Which medium format system has the best glass?

Which medium format system has the best glass?

 

I may be opening Pandora's box with this question...

 

I'm in the process of choosing a Medium Format system, but I don't have a way to compare the glass between the

various systems. I have the ambition of taking pro-level photos, although I don't know that I'll have a pro-level

budget.

 

My only real concern is glass, because in my eyes, the only key function a body serves is being a light-tight

box. So if I were to chose a system to only have 2 primes and a zoom for portraiture, which system would I choose?

If you mean an SLR then I would have to say the Rollei 6000 platform for the Zeiss and Schneider glass.

 

Rangefinders are excluded because they don't offer zooms, I suppose.

Sorry, but there are a number of systems with excellent glass. Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Hasselblad, Rollei. You are wasting your time chasing magic bullets.

In general, I would say that the German optics are tack sharp and very contrasty. I'd characterize the Japanese lenses as warm and saturated color. All systems have the pluses and minuses, it depends on what you like. My preference is Hasselblad, in part because I like the optical characteristics for what I shoot, and components are easy to find.

"....So if I were to chose a system to only have 2 primes and a zoom for portraiture, which system would I choose?"

 

Don't know how many MF cameras are building zooms, but the G lenses of the Mamiya 6 (6x6) are quite special

(50mm, 75mm, 150mm), and less expensive than the German glass. Of course, the 6 was discontinued about a

decade ago. The current 7 (6x7) or 7-II (the latter with double exposure capability) have a more extensive lens line-up, but

probably equally good performance.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised that the differences between the Mamiya and Schneider, Rodenstock or Zeiss are very

small indeed and probably only discernible in 10 or 15X enlargements (upwards of 22 x 22 or 33 x 33 inches), if at all. It is rather

like the differences in 35 mm between Leica German lenses and those designed by Zeiss and built by Cosina. In some

ways, and with some focal lengths, the Japanese made Zeiss lenses are slightly better than the Leica German ones. Again,

however, small differences.

 

Inappropriate focus, poor flatness of the film at the film plane, camera motion during exposure and exposure itself are all

things that will have a greater influence on your result than splitting hairs between top quality modern lenses.

 

Few lenses are perfectly neutral in light transmission. That can be altered by lens filtration, or WB control (RGB) if shooting digitally.

Rob,

I'm not chasing magic bullets. I'm well aware that photography is not a function of the gear alone, but gear is both necessary and important, and knowing your gear is just as important as that.

 

For instance, you probably wouldn't get as good results from a Kiev with a mid-quality quality lens vs a Hassy or Mamiya mid-quality lens.

 

Recently I put to rest my 28-90mm kit lens for my 50mm because my 50 is sharper and has less chromatic aberration.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the capital to test them myself, which is why I asked for advice on the forum.

Georg,

 

Which tripod do you plan to use? Without a tripod, you might as well shoot through the bottom of a coke bottle.

 

With the possible exception of Kiev and Holga, medium format cameras are intended for professional use.

I think Edward exaggerates a bit regarding the effect of a tripod, but the point is an important one. I only know

Hasselblad and Bronica (Nikon era lenses). If you read the current Hasselblad literature their marketing department is

working hard to convince the buying public that their modern (Fujifilm) lenses are the equivalent of their classic Zeiss

lenses. So, I take that as a positive endorsement of the classic Zeiss V lenses.

 

Are you planning on shooting film or digital? Mamiya has a very competitive deal on their low-end digital system.

Hasselblad has a deal on their 31MP system. These are new cameras. For used cameras I think Rollei or Hasselblad

are very good choices. The Bronica system is very inexpensive at the moment but high quality.

 

Go to a store and try them out if you can - or rent one.

George - Let's mention format too. If you shoot square @ 6x6 and want to crop to a rectangle you wind up with a negative ~ 6x4.5. If you shoot @ 6x7 and crop rectangular, you lose almost nothing, gaining roughly 55% of more film to preserve detail. I use an Rb67 and a neat feature is the 'RB' part, i.e. revolving back. Merely flick your wrist and you go from portrait to landscape. I find this very useful compared to lying a big MF over on its side and trying to operate controls and see thru the viewfinder. Without wishing to start a barfight, I think the mamiya RB / RZ line gives one a great range of old used gear (glass especially) at wow-wee prices. I find the glass gives me everyhting I expected in 20x30 sized prints. Everyone has their own expectations, so it's sort of subjective. I cannot comment on comparative film flatness, I leave that to the more knowledgeable or the review sites. I think, as stated, you will see some difference between brands, but how much? And a stout tripod or a steadyrest of some sort is almost a given to be used. Prices are currently rather low on MF gear, so the time is now to pick up something. My use is as an amateur, so professional ruggedism is not a concern for my choice. To each their own. Jim M.

