Image circle Zeiss 120 macro?

Does anybody know what the image circle is of the Zeiss S-Planar 120 mm f/5.6 macro? I understand it is a single coated (not T*) lens issued both as a large format lens (barrel/Copal 0) as well as for Hasselblad. The latter would suggest limited LF application (maybe 6x9, but possibly not 4x5).

Given that it was also used for MF, I guess it is most likely optimized for around 1:5-1:2, with decent performance at 1:1, maybe 2:1. So image circle at 1:5 - 1:2 would be most meaningful.

Anybody has any opinion on performance for colorwork in 4x5?

Thanks

Daniel
Some guideline for experimentations !
Regarding the possible image cirle of a 120 S-planar 120-5,6, my feeling is that the effective image circle is probably mechanically limited by the Hasselblad mount and not by the optical design itself.
The S-planar being a quasi-symmetrical 6-element lens I would expect at infinity a usable angle bigger than for a tessar, i.e. bigger than 60°. We know that the Schneider G-claron, another symmetrical 6-element design is given for 64° and this figure is well-known among LF aficionados to be conservative.
But if we assume 60°we should expect and image circle at infinity bigger at least than 120 mm (at 53° : diagonal = focal length). If we double this diameter at 1:1 ratio, we eventually expect something usable for 6x9 at infinity ; for 4x5", my guess would be : optically, yes it could cover at the nominal reproduction ratio of 1:5, if stopped down properly, but check with the lens mount.

Daniel, if you're going to try the lens above 1:1, reverse it. It is designed to have the large subject in front, the small negative behind. Above 1:1, it will have the small subject in front, the large negative behind, and this isn't what it was designed for.

Emmanuel, the lens covers 80 mm at infinity. So at 1:1 it will cover 160 mm. Possibly more, as you suggest. I have no experience with f/5.6 6/4 double Gauss types, but my faster ones (f/2.8, f/2.0) don't cover much more than their focal lengths.

Cheers,

Dan

Thanks to both of your informative replies. The bottom line is that it may be marginally suitable for 4x5 (diagonal 160 mm) at 1:1 with not a lot of movements. Re limitation by Hasselblad mount, I don't think that is it. The lens in the LF variation has the typical double cone arrangement.

Daniel, the one I had would produce a 4x5 image up close, but suffered from chromatic aberration in the corners. It looked like it was intended for a much smaller format.
Chauncey