Jump to content

MF Optics


User_6502147

Recommended Posts

<p>To me the optics play larger role whether I choose, Hassy, Mamiya or Bronica (Rollei seems severly overpriced).OK, if I left out Pentax or 645...well so be it. Has anyone done some cross comparison tests that I could be pointed to....or is it all anecdotal ? For instance, it would be of help to see what each lens (lets say 80mm) will do in regard to bokeh, rendering colors, sharpness and experience the 100% view....I mean whether it's Zenza, Planar, Tessar on TLR Rollei, etc. <br>

Must I scour Flicker to find what I'm looking for ?....or someone has done those tests ? Thanks for your response.<br>

<br />Les</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Les</p>

<p>Good luck with that!! You won't find it - well not in any systematic way, just lots of blather. You are OK with any of those systems - all have been used professionally for many years: the most popular in the last 30 years probably being Hassy and Mamiya. But any of those can be used to give excellent results.</p>

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You can scour Flickr if you want, but its unlikely IMO that you'll be able to draw solid conclusions. There was a partial analysis carried out years ago by a German chappie I think, but frankly it contained so much counterintuitive data that it didn't have much credibility.</p>

<p>As others indicate you'll find great photographs made with each of the Hasselblad, Bronica and Mamiya slr systems ( the Mamiya rangefinders are something else entirely). IMO- having direct experience with Bronica and Hasselblad- I don't think there's much to gain or lose on the issue of lens quality (which may be why there's been no real need for data to attempt to draw distinctions. Obviously the systems have overlapping but not identical format ranges and their ergonomics are different. Assuming that you have a view about what format you'd prefer, perhaps the most important criterion is whether you can get hold of a particular example that seems in good health, where you can get some handle on its provenance - has it seen heavy use? been serviced?- and is there a decent warranty with the main components. These systems are all very cheap in a historic context, but getting then repaired is not cheap. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As far as MF SLRs are concerned the 'blad Zeiss lenses are widely acknowledged to be consistently excellent, so if money's no object, why settle for the "also rans"? The planar for the Rollei is also superb. Tessar!? That's a 4 element design from the days of the Ark. There's no way it can compete with a 6 element Planar or any other more modern design.<br>

However a camera system is about more than the lenses. The camera mechanics play a big part in ensuring that the film register and flatness are precise; whether you can achieve exact focus easily, etc. Body flare is also going to affect the contrast of images as well. So unless someone has devised a way of testing every available lens on one single camera, it's all a bit academic whether lens X has a theoretically better MTF graph than lens Y.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think that all too often we obsess over very small (imaginery?) differences in camera gear and lose sight of the art. I don't think there is such a thing as a "best" lens, or a "best" camera for that matter. It depends on the "look" you are after, and what you are doing. As for Joe dissing the Tessar, I disagree. For the past year I've been buying lenses made before 1930, such as 1906 Dagor, 1914 Tessar, 1922 Heliar, WW1 vintage Wollensak Velostigmat (a Tessar.) I love the look I get from these! For me, they are the "best" lenses. For somebody else, depends. Anyway, I've come to concentrate on working with Light, not obsessing over gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First, thanks to all that responded. Like several folks here, I'm awaiting and having hopes that the new Plustek 120 scanner has some excellent specs (not just theoretical). Frankly, I'm looking for <strong>the 'best' lens</strong> <strong>rendition for me</strong>....and the age of the optics or how many elements it has it's less relevant than the rendition I get. I have several lenses that are nearing 40yrs of age....and one is actually 41....now that I think of it. I actually prefer it to some of the latest and greatest....not that recent lenses are bad. It's all relative. Most of the MF SLR's are priced fairly reasonably....in comparison to recent decades. In fact, I saw a Hassy on (CL) the coast of OR and the price tag was $500 w/lens included....as I also saw RB67 w/3 lenses for little over $200 in Kewlona, BC - obviously I waited 10 min :) longer than I should have. So, yes the deals for MF are out there. <br>

Since I have some time, I'm looking at options and choices. Whatever artistic view appears in the frame, it needs to be matched with technology...and that's the way this gig goes. I have no desire to obsess about equipment...all cameras w/optics they have capability to capture the image in their unique way....and I'll just add my own <em>English </em>to it.<br>

