Mamiya Press lenses and whole series questions

<p>I'm trying to resurrect my Mamiya Press system (as a way back to MF and film), which hasn't been used for a number of years. As I've forgotten a lot I've been reading through internet a lot over the past few months.<br>

I've seen several references to the 'fact' that Press lenses were 'synchronised' to the body, so that focus wouldn't necessarily be correct if a lens not originally sold with that body was fitted, with adjustment screws on both lens and body, these often being 'secured' with lacquer or something. Looking at my lenses (50mm, 65mm, 90mm, 100mm, 150mm and 250mm), the only ones I can see which might have some kind of adjustment for the rangefinder coupling ring on the lens are the 65mm (in this case 'sector' rather than a complete ring). I have two of these and the part on which the rangefinder 'cam' rides is secured with two screws through two slots, which suggests the thing can be rotated (and the positioning is different on each of the two 65mm I have). Additionally, this sector on one of the lenses (113615, pale blue shutter cock) seems to have a shim behind it, the other (127546, dark blue shutter cock) has nothing, again suggesting this is some kind of adjustment for the rangefinder coupling. Despite the few references to the need to 'sync' I can find no information at all about what the adjustments are, what is needs to be done, etc, only quite a bit on how to adjust (calibrate) the rangefinder itself. Can anyone throw any light on this?<br>

There does seem to be a lot of confusion about these cameras in general. Many people suggest that the Super 23 was the first and only to have the bellows adjustable back. This isn't so but I'm still not sure whether there was only one model (the Press Deluxe?) or more.<br>

I've got one, very old and 'battered', 2803165, but when I finally got the bellows open is was pretty clear that they had never been opened before - they were like new despite the appearance of the rest of the camera. Then there are references to a 'red' indicator in the viewfinder which appears if the collapsible 90mm or 100mm is not extended. There's no such indicator on my Super 23 - A14702 - (nor a cam to actuate it) but the one on the older Press is not red, but puts a black crosshatching across the rangefinder 'spot'. My other Press, a 23 Standard - 2820275 - doesn't have the collapsed lens indicator either, nor bellows although it is clear the body is able to take them (places for the locking knobs indicated on the sides).<br>

This is without getting into the Polaroid 600 confusion, including that many are adamant that lenses and other accessories for the Press etc do not fit the Polaroid, and vice versa, but many sellers still advertise lenses etc saying they are are suitable for Mamiya Univeral/Super 23/Polaroid 600. Which makes it very difficult to buy something unless you can actually try it.<br>

Is there anywhere that there is comprehensive, correct information about the whole of the Mamiya Press series?</p>

<p>Have you asked Google what it can find for you? I just did. Oh, yeah, tell Google you don't want the word "ebay" so you won't be buried with hits that have nothing to do with what you want to know. Also look at the Mamiya Press users manuals on www.butkus.org</p>

<p>I have a little Super/Standard 23 literature. It says nothing about having to collimate lenses to bodies or to adjust the RF for lenses. In essence, the Super 23 user's manual says, attach the lens and go.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used the Super 23 and a Standard commercially in the 'seventies. The "calibration" story sounds like a typical internet myth to me: some idiot wrote it and other idiots repeat it. I had 5 lenses of various ages, purchased at various times and in various places; they worked just fine on both bodies.</p>

<p>The thing about the bellows back sounds like the same balderdash. Both my cameras had bellows.</p>

<p>The one truth is that the 600SE is not compatible. I had one of those for a very short time (bought it and someone offered me a 100% profit, so I sold it on) It has different lens and back mounts. I can only think that Polaroid made this a condition of the deal, so Mamiya wouldn't be able to undercut them with their back catalogue of lenses and accessories.</p><div></div>

<p>I always forget to look on YouTube for things like this, so I idly typed in Mamiya Press, and got 58 hits on YouTube.</p>

<p>Is there anything that someone hasn't made a video about? ;)</p>

There is a second thread here about viewfinder-calibration. there are at least two wikis. one of them is right and is publicly open the other one must be rectified about cam-type. subscription must be done trough flickr which failed since i am on an old pc which has restriction.

Have two Super 23, one with M-the other with G-back. bellows have left/right wobble-ABSOLUTE NOGO. have black and chrome cams. no viewfinder indicators when 90mm collapsed. its a crap-lens. mount already stiff. or non-smootly operating.

Have the blue 15mm. wow sharpness even fully open(through loupe, no images yet taken). 90mm must be stopped down to at least f11 to get sharp images.

150m on fully extended 35mm bellows. comes down from 2m to 1m exactly 1: 4.4 which is 36cm approx. on 6x9. seems not made for macro, maybe stopping down increases resolution/sharpness. on a windy day forget the bellows altogether.

my 90mm is totally deadjusted.

I used the Super 23 and a Standard commercially in the 'seventies. The "calibration" story sounds like a typical internet myth to me: some idiot wrote it and other idiots repeat it. I had 5 lenses of various ages, purchased at various times and in various places; they worked just fine on both bodies.

Old dead thread, obviously, but this type of remark always irks me. Cameras made prior to 1980 were quirky, mechanical (or electro-mechanical) contraptions that were far from perfect, afflicted by individual design flaws specific to each mfr. Binary statements made today err in both directions: its just as pointless to say "I never experienced a problem when I used this professionally 40 years ago, so all posts to the contrary are urban myth" as it is to claim "every single existing example of this camera has a major issue". They are all older than rocks now, most have not been maintained or serviced regularly, yet despite that a surprising number of bodies and lenses still work surprisingly well. It is also true that age does not improve any of them one bit, and any quirks they had to begin with will be more pronounced or common now than decades ago when they were new. This goes double for medium format gear, which didn't benefit from mass production shakeouts like 35mm SLRs.

Mamiya spread themselves way the hell too thin, trying to make every imaginable MF variation at once while never getting any of them quite right until the third or fourth iteration (if ever)- forget lens optical consistency altogether until nearly 1990. Their Press was a versatile, Jeep-like system. For the most part, built like a tank (and weighs as much). But the rangefinder is an Achilles Heel: you can truthfully hammer nails with the body and it will still shoot, but the rangefinder mechanics can and do drift from causes as simple as a rough bumpy ride in a car trunk. This gets compounded by the woeful hodgepodge of conflicting lens cam designs that should never have got past the planning stage. The only ones nearly always guaranteed compatible with any well-adjusted bodies are the 100mm standard lenses, which have an intelligently implemented cam. The much later 75mm and 50mm are similar.

But they half-assed it with the 65mm: I've tried three, each was out at infinity to a different degree with both my Universal bodies, and they're a PITA to calibrate via their crummy screws and shims. The 150mm and 250mm veer off into a third cam design, the most likely to be way off spec. They all but require calibration, yet Mamiya perversely made the 150/250 cam a nightmare to access and adjust: many have simply been filed down or bent in frustration, which makes them that much harder to compensate properly decades later. The Press lens rangefinder cams are a terrible design that causes problems: reality for many users, not an "internet myth promulgated by idiots". The Press lenses have a lousy rep for optical quality, unfairly caused by the crap RF coupling. The glass designs are mostly solid: 100mm f/2.8, 75mm f/5.6 and 50mm f/6.3 are standouts comparable to Hasselblad Zeiss.