Optics Comparison between Mamiya Press & RB67???

<p>I'm curious. How do the optics compare between Mamiya Press lenses and RB67 lenses? (e.g. sharpness, flare, distortion, etc.) Are any of the Mamiya Press Optics multi-coated? If so, how can one tell from the lens?</p>

<p>I have both camera systems and am wondering about the need to have both.</p>

<p>If you have both systems, why don't you shoot them both and compare the results. </p>

<p>Easy: the Mamiya Press was a cheap system with poor optics, the RB67, if you can forget the size and weight, is a good system with very good optics.<br>

My recommendation: sell them both and get an Hasselblad 500C/M which is a far superior system. <br>

To the usual specialists of contradicting on this forum: this is my opinion only so don't waste your time. . .</p>

<p>There is an easy way to determine if a filter or lens is coated. Hold it so that it can reflect the image of a light bulb. A non-coated glass surface should show the image in the original color of the light bulb. If the surface is coated, the reflected image should be tinted with a color different from the original.</p>

<p>My assumption is that the optics of the Press are roughly comparable to RB lenses of the same vintage or indeed to the twin lens Mamiya optics of the same vintage. Many of the newer RZ lenses will be superior as they are new designs or evolutions from older lenses. However it is a little difficult to directly compare as the Press was a 6 x 9 camera unlike the RBs which are 6 x 7. So the lens requirements are different. There would seem to be no easy way to check multicoating unless you had a known multicoated lens as a reference, or have the original specs to know. I suspect due to their vintage that the Press lenses are not multicoated. Personally I would not let that put me off them. As to Hasselblad being a "far" superior system to the RB, I think that is nonsense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To the usual specialists of contradicting on this forum: this is my opinion only so don't waste your time. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No problem with you having an opinion...but it would be nice if you based your opinion on evidence. Just throwing out "the Mamiya Press was a cheap system with poor optics" is not going to earn any respect.</p>

<p>Neil: there is much evidence on the web concerning both Press and RB lenses.<br>

I've used several of the Press ones and I go along with the consensus: with a few exceptions, they are very impressive performers. I posted my assessments in this January 2010 thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00VZXt<br>

(you started that one too, Neil!)</p>

<p>As for the RB67, any of the later lenses (the K/L line and the APO telephotos) will match the best Zeiss offerings from Hasselblad. The earlier 1970s designs, especially the heavily retrofocus wideangles, might not compete as well. </p>

<p>Ray,<br>

I was not "Just throwing out" what I said.<br>

I had a Mamiya Press (and a 500C) at the end of the 1970's. It was a 23 Super. (already better than the Mamiya Press). After using it for a few months I returned it and bought a new Hasselblad lens instead. This is my memory of it:<br>

- Large, heavy, very awkward.<br>

- Very very poor ergonomy (if I can talk about ergonomy of this thing).<br>

- Changing film was a perilous experience, prone to mistakes and ruined frames if not film.<br>

- Lenses not on par with the Zeiss of the 500C, even the 100mm 2.8 (supposedly the best) was very soft compared to my 80mm Zeiss.<br>

- Cheap, yes, this is how Mamiya themselves introduced it. And it certainly was in may respects.<br>

- Very ugly<br>

In comparison, the 500C was a charm to use, a beauty, with an almost perfect ergonomy. In fact, it was so well designed that 50 years later you can use hundred's of different digital backs on a 500C. Can you say that of your Mamiya Press?<br>

I understand that some people do not care about design, ergonomy and beauty, this is why I said that I was expressing my opinion.<br>

Yes, I do care about beauty, ergonomy and design. I also care about results. The Mamiya Press does not fulfill any of those qualities.<br>

Can you make decent photos with a Mamiya Press: yes. You can even do so with a Brownie. Can you drive a Ford T: yes. I prefer a Mercedes. . .<br>

</p>

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>But you also included RB in your scathing opinion - have you ever actually used one?</p>

