Bronica PS 180mm f/4.5

[R Jeezy]

<p>There is very little information on this lens around, so I figured I would share a few of my initial experiences with it.<br>

<br>

I managed to pick up one of these for a steal over the Christmas season on the auction site - they don't seem to turn up often, and are often quite pricey when they do - much more so than most of the other SQ lenses (although since then a few have popped up for somewhat reasonable prices). Anyway I managed to score one in exquisite shape from a Japanese seller, and with the warmer weather I finally had a chance to try it out.</p>

<p>The lens design interests me - there is a lot of glass inside this thing; much more than most of the other lenses in the SQ lineup. Moreover, it has a rear plano-convex lens (I think) which stays stationary while the rest of the elements appear to move as a unit when focusing. Its Hasselblad counterpart is half a stop faster, but only focuses to 1.55 meters and only has 5 elements as opposed to 9 (and lacks the stationary rear element).<br>

<br>

<img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/jonesr101/180mm_zpsmievtkpg.png" alt="" width="571" height="294" /><br>

<br>

I've never had the chance to try the Hasselblad lens, but it strikes me that the extra 55cm of close focusing would be pretty handy for portraiture (which is why I bought this lens, but have not had a chance to use it for yet). Yet its closest PS counterpart, the 135mm, also focuses to 1 meter but lacks the stationary rear element and simply focuses as a unit. I've never really seen a lens design like this before. Perhaps some form of close focusing correction? Interestingly, looking at one of the last Bronica price lists from Tamron, the 180 was the most expensive lens in the entire lineup other than the fisheye and the 500mm with fluorite elements.<br>

<br>

There is one post on another forum stating that the PS 180mm was actually made by Schneider for Bronica, but I find this hard to believe as the other lenses Schneider made for Bronica were still branded as Schneider.</p>

<p>Anyway enough with lens design, here are some obligatory boring shots to show off sharpness and other stuff. They are Coolscan 9000 files from my local lab at max output 16 bit TIFF, converted to JPG in Lightroom; hopefully the google drive links work if anybody wants to download the files and have a closer look (warning: they are large). All were shot on Velvia 50; the shot of Parliament was with a B+W UV MRC filter and the tulips were with a B+W KR 1.5 MRC filter (it was quite overcast that day).<br>

<br>

At infinity:<br>

<br>

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwumg4QW6jZrUkZjSzVWek5HeEk/view?usp=sharing<br>

<br>

100% crop:<br>

<br>

<img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/jonesr101/infinity%20100_zpshihhcw5o.png" alt="" /><br>

<br>

At close focusing distances:<br>

<br>

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwumg4QW6jZrWk0tRmZ6eHdjNFE/view?usp=sharing<br>

<br>

100% crop:<br>

<br>

<img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/jonesr101/closeup%20100%201_zps67j7vdho.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwumg4QW6jZrNnl4eFZXQVp2QlU/view?usp=sharing</p>

<p>100% crop:</p>

<p><img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/jonesr101/closeup%20100%202_zpsnuoiq4bu.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>The shot of the clock tower was at F/8; the first tulip shot was between F/16-F/22 and the second tulip shot was at F/22. It's possible diffraction is taking away from sharpness by this point, but both shots needed as much depth of field as possible. For portraiture I would not be as close (the first tulip was literally at 1 meter distance) and would figure around F/8-F/11 would give good results while still giving pleasant out of focus effects to the background.</p>

<p>There is noticeable vignetting going on with the clock tower shot which is interesting, considering it was shot stopped down to what I would think would be a normal working aperture. Perhaps this lens is optimized for close focusing work? It certainly seems geared towards that; the PS 150 and PS 200 both have way simpler designs, and do not focus nearly as closely as this lens.</p>

