Zeiss quality.

Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
of some other companies...).

And now Hasselblad H series lenses are made by Fujinon, not CZ.

Alan Browne wrote:
David Ruether wrote:
Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
of some other companies...).

And now Hasselblad H series lenses are made by Fujinon, not CZ.


The Fujinon lenses I have used were absolutely amazing. Their medium
format range finder optics on their 6X9 are just as sharp as some of the
best 35mm stuff!

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:

As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for

There is no serious problem with the focus *other than it being at a slightly different spot on the coin*.

*Ahem...! ;-)

It's of no real issue and (ahem) you know it.

Don't neither! ;-) You cannot compare sharpness directly in what are
essentially two different subjects (the differing sharp areas of the
subjects shot with the two lenses).

They are hard to compare *exactly* - but they do look close.

Which were the point of the "test' and a reasonable conclusion
drawn from looking at the results.

To me, though, the 135mm image looks slightly darker, which
would also affect sense of sharpness...

It's lighter, actually. And yes, darker appears to be more contrasty which suggests (but isn't necessarily) sharper.

On my monitor (that changes little left to right, but much top to
bottom...), with switching the coin positions and looking at their
general brightnesses and comparing the brightnesses of the wood
area upper lefts and lower lefts, the left photo appears to be slightly
darker, which with this subject, would (slightly...) favor a sense of
slighter greater sharpness on the left (but I agree that it would
likely be only a matter of perception here...;-).
--DR