<p>Well, I see you do say something nice about the RB, the trouble is that on first reading it sounds as though you are condemning both systems out of hand. I agree with you that I would prefer a 'blad to a Mamiya Press, but not necessarily to an RB. In my opinion, I would sell the Press and keep the RB. I am a great admirer of that system and find it on many ways superior in practical use to the 'blad. It is bigger but it works like a charm.</p>

<p>Get a Koni-Omega instead. Excellent rangefinder, very good lenses, very low price. Of course, it doesn't have the flexibility of the RB.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My recommendation: sell them both and get an Hasselblad 500C/M which is a far superior system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Than the RB67? No way. It is the other way around. The RB67 came after the Hasselblad and was engineered to be a better machine. And it is.</p>

<p>The larger 6x7 negative size of the RB outweighs any supposed advantage of the Zeiss 'blad lens. If you can deal with the size & weight you'll get superior results.</p>

Just to add my input. I've been around long enough to know it's "horses for courses". In my career I have owned and used Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica, Fuji and Linhof in mf, Nikon and Fuji for 35mm and digital.

 

I loved the Blad for studio and weddings, the Linhof for its superb build quality and movements. Many studios used the RB's and benefited from great optics and a "10x8" proportion format.

 

Obviously being digital for virtually all "paid" work now, it was with hobby in mind I re-invested in mf film cameras..a couple of c220's and all 7 lenses and more recently a Mamiya Super 23 with 50mm, 75mm, 100mm, 150mm and the massive 250mm f5! All in superb condition which speaks volumes for the original finish and build quality. After all they are around 40/50 years old now!

 

In terms of lens performance the TLR is more than capable of producing excellent 24" square prints...and larger if necessary with care taken at the taking stage.

 

The Mamiya Super 23 is another step up in my opinion. In answer to the "criticism" of the optics we should remember the 50mm is a "Biogon", the 75mm is a "Super Angulon" and covers the larger polaroid image size and has no problem then with 6x9. Ok, the 100mm is a Tessar but it also covers 6x9 and collapses to enable one to use schleimflug movements on the film back. The 2.8 100mm is of course a "Planar"!!

The 150mm is also a Tessar but covers the larger Polaroid frame. The 250 f5 is an Ernstar, forerunner of the Sonnar. If you want to know how a quality lens made entirely from metal and glass feels, pick one of these up!

 

Not too shabby then. The film backs load easily and are renowned for being just about the best for film plane flatness.

 

I am not going to knock the Blad though, the lenses were indeed superb as were the ergonomics but the mirror slap dictated a minimum shutter speed and was far more destructive to image sharpness than any test lab lpmm's. Tripod and mirror lock up wasn't always possible.

 

And there's something to be said for the image not blacking out at the moment of exposure?

 

Recent results from the Mamiya Super 23 with 50mm and Kodak Portra 160, scanned by AG Labs (£15 a roll inc process!) resulted in virtually 100mp equivalent file size images, effectively around 30 x 20 inch print size.

 

And very lovely they were too....:)

...I am not going to knock the Blad though, the lenses were indeed superb as were the ergonomics but the mirror slap dictated a minimum shutter speed and was far more destructive to image sharpness than any test lab lpmm's.....

 

That was my main problem with the 500 CM. Just about all my 35mm photos were way sharper.

 

I also bought a brand new 250mm T* lens that had a loose element clunking around in it. I was not impressed.

With an 80mm lens, I don't MF SLRs handheld below 1/250. I feel pretty safe with a TLR down to 1/250, but not my 500C or the Bronica SQ I had before it. On the RB67, it's 1/400 or a tripod.

 

Of course, I should mention that I don't generally use prisms, and with a WLF you lose the advantage of "mass coupling" the camera to your head as you generally have with 35mm cameras. My Pentax 645 has a non-removable prism, and It's safer at slightly slower shutter speeds than the 'blad and Mamiya, although a MF-sized focal plane shutter upsets things a bit as compared to a leaf shutter.

 

I also always use mirror pre-fire on my 500C when it's on a tripod. Unfortunately, I've been afraid of MLU on the RB67 since I managed to shoot a blank roll. BTW, I do have a double cable release(a Compur branded one, not Mamiya) and have also tried using two separate cable releases.