<p>Anyway I would love to hear any input from others who have used this lens; I have only had time to use this thing twice so far but I'm pretty excited to use it more in the future!</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I got the 135/4 PS not too long ago and I like it. It also has closer focusing than the 150/3.5 S or 150/5 PS lenses. The 135 makes a nice two lens combo with the 65/4 PS. The 135 and 180 PS and PE lenses do not show up that often. I wonder how long they were in production. I have the 105/3.5 S and MC (E) lenses. They work well for portraits even if they re not quite as long as the typical portrait lenses for these formats. The 105 focal length did not make it to PE or PS form. I consider the 180mm focal length a little long for portraits in 6X45 or 6X6 formats so I will look for a 135 PE before I look for either 180. </p>

[R Jeezy]

<p>I have the 135 too, and I agree it makes a great walkabout lens. But I found although it's great for head and shoulders shots, it can't quite get in enough for a tight headshot, so I sought out the 180.</p>

<p>How do you like the 65? I want to pick one up eventually and it seems to be very well regarded.</p>

[peter_fowler]

<p>Jeff, I have in my hand the PE-105 macro lens for the ETR series. Peter</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I like the 65. I found that when I carried the usual 50/80/150 combination the 50 was a little too wide and the 150 didn't let me get closer unless I also carried an extension tube or close-up lens. My macro lens for the ETR series cameras is the older 100/4 and I also have the early Auto Bellows. The 50 is my widest lens for the SQ cameras. If I know I will need something wider I will use the GS-1 instead, with the 50/4.5. I have used the Teleconverter S a few times with a 150 to get closer and also used the combination with an extension tube. The faster 150/3.5 is easier to focus with this combination. The results were good if I stopped down a little but a strong tripod is needed for all that weight. </p>

[R Jeezy]

<p>Thanks for the feedback Jeff. Most of my shooting in any format is with normal or short tele lenses (for the SQ-Ai I have the 80, 135, and 180) but I find myself wanting a moderate wide to try some interior work, or just to bring to social functions when the occasion rises. The 65 roughly corresponds to a 35mm lens on 35mm, which I always found perfect for that stuff so I'll probably keep an eye out for one at a good price down the road. Conveniently my hood for the 80mm will also double nicely for the 65, so that's one less piece of gear to try to hunt down.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>" I've never really seen a lens design like this before."<br>

Nor have I. The 3 air spaced elements in front of the stop are pretty common in longer Double Gauss designs. The 6 elements behind the stop are what make it different from anything I've seen. This unique design does not fit into any category that I have seen. </p>

[R Jeezy]

<p>Yes, it's a really strange design, and the stationary rear element is also something I've never come across. I wonder if the focal length changes as you get closer to minimum focusing distance with this lens, as I don't see how it could remain constant while the rest of the lens moves farther away from that rear element.<br>

Now that I look around, this seems to be popular with Canon for their ultrafast lenses - their current 85mm f/1.2 and their old 50mm f/1.0 both have stationary plano-convex rear elements. Both also allow for relatively close focusing.<br>

<br />EF 85mm f/1.2L II<br>

<img src="http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac312/r_ln_j/Canon-EF-85mm-f1.2-L-II-USM-diagram_zpsbp5f4cqe.gif" alt="" width="261" height="241" /><br>

EF 50mm f/1.0L<br>

<img src="http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac312/r_ln_j/50mm%20f1_zps27xb16dv.gif" alt="" width="293" height="261" /></p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>"I wonder if the focal length changes as you get closer to minimum focusing distance" Yes, the focal length does increase as you move to focus on closer objects. This is because the rays entering the lens are not parallel as when at infinity focus but diverging when entering the lens. Therefore the focal length has to be longer to accommodate this. That stationary element may be considered a floating element and if so, they are used to better correct spherical aberration in close focus situations. The two cross sections are highly modified Double Gauss designs that are pretty wild looking. </p>

[david_smith35]

<p><em>"The 65 roughly corresponds to a 35mm lens on 35mm"</em><br>

Not really. The 50mm lens is a closer match to the 35mm lens on 35mm format, if one compares the horizontal angles of view.</p>

[mark_tate]

