What do you expect ? In one word, it's a great lens. I even use it in combination with the Mutar 1.4 (Body - Mutar 1.4x - extension tube 26mm - 120mm macro) to get a higher magnification ratio than 1:1, or to increase the working distance a little bit.
The only thing I miss is a tripod collar ...
The 645 APO macro 120mm lens is the best money can buy!! Its very expensive but worth any penny! Its works also with a special adapter on the 35mm N-cameras with full automatics except the macro bracketing! If you can afford it, buy it. Its up to now the best macro lens on the MF market.
It is a great lens, I use it constantly. I usually have to shoot it at f32 to f45 to get the depth of field I need for product shots but it looks great even stopped down that far.
Remember it is manual focus only.
By all means, get the 120! I am a professional nature photographer and the lens is superb. I own the 645, with 35, 45, 80, 120 and 210 lenses. The 120 is the lens I use most, but not just for macro. The sharpness and color rendition of this lens are just unbelievable for landscapes as well.
. My images do not carry technical info, but most of the "intimate world" photos were with this lens. Also, check out the Yellowstone sunset with geyser and bison in the western landscapes gallery--again with this lens. You want sharpness? Check out the totem image in the Alaska gallery, it doesn't get any sharper than this--every grain of wood shows.
Best of all, the lens still gives high quality at f45, where I shoot all the time.
It is slow to manually focus, with a beautiful but heavily d&ed feel--but remember this is a specialty lens, and slow, deliberate changes in focus are the norm for macro shooting. I rarely use AF in medium format so this is not a big drawback for me--but portrait or wedding specialists might prefer the AF 140 mm model, with its faster aperture facilitating handheld shooting.
I recommend this lens without qualification as to its image quality. You will not be disappointed!
. My images do not carry technical info, but most of the "intimate world" photos were with this lens. Also, check out the Yellowstone sunset with geyser and bison in the western landscapes gallery--again with this lens. You want sharpness? Check out the totem image in the Alaska gallery, it doesn't get any sharper than this--every grain of wood shows."
You don't expect us to judge the sharpness of a lens from inspection of 500x300 pixel images, do you?
Can the 645 120mm lens use the Zeiss Mutar 1.4x tele-converter? Contax web-site does not indicate so.
I wonder if it is better off to buy the 210mm instead since the Mutar 1.4x itself is not cheap and I will lose 1 f/stop over the already slow f/4 120mm lens. Besides, there are some reasonable C645 lens deals on eBay lately.
As you all know, Zeiss makes lenses for these camera companies. Hasselblad 120mm f4 Makro-Planar CFE and Contax 120mm f4 Apo-Makro-Planar are manual focus lenses for SLRs. In paper, these lenses are different in optics.
Has anyone used both lenses and know about their difference ? Which is better ?
Obviously the Hasselblad version is for 6x6 and the Contax is for 645.
The Contax lens is very versatile because it focuses closer than the Hasselblad lens which requires extension tubes to get the object as large as the Contax can on it's own.
The Hasselblad is a leaf shutter lens and sync's with strobes to 1/500th shutter speed. The Contax sync's at the Camera's top focal plane sync speed of 1/125th.
In my experience the Hasselblad Makro features a bit better flatness of field that you look for in a Macro when doing copy work and some commercial applications. The Contax produces very nice pictorial qualities and has excellent Bokeh if I recall correctly.