Mamiya 645 - 50mm shift lens, or 45mm fixed?

[pete_andrews]

I know this sort of "which lens is better" question is subjective,

and a bit irritating, but I'd really appreciate some opinions on the

M645 50mm shift lens.<p>I've got the opportunity to buy a 50mm f/4

N-series shift, in mint condition, at a really good price, but I

already have the older version 45mm f/2.8 lens, and I probably

wouldn't want to keep or carry both lenses.<br>So, what's the optical

quality of the shift lens like in general, and how does it compare to

the

old 45mm f/2.8?<p>I'm wavering, because I don't really want to lose

those extra few degrees of coverage, and even given the very good deal

I've been offered on the shift lens, it's still a lot of cash to part

with. Plus, I'd lose, and miss, the convenience of auto-aperture

operation, and the brighter viewfinder image.<p>Decisions,

decisions!<p>PS. I use a 35mm PC Nikkor *a lot* for my 35mm stuff, so

I do appreciate the extra functionality that a shift lens offers.

[steve_hovland]

If you use the shift a lot on 35, will you have work for it in MF?

 

Certainly shifting is a lot easier on your back.

[louis_webb]

Using the Bronica Etrsi system myself,there isn't a shift lens(apart from a huge,heavy,optically great 55mm Schneider lens that is occasionally available 2nd hand for large amounts of money).However,the average wide-angle lens for the Bronnie is 50mm.Coming from 35mm and using a 28mm lens myself in the past,I really like(and prefer)the perspective of the 50mm lens in the 645 format.To have a reasonably priced shift lens available,that isn't the size and weight of a bazooka-I say go for it.Btw,I wouldn't worry about the optical quality of this lens-all current mf lenses(except maybe some of the russian/chinese stuff)will be good enough for all bar the snootiest hasselblad afficionados.

[johan_erasmus]

In my opinion the 50mm shift can in no way replace the functionality of the 45mm f2.8. It is not wide enough, and the F4 maximum aparture can be a problem as well. But when you need a shift lens, then you need a shift lens, and the 50mm shift is really brilliant. The act of shifting compensates for the slightly narrower view, and the f4 maximum aparture is then not a problem as you would normally have to use a tripod anyway. So keep the 45mm and get the shift as well if you can afford or justify it.

[lex_jenkins]

What Johan said. I use a PC-Nikkor 28/3.5 and while it's inconvenient to use as an all purpose lens I do so anyway. But it's essential to my architectural photography.

 

If I had a chance to add a medium format shift lens at a good price I'd go for it. They usually hold their resale value in case you decide later you don't need it.

[christian deichert]

Buy the shift, keep the 45. If the weight is that bothersome you can keep the shift at home unless you think you'll need it. I have both a 35mm f/1.8 (normal) and 35mm f/2.8 (shift) for my 35mm Minolta system, and normally the shift stays home unless I'm using the "big bag."

[tom_thurston]

I have both the 45 f/2.8 and the shift 50 f/4. The shift lens is not nearly as convenient to use, since you have to stop-down to meter (so I use an external meter), but I use it much more than the 45.

[jarrod_connerty]

If all that's holding you back is the narrower field of view, & you don't mind an obnoxiously large lens with an 82mm thread, <a href=http://www.kievcamera.com/Hartblei.pdf>these</a> lenses give you shift, tilt & still no automatic aperture diaphragm. I could've bought either this or the Mamiya 50, chose the gamble, and would never part with it as long as I continue to shoot the M645. It is a bit sharper than the Mamiya 50 I tested it against the middle apertures, but has less shift.