Sharpness Bronica 50mm vs Pentax 45 & 55mm lenses

[karl_beath]

<p>I have tried to get information on this, but have found nothing definitive.<br>

Are there any sites comparing these lenses in mtf numbers, or has anyone used them and can give me an answer. <br>

I have owned and used both the pentax lenses and was always happy with the result (tripod, mirror lockup and cable release). Is the 50mm in the same ballpark as the other two ito sharpness?<br>

Thanks</p>

[clay2]

<p>Try 'lens search' at photodo.com<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

[trooper]

<p>I've had a few samples go through my hands of the 45 and 55 P67 optics. The 3 45's I've had all seemed a touch soft compared to the newer 55's. Not bad but not quite as good. My Bronica gear is the RF645 and the 45 for that is bitingly sharp and distortion free. Can't give you any hands-on for the slr glass but a pro friend used one (this was a SQAi) some years back and I always thought his results were superb.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Which Pentax, 645 or 67?</p>

[djolk]

<p>I've never used a Bronica (The lenses are called Zenza aren't they?) 50mm, but I've also never used a Bronica (potentially Zenza) lens that isn't sharp.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Yes, which Pentax-645 or 6X7?<br>

Which Bronica-645 or 6X7? Or 6X6?</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I nave used Bronica 50mm lenses for the SQ (50S and 50PS) and they certainly performed well enough for me, and I've sold many prints taken with these lenses and had possibly hundreds of such images selected by stock agencies. </p>

<p>But thats all absolute rather than relative, and might even be the wrong Bronica given that you haven't told us which series you're enquiring about. </p>

[john_photos]

<p>No one ever searches on these forums. <br>

This is a question of Lens Design. Of course an RF645 will trump an SLR lens. Why do you think people rave about the Mamiya 7? Do a little homework. No SLR wide angle is going to be as sharp.<br>

However, I've never ever seen a sharp photograph taken with a Pentax 67. Perhaps this is why lens data is difficult to come by. The Shutter vibration causes problems far beyond anything you will have to worry about regarding the quality of the lenses (50 pound tripods and bags filled with stones notwithstanding) . The fact that these cameras were so popular in Fashion photography where tonality is more important than absolute sharpness speaks for itself but to each his own. In real world day to day shooting just about any SLR from Mamiya, Bronica, Contax, Hassy etc will trump a Pentax 67. The Pentax 645, on the other hand, is a beautifully made low vibration camera so I'm not brand bashing. <br>

If you need to test a Pentax 67 just make sure your doing a 30 second exposure. A ridiculous camera in my opinion but this a forum so no flames please. </p>

[sfcole]

<p>This guy apparently uses a Pentax 67, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't use a 50 lb tripod or bags of rocks to steady it. </p>

<p>http://www.nickbrandt.com/</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>John, you've obviously never used a Pentax 67 yourself. Like any other camera the proper technique can produce very sharp images. The main problem, as so many are aware, is the kick of the focal plane shutter. This is only a factor when it is on a tripod and used between 1 sec and 1/30 sec and which I easily mitigated by draping the shoulder strap of my 10 lb camera bag (filled with other Pentax 67 lenses) across the top of the pentaprism (adding weight to the tripod itself accomplishes nothing). This technique completely eliminates all camera shake and enables one to produce images to the maximum optical ability of the lenses which, like any other camera system, varies with the lens (with the 200mm being one of its sharpest).</p>

<p>But hand held, again with the proper technique utilizing the wooden hand grip, the camera can be shot as slow as 1/30 sec (using the 45mm lens) and produce razor sharp images. This is not to say that the Pentax 67 has the sharpest lenses in MF. That honor belongs to the M7, which being a rangefinder, produces a resolution that rivals Leica in sharpness and is the reason why, when so many other MF camera systems haved dropped so much in price, that the M6 and M7 continue to hold their value.</p>

[donbright]

<p>As much as any Photographer, I have spend a tremendous amount of attention to what is, or what isn't sharp, in a Photograph. There is much glass out there to set the bar. The usual suspects. Having used a Pentax 6711 system for 12 years or so, avidly for landscape work, 67 lenses are as compatible as any of the usual suspects. Using a tripod and ball head exclusively with this system, vibration issues are real, but easily rendered. I have not used the bag strap over the prism technique yet, but I've never had a reason to do so. Pentax 67 lenses are sharp. When scouting out these lenses, make sure you are looking at, '67'lenses, and not the, '6x7'lenses. The 67 designation are the most recent releases that perform better through analysis. See, No flames!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Robert Glenn Ketchum was a user of the Pentax 6x7 system. I'm not sure what he uses now, but a good portion of his famous work was shot with that system. I remember watching a great video on TV of him where he was demonstrating some of his techniques in the 1980s and he had only the big Pentax machines and a full boat of lenses. Of course his work is phenominal, so obviously he did ok with the limitations of that system *-)))</p>

<p>And John, what exactly is it that you're rattling on about in your first post, did you do your homework? We do use searches here, maybe on other forums you don't. The rangefinder information you mention has some merit but it is not "the definitive statement" by any means. Regardless, welcome and try to understand that we try to logically and thoughtfully discuss these points on here, not just ratatrap our own views without sufficient support. </p>

[karl_beath]

<p>Sooory people. I was not getting any email responses so i did not realise there was a discussion going on, otherwise i would have clarified this sooner.<br>

The comparison is between the Bron GS1 and the Pentax 67ii. Yes I know having used the pentax for a number of years, that one needs to use mirror lock-up otherwise it won't matter which is the sharper lens. <br>