The camera is not just a light tight box. Its design directly influences its ease of use, handling, weight and

compromises (eg whether it supports double exposure, what is the max shutter speed, etc). And in fact, different

bodies will serve different purposes better-- TLR's, SLR's, RF's.-- because of their weight, minimum focus distance,

speed of use, autofocus/manual focus capability, handholdability, etc. And not to forget, you get to choose how big a

neg you want based on how much you want to carry.

 

In fact, in medium format, I would say the body is more important than the glass when you get to the reputable

brands.

 

If you shoot on a tripod, you can shoot at f11, where performance peaks and most lenses have little differentiation.

This is unlike 35 mm where a Leica lens at 1.4 outperforms much cheaper optics at 2.8 and you need to shoot it

handheld.

 

Thus whether you choose Mamiya, Hassy, Rollei, etc. glass is really not that important for tripod work. But a

Mamiya 6/7 will be much more suitable than a Hassy for shooting at 1/15 and will also have much better wide-angle

performance because it has no mirror. A Hassy will be much better for general photography because of the large

range of lenses (from fisheyes to 500 mm) compared to a TLR. Etc.

It's not about searching for a magic bullet but about searching for the right bullet with the right set of compromises.

<p>George,<p>

 

<p>You sound like you respond to data as well as opinions, and with your attitude about the camera body, you can take a look at <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">this website</a>. Look in particular at the lpmm spread across the frame for the Rollei, the 'best of the rest', compared with the Mamiya 7 lenses; as well as the numerical data. Chris Perez and Kerry Thalmann are bywords in the US large format community, I have found their views very useful and their information very reliable.</p>

 

<p>I will add that very many large format shooters use the Mamiya 7, familiar aspect ratio undoubtedly being one factor, but these guys want spectacular image quality as well in their 'hand cameras'.</p>

 

<p>The 6x7 format is my favourite, having used them all, short of 612 (came close there too!).</p>

 

<p>And I have owned Mamiya's 6 for years in the past, the best lens for it is undoubtedly the 50mm, the angle of view of which neatly fills the finder. The Mamiya 7 is a step up not just in film size, the camera is much easier to get on with, a host of little things, even has a softer, quieter shutter (snick), better placed cable release socket, solid film transport system and so on. The lenses are superb, each and every one of them, you could not want for more.</p>

 

<p>I am sure most reputable MF systems are great but I hike in very high places (4,000-5,500 metres high) and I would not carry a boxy tank-like SLR - much too bulky, too awkward (film backs etc.) and much too heavy; I do not like the mirror slap on my D200, let alone a giant MF mirror.</p>

 

<p>The Mamiya 7 and 65mm lens weighs in at around 1400 grams and fits in a small waist pack; and despite what some say, can deliver decent handhold shots for the reasons of low inertia in-lens shutter, well-designed shutter release button and surround, and excellent ergonomics. Newly affordable, too, for non-millionaires.</P

 

<p> Final comment relates to film flatness (which the data shows to be excellent), 120/220 versatility, and the 'no-mirror' design advantages of placing the rear element very close to the film plane (check for damage here if buying 2nd hand) hence minimal distortion. </p>

What's the best motor vehicle? A T-34 tank? A Mercedes truck, a Toyota?

 

Any of the major "brands" are all going to have "glass" that is good, not-so-good, and even some bow-wows on

occasion. I don't think that you can choose a system meaningfully on the basis that it has the best "glass"

overall although there may be some to NOT pick on account of what they have available or not.

 

If you were going to choose on lens quality alone, you might even find yourself with a Pentacon Six. Some of the

DDR medium format lenses were really very good. Or maybe a Kiev? ;) Good as some of the lenses are, it would be

hard to recommend the bodies for a hard-working professional.

The best lens competition is useless.

There are differences in lens design sometimes correctly pointed at as typical German or typical Japanese design.

Some like "German" designs for a number of reasons.

The way a Carl Zeiss or Leica lens gradually shows OOF.

