Mount adapter Mamiya 645 lens to Canon 5D

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by nathan_cenower, Jan 18, 2010.

  1. I have a Mamiya 645 200mm f2.8 manual focus lens that I would like to be able to use with my Canon 5D. Is anyone aware of a mount adapter that would allow me to do this? What would be the potential/actual shortcomings?
  2. Thanks Mark
  3. I have a Mamiya to Canon shift adapter that I bought from a guy in Russia on ebay. It works great with the Mamiya 35mm, 45mm, and 120mm macro lenses, particularly with live view to help in focusing. I also have the 200mm 2.8 lens. This particular adapter doesn't have a large enough hole to give a clear view of the entire rear element of the 200 2.8, so I am thinking of getting a non-shift adapter with focus confirmation. From the pictures online, they seem to have a much larger hole than the shifting adapter.
    That said, the 200 2.8 still takes gorgeous pictures with my 5DII even with the shift adapter. You have to use manual focus and aperture priority mode, with the lens stopped down to the shooting aperture in order to meter properly. That isn't a big problem with the 200 2.8 since one doesn't usually use it stopped down much (and there is no lens vignetting visible because the image circle is so much bigger than the sensor). With the other lenses I mentioned, Live View really helps in achieving focus since you use them stopped down, and Live View compensates for this. I have a split image focusing screen for my 40D, and that helps too.
  4. Novoflex also make adapters for Mamiya 645 lenses to a range of 35mm cameras. If they have for that Canon, I'm not sure, but their engineering is second to none, if that is important to you.
    On their site is an adapter finder.
  5. It sounds like you have definitely have the Mamiya M645 Pro 200mm APO f/2.8

    I use a Fotodiox adapter, non-chipped, that I got from them directly. It was about $100 and took a few days to arrive. Try that before you get into more expensive options, is my opinion. You can probably sell the Fotodiox "downstream" if you like the APO and how it works with Canon EF mounts, and decide that something more expensive is warranted (chipped, or Novoflex, or Mirex Tilt/Shift adapter, etc.)
  6. Question from peanut gallery.
    Is it not true that most MF lenses are far out resolved by good quality 35mm format lenses? That's what I gather from various tests I've seen of resolution and MTF. Therefore, what are the advantages of a MF lens on a 35mm body? What am I missing?
    Just curious. Thanks.
  7. Jim and peanut gallery
    I haven't noticed sharpness issues with good Mamiya glass. My Mamiya 200mm 2.8 APO takes pictures that I prefer to my Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS at 200mm, wide open, on a Canon 5DII. Sharper, no color fringing. Same with the Mamya 35mm 3.5 vs. the Canon 17-40mm 4 L. And the Mamiya 120mm APO Macro is as sharp a macro as you will find (and an unusual macro focal length to boot, with a gorgeous set of aperture blades that stay round as you stop down).
    Here are some of the advantages I see.
    First, it is just a joy to work the big manual controls on these solid lenses. There is a time and place for fast autofocus and auto-aperture plastic lenses. But there are times when it is fun to slow down and think about the process yourself, spin a big manual focus ring, and click an aperture ring. And DOF scales (even if you have to compensate, they are there).
    Second, just like 35mm full format lenses have sharp corners on crop sensor cameras because they are made for a larger image circle, 645-format lenses project only the "sweet spot" onto a FF 35mm sensor. Thus sharper corners more wide open, no vignetting.
    Third, less color fringing.
    Fourth, I now have a stable of shift lenses for 60 bucks. In particular, one can do interesting things with both the Mamiya 35mm and 120mm macro lenses with the shift adapter, which shifts up to 11mm and rotates. Even shifted the 35mm is tack sharp in the corners from 5.6 up, and one can use different shifts and rotates to make perfect, no perspective change stitched images.
    Fifth, many of these lenses can be picked up on the big auction site for a song.
    I have heard of others knocking the performance of the Mamiya 645 lenses. Maybe I just got lucky and have good copies.
  8. James - thanks for the very lucid explanation.
    Sounds good. I sort of figured the sweet spot thing.
    The shift adapting does add a flavor.
    And, of course, the prices are cheaper. (Not necc. the APOs)
    But, I remember sites claiming MF didn't have to have the resolution capability compared to 35mm due to them not requiring as much enlargement. My meaning was not to demean Mamiya and others, but curiosity.
    Ok, that being said I also shoot (strictly amateur) with a Mamiya M645 1000S and an RB67 ProS and SD, all of which I have bought used off the big auction site for peanuts. Stuff I never could have justified $$$ when new. I've become a fan of MF since a lot of pro folks dumped their film gear when they went digital, and it became discount days for us lay people.
    I simply adore the results of the 6x7 size and it surely trumps anything from 35mm at sizes > 11x14 (in my opinion). So, I like MF.
    I've simply never considered sticking that glass in front of a 35mm DSLR. I may have to just try that.
    Thanks again for the insight!.
  9. Darn you guys, you twisted my arm!
    I just ordered the appropriate one off ebay.
    Sidenote: if you go directly to the Fotodiox website they are a lot more than the 'sale price' listed on ebay. A good deal indeed. Add in any other item, and free shipping too.
  10. ".....But, I remember sites claiming MF didn't have to have the resolution capability compared to 35mm due to them not requiring as much enlargement......".
    Jim, You are right. MF lenses on test charts do not show the same high lpmm of resolution as do 35mm lenses.
    Whilst it is true that when using a MF lens on a 35mm camera, one is only using the large centre of the optic,(the so called "sweet spot") that centre is not offering the same resolution as the 35mm lens would across the format. (I'm talking equal quality among lenses).
    If it were true that Image Quality gains could be made via this method, we would all be grafting Zeiss 'Blad lenses onto our Leicas, and 'Blad users would be attaching lenses made for 8x10 format.
    I have via adapters, used 80 mm Hasselblad lenses on Leica R's and Zeiss Contax 645 lenses on an N1 and I can tell you, without the need for scientific measuring apparatus, 80mm MF Planars from both series of cameras do not equal the quality of the Leica 90mm Summicron or the 85mm Planar designed for the 35mm format.
    I'm not suggesting you shouldn't do such things but just don't expect an automatic transfer of quality.

Share This Page