Would using leaf shutter lenses make a big difference in comparison to the shutter curtain of the pentax 67ii if mlu was used ito getting the image pin sharp?</p>

[donbright]

<p>I think that the chances of a sharper image, hand held with leaf shutters are best. MLU with a tripod with the Pentax 67 is going to work. The leaf shutter lens that I am familiar with the Pentax 67 is the 165mm LS. The problem I see with this lens is that it is inherently soft. I would not put that lens in the mix of lenses known for their crispness. The 165 LS lens was designed as a portrait lens to fill the void of a 30th flash sync that tops out on the body. So in the case of the Pentax 67, in the manner and respect of your question, it seems that you have exposed the 67s weak point of many strong ones. The other leaf lens available for the 67 is 90mm. Not familiar.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Don, when you hold a camera in your hands, the little vibration caused by mirror or shutter - leaf or focal plane - are the least of your worries.

[karl_beath]

<p>Hi everyone<br>

Let me try to drill down to the decision that i need to make. <br>

Two years ago i sold my Pentax 67ii with the 45,55 and 135 lenses and now regret the decision. I could just buy up Pentax gear again for my 100% landscape work, but there is also the option of used bron gs1 gear, an option which i did not consider 10 years ago. <br>

So from which system will i get sharper results, the pentax with its 45 or 55mm lens (and its inherent sharpness) using mlu, cable release and a tripod or the 50mm gs1 lens also using mlu, cable release and a tripod, and of significant difference to the pentax, its leaf shutter lenses. <br>

The other obvious advantage of the bron is that it is slightly lighter in weight which for backpacking is useful, but lens sharpness is paramount. I must add that i was always happy with the sharpness of my pentax lenses even at 40" enlargements, but will the 50mm lens trump this and in addition with its weight advantage be the overall winner?<br>

I apologise if to many here I am labouring the point and being nit-picky. </p>

[donbright]

<p>Karl, After viewing images between the two lenses that you have posed to your question. To me its seems that the, Pentax 55mm 67 lens has more of a contrast snap than the Bronica 50mm. The Bronica is sharp, but a little flatter.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>"A ridiculous camera in my opinion"... John P.<br>

As one of the moderators here at Photo.net and a pro user of the Pentax 67 system for many years, I find your comment irresponsible.<br>

Karl, I can't imagine a medium format lens much sharper than the Pentax 55mm latest version. The 45mm is nearly as good.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Wow! Karl sorry to jump in before you, but there you go. There's nothing like knowing the fact of an issue from a knowledgable source coupled with some passion. I concur with Steve on behalf of the 45mm also. Thanks Steve.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Don, just trying to keep things civil and honest. Yes, this place actually is moderated.</p>

[andre_noble5]

Have you considered the Mamiya RZ's 50 ULD lens? I shot 3 quick rolls with one. You have to remember to set the focus

correction. My results were promising.

 

PS the bronica ps series wide angle lenses I used were sharp, and have super color saturation but i dont think they are

as sharp as the 50 ULD.

 

BTW, Q De Bakker is correct about needing a tripod for consistently sharp prints.

[karl_beath]

<p>No it is not on my list as it has to be backpacked in addition to tent, food etc on 5 day treks, so much to heavy a system.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>One of my favorite photographers uses a Pentax 67. His work is published. However, he is a night photographer who runs multi minute exposures. The Pentax lenses are very sharp (but no sharper or "better" than Mamiya or Bronica. Or if they theoretically are the difference is so small as to be indistinguishable for a given format size). Achieving that kind of sharpness using a P67 for many individuals has been difficult. This is why I never considered one of these beasts. If you have a technique worked out then great. Many have come to these forums over the years looking for answers as to why they were getting blurry negatives with the pentax. Many of these inquiries were never solved. In one instance the individual sold the camera and bought a Bronica GS-1 and presto! sharp images! No bags, laser pointers or voodoo needed! <br>

So, if you guys have found a way to use a Pentax 67 and achieve consistently sharp results more power to ya. Many have tried and failed (while having great success with models from other manufacturers). <br>

Digressing and in response to some other statements in this thread regarding the stellar optics of the Mamiya RANGEFINDER lenses: they are sharp only because of design exclusively. No mirror ensures superior optical design. I owned a Mamiya 7 for many years. A great camera but a pain in the ass to use on a tripod so I used a 645 with fine grained film on a tripod for my night and low light work. Yes, the mamiya lenses were sharper than the SLR lenses but the framing and focusing were very problematic for the task at hand. Horses for courses. Its funny how much time people spend worying about SLR lens sharpness versus the Rangefinder lens sharpness without first determining the suitability to the type of photography they are planning to use the tool for. </p>

<p> </p>

[Trond Aspeland]

Sorry for being late to this discussion, but I am one of the few - in Norway anyway - who has used the Bronica PG 50mm
 at the same time as the Pentax 67 45mm over several years. Therefore I have some basis for comparison. 
(I've used the P67 55-100 zoom instead of the P67 55mm, but that's for another story...) Bronica and Pentax
 are both very good. Neither the Bronica PG50mm nor the P67 45mm are at their best fully open, but stop it down 
to F:8 and both are crystal clear and pin sharp across the entire image surface. The Bronica has slightly more 
vignetting, but has better distortion and chromatic aberration than the P67 45mm. I believe that both of these lenses 
are among the weakest in their representative brands. This does not mean that they should be excluded, but used according 
to their limitations. Proper wide angle on proper medium format gives fantastic results. They attract attention and are 
the pictures that have earned me the most money.