Mamiya 7II 43mm?

[marke_gilbert]

Ok, just made the committment for a Mamiya 7II. Im used to Leica

rangefinders, but havent really been shooting 35mm since I got a

Hasselblad set up last year.

 

<P>Purchasing a kit with an 80, and 150, but I like wide angles, the

wider, the better, so I am thinking about the 43mm to round out the kit.

 

<P>Anyone found a distinct advantage to the 50mm over the 43? Anything

the 50 can do that a cropped 43mm shot cannot?

 

<P> Also, anyone with a 43mm for sale, or trade?

[eric_brody]

I have the 50/80 150 combo. If you really like WIDE, eg a 20mm on a 35 camera, the 43 will be fine. It's really, noticably wide, though. I chose the 50 because it seemed to be to be a bit more useful overall, less extreme. Cropping the 43 is always an option.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Eric

[bobmichaels]

I have the 50mm not the 43. My reasoning was:

 

1) I can shoot the 50 without the accessory finder just by using the edge of the built in finder and knowing I have a little bit more. Since 99% of what I shoot is hand held moving things (like people) I didn't think I could deal with the back and forth of using one finder for focus and another for composition.

 

2) to my eye and style, the 50mm is a "normal wide" and thus very useful. I only looked through the 43mm finder once and thought it to be sort of "super wide".

 

While the angles of view are not the same, it seemed to me that the M7 50mm was sort of like the 28mm Biogon on my Contax G and very useful while the 43mm seemed to be more like the 21mm Biogon. That means an incredible lens but sort of "special purpose". In other words I can go out and shoot all day with just the M7 50mm while I'm not sure I could do that with the 43mm.

 

But different strokes for different folks. That's why Mamiya makes both.

[christopher perez]

I agree with the comments about the 50mm being chosen over the 43mm. In my case the best combo has turned out to be the 50mm and 80mm. No need for the 150mm (which was a little difficult for me to use, for some reason). Based on my large format experience, there is seldom a case where walking toward a subject wasn't possible (as a means of filling the frame using the shorter optics).

 

Good luck. The Mamiya 7 is a wonderful system.

[simonpg]

My "shooting" friend has one. We looked into the 43mm carefully - lots of research. Overall this 135 format equivalent of 21mm is one of THE very best super-wide lenses available in any format. It is a very close rival of the Hassy 38mm (SWC) and has a similar angle of view since Hassy is 6x6 and the 7II is 6x7. The images are simply superb and the 43 is in very high demand - stock can be hard to get.

 

But, many MF shooters prefer the 50mm angle of view in MF (this is not a deceision about: is the 43 better than the 50?) - a little less extreme and I am in that bunch. It is also very pricey because such optics are expensive to build.

 

In 135 format I like wide landscapes with a 24mm to 28mm, so I use a 50mm in 6x6 and 72/75mm in 6x12.

 

So, IMHO you should decide purely on the grounds of your preferred angle of view and the shooting you like to do. I don't think cropping is realy the issue as the 43 will give a more extreme "depth" than will the 50mm. Look at sample images to help decide. But, IMHO don't buy on price or you may regret what you buy.

[donald_hutton]

I've owned both. The only "plus" the 50mm has for me is that you can use the built in viewfinder (you need to look into the edges to see the extent of the composition). When you need wide, you need WIDE! I sold the 50mm and kept the 43mm. Both lenses are very sharp. Both can use a center filter with chromes (I use a Schneider IIIb).

[jan_brittenson]

The 43 does indeed benefit from a center filter with some of the more contrasty CT films. But I've found it to be quite OK without it on E200 Pro, which is what I shoot mostly in this camera (when not using CN). The slight vignetting doesn't cause much trouble most of the time.<p><center><img src="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/india/S01617-700.jpg"><br><i>Jain Pilgrims, Mt Abu, India<br>

Mamiya 7II, 43mm f/5.6, 1/15, Ektachrome 200 Pro</i>

</center>

<p>

As you can see, the effect isn't severe enough to distinguish from natural variation in illumination, it's really only obvious in large evenly lit areas.

<p>

The 43mm is, of course, invaluable in confined spaces (like Jain temples :)) where you need to get close to the subject to clear obstacles (like pillars and people) out of the way.

<p>

More India photographs in my RFF gallery, in <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=4889">the "India" album</a>, if you care to see more. Lots of 43mm shots, although many are perspective tweaked in PS. (Not the one above though.)

