Bronica GS-1 100mm F3.5 PG and110mm F4 PG Macro

[fernando_rei]

<p>Hi: I Recently bought a Bronica GS-1 with lens Zenzan on PG 100mm F3.5. But I know that there is a 110mm F4 PG Macro. So, does anybod y know what the difference between them?<br>

Thanks and best regards<br>

frei</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>My GS-1 user's manual lists the 110 macro as still in planning and yet to be released so I can't confirm the details. But I guess the obvious difference is 10mm of focal length and the minimum focus distance/max magnification. FWIW the 100/3.5 has 6 elements in 4 groups and the aperture goes from 3.5 to 22. The minimum focus distance is 75cm and it takes a 72mm filter.<br>

I would suspect that the macro is longer and heavier.<br>

Ah... a quick look revealed this spec page for the macro.<br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/gs110.asp">http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/gs110.asp</a></p>

[fernando_rei]

<p>Hi Jim:<br>

Thanks. I forgot to check that link of TAMRON. I get nothing in having 110mm F4 PG Macro comparatively PG 100mm F3.5. And i think, was looking for what, is preferable to invest in PG 50mm F/4.5 and PG 200mm F/4.5 or PG 250mm F/5.6 and i get a cool range of distances: 50mm, 100mm and 200/250mm. You sharing the same opinion?</p>

[djolk]

<p>I use the 110 F4 PS lens on a SQ-A and I can't say enough good things about it.</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>I think the only reason Bronica made two lenses for the GS-1 that are so close in focal length is because they have very different applications. I'm not sure whether the 110 goes to 1:1 magnification or not (unlikely) but the point is that if you do any amount of close up photography the 100/3.5 is going to be frustrating. But if you are shooting portraits, landscape, street, or anything else where you aren't very close to the subject I doubt the 110 will have any significant advantages over the 100.<br>

For my GS-1 kit I have the 50, 65, 100, 150 and 200. I'm not sure I need anything as long as the 250 since I mostly use my GS-1 for handheld work.</p>

[fernando_rei]

<p>Hi:<br /> Thank you for your opinions. Jim, I was quite clear and that was what was suspicious about these two lenses, so I've decided what will be my choices: 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. I think they are sufficient.<br>

Anyway If someone has that two lenses, 100mm and 110 mm Macro, and can show the photos of the same subject taken by them, I was grateful, if it were possible, show that. Have researched in the net and can not find anything ...<br>

Thanks<br>

Fernando Rei</p>

[richard baznik]

<p>My GS-1 system is the same as Jim Peterson's -- 50, 65, 100, 150, and 200mm lenses. I looked at the 110 macro, but chose to pick up 18mm and 36mm extension tubes instead. It's cheaper (or at least it was) and provides more flexibility.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>Late to this thread but perhaps someone is searching for information.<br>

Bought a GS-1 a number of years ago after having used ETRSi's since the 90's. <br />Have had both the 100mm and 110mm. Have no qualm with the optical quality<br /> of either PG optic in regards to sharpness. Frankly, using a 4x loupe<br /> I cannot tell the difference between either and the Mamiya 7 Rangefinder 80mm lens. <br />I usually shoot stopped down at around f16 so diffraction plays a role but I have been <br />impressed the Bronica 6x7 SLR optics in regards to resolving power. However, I sold the 100mm because it DISTORTS to a degree I found unacceptable. Much worse than just about any lens I have ever <br />owned. It was awful!!! This is the major difference. <br>

Hope this helps. </p>