Mamiya RZ 110mm Z performance findings (long)

I have been thinking about the quality of Mamiya SLR lenses. [whine

mode on] This after my Hasselblad 500C/M has been in the shop 4 times

over the past 6 months. The front and rear of the 'blad body was 3

thou sandths of an inch out of alignment. The mirror gave a focusing

error of 1 foot at 5 feet. A barndoor spring bent after the camera,

wrapped in foam in a plastic case, slid off another case and dropped 6

inches (yes SIX!) to the floor. Then one of the film backs started to

overlap the first and second frame (that 'ol clutch problem). What's

next? A lens spring failure?[whine mode off]

<p>

At a photoswap this past weekend I carped about my 500C/M fate with

Hasselblad users. Some do weddings. Others do street photography.

And others do portraits. ALL said 'it's just the beginning... keep a

pair and a spare on hand... they'll be passing each other on their way

to the repair shop...' Ouch! I'm just a hobbiest who's neurotic

about resolution. [yep, whine mode is still off]

<p>

I came across a decent Mamiya RZ with 110mm Z f/2.8. In search of

better MF camera system reliability, I bought it, took it home and

tested the lens. Here's what I found. Using a USAF resolution chart

from Edmound Scientific to read lines per mm (l/mm), TMax100 film,and

souped in D-76:

<pre>

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop

-------------------------

68 60 60 f/2.8

60 68 68 f/4

76 85 68 f/5.6

76 76 68 f/8

76 68 76 f/11

68 68 68 f/16

54 54 54 f/22

</pre>

<p>

Since I'm completely neurotic about such things, here are a few

apertures comparing various lenses I've tested over the years (

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html ):

<p>

<pre>

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop

-------------------------

68 60 60 f/2.8 - Mamiya RZ 110 Z

68 68 38 f/2.8 - Hasselblad 80 CT* Planar

54 34 19 f/2.4 - Pentax 67 105 SMC

60 60 38 f/3.5 - Koni/Omega 90 Hexanon

67 53 53 f/2.8 - Bronica 80 Zenzanon-PS

 

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop

-------------------------

76 85 68 f/5.6 - Mamiya RZ 110 Z

95 85 60 f/5.6 - Mamiya 7 80 L

96 96 54 f/5.6 - Hasselblad 80 CT* Planar

85 85 48 f/5.6 - Hasselblad 120 f/5.6 C Planar-S

76 67 21 f/5.6 - Pentax 67 105 f/2.4 SMC

67 67 38 f/5.6 - Koni/Omega 90 f/3.5 Hexanon

60 67 60 f/5.6 - Bronica 80 Zenzanon-PS

 

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop

-------------------------

76 68 76 f/11 - Mamiya RZ 110 Z

85 76 60 f/11 - Mamiya 7 80 L

85 76 60 f/11 - Hasselblad 80 CT* Planar

76 76 60 f/11 - Hasselblad 120 f/5.6 C Planar-S

67 67 48 f/11 - Pentax 67 105 f/2.4 SMC

67 76 48 f/11 - Koni/Omega 90 f/3.5 Hexanon

60 67 60 f/11 - Bronica 80 Zenzanon-PS

</pre>

<p>

Observations:<br>

Based upon single copies of most of the lenses listed above, I can

climb a long ways out on a limb and share a few observations.

<p>

First, Hasselblad's Zeiss 80mm Planar is a very very fine lens. It's

equal appears to be the Mamiya 7 80mm L. These lenses deserve the

reputations they've gained over the years.

<p>

In the second group, the Mamiya 110 Z performs ever so slightly better

than Pentax's 105mm SMC and the 110 Z is about equal to an old

Hasselblad Zeiss Planar-S 120mm f/5.6 C lens.

<p>

In the last group, Bronica's Zenzanon trails Koni/Omega's Hexanon by

about 10%. Users report good performance from these systems.

<p>

Frankly, I was a little disappointed with the Mamiya 110 Z

performance. The brochure I have says something about 'ultra high

performance'. That description might apply to the Hasselblad and

Mamiya 7 L-series 80mm lenses. But not, IMNSHO, the Mamiya RZ.

<p>

However, after roasting the language in the Mamiya brochure, take a

look at the Mamiya 110 Z edge performance. It is consistantly higher

than anything I've seen thus far. So I'm left wondering; has Mamiya

traded center performance better edge resolution?

<p>

Thanx for listening - Chris

Very interesting, but a bit too technical for me.<br>All I know is that I've used my current RZ and lenses since I bought them nearly 3 years ago, the 110mm gets used far more than the others, I shoot from f2.8 to (very occasionally) f32, some of my pictures end up poster-size and neither I (nor, more to the point, any of my clients) have any problems with sharpness.<p>Isn't that more important than theoretical figures?

The difference in film size would make up the difference in the amount of

information recorded. So there really isn't any difference between 85 on 6x6

and 75 on 6x7.