<p>I have had several Bronica SQ cameras in the past and did many weddings with them in the 90s, had almost every lens made for them. The PS 80 is the highest resolving lens in the range but there was very little difference between them. My most used was the PS 110 Macro, it was so incredibly sharp and very versatile and far better than the 135mm or 150mm lens as well as the closest focusing. <br /> I did not have the PS 180 but I had a PS 40, PS 50, PS 80, PS 110 macro, PS 150, S 200, S 250 and an S 500,. all lenses were excellent performers and the cameras were as tough as tanks. I also had a zoom but it was not a genuine Bronica lens, forget who made it now but it was not that great of a lens either, seen a few on eBay from time to time at stupidly high prices.<br /> I got a lot of my stuff new and it was incredibly expensive stuff by todays standards with an average price of $10,000 per lens in Australia in the late 90s.<br /> It was impossible to visually tell the difference between Bronica SQ and Hassleblad quality at any print size and I have done countless comparisons, the best print would be done by the best printer regardless of camera or who thinks what camera is the best, I think if it come down to the numbers the Hassleblad would win but it is just not something you can see without scientific analysis and equipment.<br /> I can however at a glance tell an SQ negative from a hassleblad or any other 6x6 negative :)<br /> You will find the performance of the PS 180 to be as good as any other SQ lens of either PS or the older S lenses, I have used both extensively and really could never tell that much difference. The PS handled flare a lot better being the only real noticeable difference. I had several S lenses stolen and replaced them with PS and could not pick the difference in prints.<br /> My best choice for a lens when you only can take one lens would always be for the PS 110 Macro, there were two versions of this lens, one was a true 1:1 macro and had a 77mm filter thread, this is a very rare lens, and the other was not a true 1:1 and had a 67mm filter thread and is more common and the one that I had, it was very close focusing of around 250mm from memory and extension rings where also made so if you wanted you could focus as close as you wanted.<br /> I stopped using Bronica cameras years ago as they got to heavy and I wanted larger formats, for MF all I use now is Fuji 6x9 rangefinders. <br /> There comes a time when you just have to much gear over complicating every simple act, all I shoot with now is two 6x9 rangefinders and a 4x5 with a 90mm and 210 mm lens. when I had Bronica gear I had 4 large Pelican cases :)</p>

<p>BTW Bronica stopped production around 2001- 2002 if I remember right. The PS range of lenses started around 1998 as an update from the S lenses. ( I am pulling this from memory but I am around right ) <br>

The first body was the SQ then the SQ-A and then along with the PS range of lenses was the SQ-Ai, all PS or S lenses are compatible with any body.<br>

The PS lenses are not compatible with the PE ETR lenses, the ETR was by comparison a much smaller and far cheaper camera with no where near the optical performance of the SQ. </p>

[peter_fowler]

<p>^ I bet you said that to get the ETRSI owners jumping up and down ! Peter</p>

[mark_tate]

<p>HAHAHAHAHA of course :)</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I've never really seen a lens design like this before. Perhaps some form of close focusing correction?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the optical diagrams of all the Mamiya 645 lenses, and the only one which looks something like the PS 180/4.5 above is the 120/4 A macro - the similarities are in the number and distribution of elements (both have 9 in total, distributed 3 in front of the aperture stop and a whopping 6 behind it). This lends some support to your thinking that this Bronica lens was designed with close focus in mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Moreover, it has a rear plano-convex lens (I think) which stays stationary while the rest of the elements appear to move as a unit when focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's interesting, and may also tally with the need to deliver high performance across a wide range of focus distances. Apart from the three zoom lenses, three of the M645 prime lenses had a "floating system" of elements/groups which automatically moved independently of the others: the 35/3.5 and 35/2.8 wideangles, and the 80/4 macro. Mamiya stated that this gave better correction of the edges of the field at closer focus distances.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Nearly all lenses are corrected for spherical aberration at infinity and with the addition of a floating element (especially in wide lenses), allows them to perform well at close distances as well. In macro lenses, they are corrected for this aberration at close distances, so the use of a floating element there, assures infinity spherical correction. </p>