<br />Thanks again.<br>

Les</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>From my point of view, that kind of premises are fairly wrong.<br /> <br /> I tend to think that my RZ`s 110mm lens is "better" than the Mamiya 6`s 75mm (the above chart says the opposite; that`s another topic). But I`d never choose the RZ simply because it gives a couple more lines/mm. This could really happen because diferences are not that great.<br /> Same on 35mm format. By far I prefer my Summicron 35 on a Leica M6 over any Nikkor. But my shooting ratio is well 1000 over 1 favorable to Nikon.<br /> With your premise, I should have now a RZ and a M6, yes, with superb lenses; not a big deal as most of my MF photos has been taken outdoors, and I quite prefer to have AF and matrix metering for children and kids portraits (what I mostly like to shoot).<br /> ---<br />BTW, KR has this kind of evaluations: "this is the best lens ever", "this another is the most perfect lens", "this one is much better the the most expensive x (=expensive brand) you can buy", etc. I bet he *use* to be right here.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Hasselblad and Rollei glass have certain advantages at wide apertures. Stopped to F4-F8 the playing field becomes leveled. Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax medium format glass are all excellent when stopped a few stops.<br>

The trouble with MTF charts and similar tests. Is that the individual samples vary too much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suggest that you google images taken by lenses you are interested......together with film you are planning to use. Select the lens and/or system that satisfies your creative mind.</p>

<p>Specs are great on paper ..... but there are more to lens specs that makes an image work...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kent, my reasons for "dissing" the Tessar are twofold. Firstly I've never found one that lived up to the (IMHO undeserved) reputation for sharpness that this design has acquired, and secondly it's a pretty boring lens with no real "look" to it. I've found it to have so-so definition, so-so contrast, and without any character to speak of. It also has insufficient coverage for serious LF use. I'd rather use a 3 element Schneider Radionar with at least a swirly edge to its pictures.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had one of the "latest" Tessar designs, the multicoated 127/4.7 for the Mamiya Universal. It had better Polaroid coverage than the 100/2.8 (6 element Planar type) on the Universal. But when both lenses were used wide open for astrophotography on 6x9 film, the Tessar was distinctly less sharp off axis, despite being 1.5 stops slower. That's the issue with Tessars - poorer field correction unless they're well stopped down. When I used the 127/4.7 for portraits and candids wide open, I didn't notice this, as the outer parts of the image usually consisted of defocused background, and actually looked very nice. Example below (Fuji FP-100B "polaroid" film).</p><div>00aYQx-477783584.jpg.7c84b5e7c928afcfdbaf04d737c04621.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The Hasselblad and Rollei glass have certain advantages at wide apertures. Stopped to F4-F8 the playing field becomes leveled. Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax medium format glass are all excellent when stopped a few stops.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that this is fairly true of older lens designs in these systems. But in newer designs from around the mid-1980s on, I haven't really seen anything to separate the wide-aperture performance of equivalent German and Japanese MF optics. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<ol>

<li> The Plustek scanners are known for producing a file size equal to their rated output but only having a resolving power of about ½ their rating. Many MF lenses will resolve the equivalent resolution of 2500-3000 PPI. </li>

<li> A. T. Burke has posted, some years ago, comparison shots of a variety of MF lenses scanned at an actual 2900PPI resolution. If you want to see them go here: </li>

</ol>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=993663">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=993663</a> </p>

 

<ol>

<li> There are also a few scanned at a TRUE 400PPI here: </li>

</ol>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=997590">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=997590</a></p>

 

<ol>

<li> The sharpest MF lenses in both Mr. Burke’s and my collections are those used with the Mamiya 7 II camera. There is more detail on Velvia ISO 50 than can be resolved by a 4000 PPI scan. One can see detail using a 100 power microscope that does not show up on a scan. At a measly 4000 PPI the results are shown here: (Be sure to tap on the image twice to get it at full size.) </li>

</ol>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1022066">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1022066</a></p>

<p>On the other hand, if you are only interested in the “art” and feelings aspects of photography, as folks above have suggested is the “right” way to enjoy photography, buy a cheap Holga. With the savings you could also buy many cheap (but artful) McBurgers. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...