Christopher<p>I have often seen comments here on photo.net to the effect that the Hasselblad 80mm Planar is over-rated and not particually sharp. I have always thought it to be a fine lens and was delighted when I saw your results a while back. Now we know why all the other medium format lenses are compared to the Hasselblad.<p>As Hank said, if you are printing from the full 6x7 neg I doubt you would see much difference. However if you prefer to shoot and print square, well enough said. Keep up the good work.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

Chris,

 

The other two points you have to consider, 1) lens to lens differences do occur in both Hasselblads and Mamiyas, 2) due to the bellows system on the Mamiya RZ & RB systems their lenses perform pretty much the same from infinity to close-up.

 

Interesting info though,

Harry raises the correct issue that I was hoping someone would mention: lens to lens differences.

 

This is just an observation (based on nothing but performing a number of lens tests), but it appears that moving from the 1940's to the present, variations between lenses decrease. Not that a person can't happen across a 'lemon' from time to time. For those of us who remember such things, there was a good and valid reason why 'Linhof Select' meant higher prices.

 

One of the greatest advances in lens quality came at the hands of Kodak during the 1950's. Their Ektar lenses are still spectacular, even by modern standards. It cost them a fortune, but they may have 'encouraged' the other manufacturers to reach higher levels consistancy.

 

While this whole exercise started as a means of testing an idea, in the end I may keep both the Mamiya RZ and the Hasselblad (for those days when nothing but a square format will do :-) Life could be far worse than this...

I think you're being a little hard on the Mamiya lenses -- both cover 6x7 -- and a little easy on the Zeiss and Bronica -- both cover 6x6. Your comparisons aren't quite like-to-like. And, as you've said many times, the differences in lpmm are small enough that poor technique can easily make blurred pictures with any of those lenses and good technique can easily make satisfactory pictures with any.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Christopher: I'd take the quoted results with a grain of salt. Amateur lens testing is fraught with all kinds of errors and are seldom worth quoting. For example the resolution of sagital and tangential line-pairs can differ widely. Tangential lines are usually less well resolved. The quoted tests do not differentiate yet this is quite important. When resolution is not the same for both, that is an indication of astigmatism and other optical aberrations. It would be best if you were to use the Mamiya lenses for awhile and get high quality scans (imacon or drum scanner) that you can compare with those of the Hasselblad, then decide. Look for the dynamic range of image and see which is richer, look for geometric distortion and color fringing off blacks and trust your eyes.

There could be a tolerance variation difference, but as you point out, consistency is greater in recent years. I bought an 80 T*C new in 1997 and it was very good, it might have been even better at the edges than what you measured. I bought an RZ w/ the 110 barely used in '99 to get back to the 6x7 aspect ratio, and have been using it ever since (along with a Plaubel Makina and then a couple of Fujis); the 110Z has been very good to 30x40 prints. Just as sharp as the 80C at 30x30 with the same processing/printing but not as contrasty. I CAN tell you that the KO lenses vary a bit, but whether that is from more relaxed quality control or just the fact that all the lenses are 20 to almost 40 years old I can only guess...

I should add that I rarely used either lens wide open.

Christopher,

 

I won't quibble with your findings other than to say I have never seen the value of such testing in the real world. I prefer to shoot a set of chromes under controlled and consistent lighting, then loupe them...my eyes tell me everything I need to know at that point.

 

Which has been good enough to let me earn a living at it for about 15 years or so.

 

But I will offer up one opinion based on my personal experiences owning both Hasselblads and Mamiya RZ's (I currently have a pair of RZ II's)...the finest lens in all the world becomes a bit pointless when the body it mounts to is in the shop...something I experienced often with Hasselblad, and never so far with the RZ.

Testing lenses for the Pentax 67 is difficult at best. The shutter vib is not just a problem in the 1/2 to 1/30 second range but will affect sharpness to a small degree at other shutter speeds. I have been using the 105mm for 15 years now and can tell you, at f/8 with exposures on bulb, it will easily make 24 x 30 inch prints. The edges of the print are not visibly softer than the center. I can't agree with your f/5.6 edge rating of 21 l/mm. The 300mm Takumar has been much criticized for lack of sharpness but the cause has been the shutter, not the optics. Asahi Optical Co. has coupled some nice optics to a body that does not allow for the full optimization of their glass.

While I don't doubt the intentions, integrity, or care of Chris in running his tests, tests run at different times and processed at different times throw more variables into a test that is already difficult to accurately perform.

 

I've owned Hasselblad for 20 years, and have never had any reliability issues. I decided to also get a new RZ67. Due to connections, the price was such that I could have immediately dumped it and made money. So I had no vested interest in wanting to have tests come out favoring the RZ. My test were with fine grained transparency film from the same lot, processed together. Same tripod, same spot, same very difficult lighting. Instead of charts, I was photograping a variety of objects with harsh back lighting. My results indicated that the latest 110 exceeded the "apparent" detail of the 80 and was just a punchier lens overall. Only the 100CF could equal the 110 RZ lens. I'm still prejudiced toward the Hasselblad, I guess due to my long use of it, its elegance (at least to me), its feel in my hand, and probably some leftover feelings from when I was young and could not afford it, but saw it as the holy grail. Despite those prejudices, I still have to admit I'm amazed at the RZ lenses.

 

The moral: Use your own eyes and trust what you see from your own tests, not what others (including me) say. Look at the work of others and see if you really notice that the shots with a particular brand have a look you like. Most of all, use what you feel most comfortable with, you'll make better images due to that.