C220 and Lens Quality

If this is one of those question to photographers analogous to the

"motoroil question" on the motorcycle bbs, I apologize in advance!!

 

The other day a friend and fellow amateur photographer said to me:

"Yeah, I used to use a C330, but the contrast of the lenses wasn't

good enough for my landscapes." Or something to that effect. And

3rd guy standing there agreed with him. Now he uses a Hasselblad.

 

So. Are the Mamiya TLR lenses "known" to be inferior in that

regard? Is it purely subjective? Or scientifically verifiable? I

took a look at _____'s empirical lens test data on the MFD, but was

merely confused. Is it all relative? Is a $2000 lens really 6 times

better than a $350 lens, or perhaps only 5-10% better? I'd like to

think the latter, if at all.

 

What are your collective thoughts/experiences/data on this (likely

sorry old) topic?

 

BTW, I have no intention of ditching my TLR collection for a "system"

system, but I was just curious about the topic.

Don, I think there will always be somebody saying this or that equipment is inferior regardless of what you have. I used a 330f

before I bought a used Hasselblad and was very pleased with the quality of pictures. I'm happy with the Hasselblad, but if all I had was the 330f, I could be happy with that too. The important thing is

to enjoy taking pictures with whatever camera you are fortunate to have.

 

Don Sparks

Don

 

It also depends on what you are after. Most people are enlarging photos only up to 8 x 10 or so, so I suspect that there is not a huge difference (if detectable at all). A good tripod and good technique is much more likely to be the cause of differences between photos on different cameras. On the other hand I think it is true that a $2000 Zeiss lens will be better at wider apertures and in critical situations than the Mamiya 330 lenses. Stopped down to f16 - well I doubt many people could detect any difference.

Don,

 

I second Don's comments! I have a C330f and a Hasselblad and others. The C330's, et all, are ONE of the best ways to get into MF and sustain you for a very long time before venturing into pricy pieces of equipment. TLR's are fine pieces - and it's very hard to top their virtually silent operation!

Don:

 

I don't think the lenses have anything to do with contrast, unless the lenses are very old and not multi-coated. Contrast is a product of Light (exposure) and Development. Your friend(s) may have had things effecting their results such as sticky or irregular shutter speeds, light meters that were not calibrated correctly, or undetected flaws or mistakes in their processing/darkroom techniques. About the only thing that I can think of that would cause a "lack of contrast" would be if there was a pin hole light leak in the bellows of the camera. Best way to find out is to put a small flashlight in the camera. Put the camera in a dark room and open the back. Extend the bellows fully. Keep the shutter closed and do what you can to cover the back of the camera and the flashlight. Then let your eyes adjust and see if you notice any pin hole lights.

 

And, to give you an idea regarding sharpness of lenses, lenses usually test on an optical bench for their ability to reproduce number of lines per inch. Low end lenses typically produce results from 180 to 220 lines per inch. Better quality lenses can produce results from 220 to 350 lines per inch. The $2000 lenses you speak of may prove on an optical bench to reproduce definition down to 400+ lines per inch.

 

What does all this mean? Well, to put it in perspective, Kodak's Kodachrome 25 transparancy film is acknowledged by most to be the sharpest film, capable of reproducing to 165 lines per inch. So even the low end lenses are sharper than the best film medium.

 

Don't give up on your TLR. I have been using Mamiya C220's and C330's for over 25 years and have never experienced a change in contrast due to a particular or group of lenses.

 

Good luck!

Results of my own lens tests are at http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0005l3

 

The TLR lenses are more prone to flare because the front glass is not recessed much. I've got a good collection of Mamiya hoods and when I'm shooting outside I always carry a hat.

I have a C330s w/ 55 and 80 S lens and an RB Pro-S w 140 macro K/L and I can see the superior quality improvement of the 140 macro RB pictures at 8 x 10 over the C330 lenses. As well, the C330 lenses pictures are superior to my Canon A2E 35 mm pictures at 8 x 10.

I have seen the pictures made by Hasselblads and those made by Fuji 680 lenses and my personal opinion is that Fuji lenses run circles around the Zeis lenses in resolution and contrast at about a third of the cost. The only drawback is the Fuji is quite large and unweildy - not as compact and light as the Hassy.

 

Bottomline, the price of the lens is proportional to the design and manufacturing quality of the end product. Happily there are some exceptions to the rule as in the Fuji 680 system.

I have a C33/80mm black lens. The optical performace of the 80 and a recently defunct 105 chrome lens, are good (not outstanding) expecially at F11. However, for the price, they are great performers. I've run into some problems, as have others on this forum, with the alignment of the top and bottom lens. In my case, I don't know if it is the lens or the body. I added a shim to the top back of the lens board to get the focus on the ground glass and the film plane together. The c33/80 now function quite well as a back up camera for my other MF system. The old chrome shutters no longer have parts available.

I have a 330 with a 65 and 105. I think the lenses are great, especially the contrast. I remember when I first got this camera a few months ago, the guy that does my processing could not belive the color saturation in the first couple of rolls (I had been shooting Mamiya 645, and mostly still do). If anyone thinks I have nothing to compare it to I have a Linhof 4x5 with a modern 90 Super Angulon and a Fujinon 240.