Colour rendering is another property often overlooked.

 

If just limited to Carl Zeiss also the era a particular lens was designed and built can be important.

The first generation 150 mm Sonnar for Hasselblad with silver barrel and early coating is a much loved lens for

portraits.

The later 180 mm design is hard, much more like Japanese designs and often regarded as less useful for portraits.

In a physical sense the 180 is a much better lens. For portraits not a better lens.

 

Lens designs for the V system are at least 15 years old with the exception of the 40 mm IF of course.

Carl Zeiss designed a new range of AF lenses for the discontinued Contax 645.

The Apo 120 mm for Contax is way better than the latest 120 mm Makro-Planar for the V series.

 

As with the "old" 150 Sonnar and its predecessor the 135 mm Sonnar for F cameras shows you choose a lens for a

specific purpose.

Actually George, Kiev lens are really good. If only their bodies were better I would use them exclusively. BTW; I also have a Hassie and KOWA 6mm plus various folders - which also have fine lens

I am interested in doing formal and informal portrait work. I figured that my Canon SLR would be better for candid portraits.

 

In the studio (where I would be using the medium format system) I'd like to pursue traditional sit-down, fashion, glamor, and erotic portraits.

 

Also, I would like a medium format camera I could later go digital with.

Phillip-

 

I thank you for the chart, but I'm not sure how to read it.

 

I take it it is center, middle, edge?

 

Is a higher number better?

Not sure about the best glass, but in response to JDM von Weinberg's question; I would have to say Toyota. I'm a big fan.

"In general, I would say that the German optics are tack sharp and very contrasty. I'd characterize the Japanese lenses as warm and saturated color."

 

I've found that differences in film emulsions are greater than differences in optics.

 

I've owned Mamiya (330f TLR, 645 Pro TL, 7II), Bronica (RF645), Minolta (Autocord), and Zeiss (Ikoflex with a Tessar). All produced excellent photos, if I was up to the task. But, for me, it is more important to match the camera design to the application. I love my Mamiya 7II, but it's useless for tight head shots and macro work. But I really like the light weight and compact design. So I'd suggest you think most about your system needs. Then choose based on both optics and ergonomics.

Lenses and microfones have things in common.

Neither wil faithfully register what is to be recorded.

There is no best lens, there is no best mike.

 

A professional chooses his lenses and microfones for a job taking into account their strong and weak points.

Recording of music and making photographs are both related to physics although making a good recording or photo is art, not physics.

Mamiya 7. See photodo.com

That's a bit much, Paul. How about a craft? ;-)<br>One question you raise is what a faithfull registration/recording

would be. It never will, nor can, be the same thing as the thing it is a registration/recording of, of course.<br>So given

the distinction, will a lens not record "faithfully" what there is to be recorded? That depends entirely on what the

criteria are.<br>And there of course are criteria (measurable, physical ones) that describe a lens' performance rather

well. These are the ones usually connected to descriptions using words like "faithfull".<br>There of course also are

criteria that are set by the person using the thing: likes and dislikes.<br>But either way, "physics" is a necessary

evil. Without it, no photography, good or bad, art or craft.

All name brand (i.e. Rollei, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc.) medium format equipment is designed to produce the highest

quality images and they're all good enough. It is with the small formats (35mm, DX) that there may be a situation

where a lens is not good enough for some applications.

 

I use Mamiya 7 and the lenses are wicked sharp. There is essentially no distortion, which is a characteristics of

the rangefinder wide angles. I would think an SLR is better for shooting into the light source, as I find it

diffiucult or impossible to judge flare using a rangefinder. Also, SLRs are digital compatible while the

rangefinders are not. But they're bigger.

Also you should take into consideration final enlargment size. A 6x7 will result in a better final print than will a 645/6x6 because it doesn't have to be enlarged as much. My advise to you would be to look at the RZ/RBs line as that's usually considered the best all around studio camera.

@ Q.G.

 

Art or craft you name it.

Anybody who is occupied with this art or craft and knows what he is doing willfully employs certain aberrations of the

equipment he chooses. That is what a job well done is all about.

 

By knowing the specific character of the equipment it is possible to achieve the desired result.

That result does not necessarily mean a faithfull recording of the original image or performance.

Far from that. A musical recording and an image are seldom made to be the mirror image of the original.

That is where the art part takes over.