<p>

For me, something wider than the 43 would be nice, would love a 35! So I've never really considered the 50. The tough one for me is the "65 vs 80"! :)

[christopher perez]

Jan, your image from Mt. Abu is quite nice! Thank you for sharing it. It illustrates the use of the 43mm very well.

<p>

Given my preference for shooting large format, my comments about using the 50mm instead of a 43mm is due to the 43mm's angle of view. If I had taken the following using a 43, I feel it would have "pulled" at the edges a little too much for my pleasure. I haven't scanned the image I took of sadhus at Belur (just up the road from Halibeedu), but the following should demonstrate my point. With the 50mm, the edges don't "pull" as much as the 43mm.

<p><center><img src="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/india/images/halibeedu1.jpg">

<br><i>Temple carving details, Halibeedu, Hassan, India<br>

Mamiya 7, 50mm f/11, 1/60 (on tripod), TMax 100</i>

<p>

</center>

It can be difficult to get the verticals aligned with a 120 camera. So my next trip to South Asia may see me attempt to haul a super light weight 4x5 camera with 3 tiny lenses. The above image was taken at eye level. But many beautiful carvings are much higher than this and I could really use front rise to correct the key stone effect. But that's a topic for another time... :-)

<p><center><img src="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/india/images/halibeedu3.jpg">

<br><i>Temple carvings, Halibeedu, Hassan, India<br>

Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar 75mm f/8, 1/250 (on tripod), TMax 100</i>

<p>

</center>

[jan_brittenson]

Nice shots of the exteriors! Looks a lot like Kajuraho! I had a field day in that place with a bag full of 120 TMX...

<p>

I do all my printing digitally these days, and usually tweak perspective as I trim the edges. (Scan on an Imacon, print on Epson 7600 with ImagePrint.) It's the same crop tool in PS. In fact, I take this into consideration when shooting. With B&W this is rarely a problem at all since there's such a huge amount of image to begin with. With color I'm a little more careful.

<p>

Since there's so much image it's pretty easy to simulate shift by simply using the top or bottom part of the image, and with a film like TMX is a complete non-issue, even half a frame has enough for an excellent print.

<p>

This is a rather extreme example, it was dark and I couldn't find a good perch or brace, so set the camera level on the floor and simply cropped out the bottom half. (Self-timer, a few seconds at f/11.5 probably.)

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/india/S01600-900.jpg"><br>

<i>Kajurahu Western Complex, India<br>

Mamiya 7II, 43mm, TMX in XTOL@stock</i>

<br>

</center>

<p>

If the 43 is cropped down to the same view as a 50, then you have a fair amount of shift on hand... I wouldn't hesitate to do this with B&W, but for color I wouldn't recommend it.

<p>

Leaning towards the 4x5 is interesting... I've been thinking next time I go I'll take only the 1Ds2 and a few lenses (Fisheye, Leica R 19, M42 Flektogon 35, M42 SMC Tak 50/1.4, Leica APO 90) just to do something a little different and keep costs down. But I like the results of the Mamiya 7 so much it's almost impossible to leave behind. At $20/roll of 220 E200 Pro for film and processing it's atrociously expensive though, I shot 40 rolls of this stuff in India; that's $800 for that alone. The total bill for five weeks' worth of film and processing came out to more than the airfare. (Excluding B&W which I process myself.)

[james_johnston1]

Hi Marke,

 

I will second all the positive comments others have made about the 43mm.

It's a phenomenal piece of glass. I think it's THE lens to own if you do

superwide medium format work.

 

I have only a few examples of photos taken with this lens posted at

www.northforkphotos.com. (For whatever reason I can't cut and paste

hyperlinks to the exact spot on the site. You'll have to click enter; on the next

page scroll down to the second and the third from last pictures: "Kelso Dunes"

and "Cottonwood, Donner und Blitzen River." They are both taken with the

43mm.

 

You will see vignetting on the photo of the Cottonwood. I have only

experienced noticeable vignetting with this lens using a polarizer and

shooting at an extreme angle to the plane of the subject. In the case of this

photo, I used this effect deliberately (I can only hope the visualization is

successful).

 

So, I'll sell you my lens. It is in perfect condition. Has been used, of course,

but no scratches or wear at all that I can notice. Comes with viewfinder, caps,

box, paperwork. I have pictures I can email you. I will have to research the

price, I imagine it will be similar to what you can find on ebay or other sites.

 

I'll sell it just because I don't use the super wide angle look much. I will

REALLY miss it, though.

 

James