Affordable Wide-Angle

[morthcam]

I was warned that once I started shooting with MF I wouldn't be happy with 35mm, and they were right. But I miss my 24mm lens (in 35mm format), and none of the lenses for a Mamiya TLR gets very wide.

 

<p>

 

So I'm looking for a solution to going wider in MF; the problem is my budget tops out at around $1000 (maybe stretch to $1200?). So the Mamiya 7 with the 43 are out, as is the Hasselblad SWC, or an RB with a 50 lens (which would be my first choice). The Fuji GSW690 fits in the budget (used), but I think it wouldn't be quite as wide as I'd like.

 

<p>

 

A Mamiya Universal with a 50 lens would work -- especially with a 6x9 back, I could make a pretty good panoramic shot by cropping (in effect, a 3x9 negative).

 

<p>

 

What are some other options in my price range? Thanks for your advice.

[martin_f._melhus]

Another option to consider, that wouldn't be quite as wide, but might

cost a lot less, is a Koni-Omega camera with the 58 or 60 mm lens.

Used (the only way to get these now,) the camera and WA lens should

run about $450-650, depending on condition.

 

<p>

 

I don't have any direct experience with these cameras (although

one should be en route to me via UPS,) so I can't speak directly

of it's strengths and weaknesses for WA.

 

<p>

 

For a comparison of medium format press cameras, check out Mike

Liu's comparison of medium format press cameras (naturally,) at:

 

<p>

 

http://web.mit.edu/mliu/web/medformat/medpresscompo.html

 

<p>

 

Good luck,

[jack_chase]

The FUJI GSW690 has a 60 mm lens, which equates to approximately a little wider than a 28 mm lens in the 35mm format. The Fuji is bulky, but surprizingly light. It also has the advantage of the same dimension ratio as the 35mm format (2:3). The lens itself is incredibly sharp and contrasty. The camera is a rangefinder, which takes some getting used to if you have been shooting exclusively with SLRs. Closest focus distance is 1 meter. With 120 film, you only have 8 exposures to a roll. (16 with 220) It is also more difficult to get 6x9 prints processed, unless you do it yourself. Oh, but love those big negs and transparencies!! Finally, if you shoot transparencies, don't expect to be able to project them, but they sure look good on a light table, assuming you shot a good image to start with. I like the Fuji for my landscape work, but use Hassies and studio 4x5 for work. (Portrature, weddings, proms, etc.)

[sheldon_hambrick]

Hey Mat. You�re in the exact same predicament as I am. I also a have a Mamiya C33 with a65mm, which is not nearly wide enough. I had a Mamiya Universal with a 65mm, but STUPIDLY got rid of it (all I would have had to do was but the 50mm)! I have about $1200 to spend max also. The Fuji is on my short list. The good lens and a plus, but the fixed lens is a minus. IF you can find a deal, you might also consider a Pentax 6x7 with a 45mm lens (equal to about a 24mm in 35mm). I know that�s a big if. Good luck. Let me know what you decide.

[mark_hubbard]

You might look for something with a 47mm Super Angulon and a roll film back (especially 6x9), whether a view camera, a tech, a modified press, a dedicated WA (like the Calumets), or other odd-balls and dedicated units made along the way. The adjustments of such a camera also help to ameliorate the negative effects of wide angle, such as trees leaning into or out of the scene. I have shot extensively with the 50 on the RB, and after that the 55 on the C330 really doesn't seem like enough. So I really know what you mean. Good luck and let me know what works, Mark.

[j.hein___2]

Fuji also does 645 rangefinders with a 45mm lens. This also corresponds to an 28mm in 135 format. In my view it has the advantage

that you can put the outcome in the same projector/enlarger as the TLR results. Even a lot of pro labs have trouble printing 6x9 negs/slides.

 

<p>

 

There is an older all mechanical version (no range finder) but exposure meter and the newer AF version. But I am afraid again it is not as wide as a 24mm in 135. But this is what I have in mind as an afordable solution for the day I want a wider angle of view than the 55mm in 6x6.

 

<p>

 

Other things to look at might be 645 SLRS with a lens of 35 to 40 mm. I am afraid, this is also not realy cheap.

[dave_jenkins1]

Some years ago, in the late '80s, I put together an outfit exclusively for wide angle use. It was a Mamiya Universal body with a 6x9 roll-film back and a 50mm lens and viewfinder. It was great! I wish I still had it. A photographer friend borrowed it frequently and kept pestering me to sell it to him, so I finally did. That was a mistake I still regret. It was a big klutz and slow to handle, but it did a great job and could be used hand-held or on a tripod. I remember one job in particular, where I had go up in a cherry-picker to photograph a business jet on the runway apron. If you could find a similar outfit, I think you would like it. However, if I were to assemble a wide-angle outfit today, I think I would get a Pentax 6x7 with a 45mm lens if I could possibly afford it. Good luck! You can't go wrong with the Mamiya U & the 50.

[william_f._robinson]

I suggest you check out the wide-angle cameras of 1960s-70s vintage, especially the Brooks-Plauble Veriwide 100 and ithe later LARGER

[william_f._robinson]

I suggest you check out the wide-angle cameras of 1960s-70s vintage, especially the Brooks-Plauble Veriwide 100 and ithe later LARGER Brooks Veriwide (with Mamiya back). I have one of the earlier Veriwide 100s, cost is about your budget price with 21mm Leica finder. It produces 56x91mm negatives using a 47mm f8 Super Angulon. This is equivalent to an 18.5mm lens in 35mm camera terms. It is coat pocketable, hand holdable, and the negative is so large that I can just crop out the bottom on vertical shots. Its a lovely little gem that allows city architectural shots from the hip.

[gary_helfrich1]

If wide is the most important feature that you are looking for, then you will be hard pressed to beat the Mamiya Universal with a 50mm. On the plus side, the 50 is as sharp as any modern MF lens. On the minus side, it is not that contrasty, and is prone to flare. I have both the Mamiya with a 50, and a Fuji GSW690III. If the Fuji is wide enough for the shot, it is the camera of choice. The only time that I use the Mamiya is when I need the coverage.

 

<p>

 

The Fuji is faster to handle, and does not have the light leak problems that the Mamiya is plagued with. Don't get me wrong, I like the Mamiya, and would never get rid of it. If someone told me that I could only have one camera, it would be the Fuji.

[morthcam]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I was amazed at the number of emails I got with opinions and stories of what worked for you -- even an offer to sell a Brooks Veriwide if I was interested.

 

<p>

 

My local used camera store suggested that they could find a clean RB67 Pro and a non-C 50 lens in my price range; I think I'll save a little more money and try for an RB67 with a 50 C lens. Although sometimes that Brooks Veriwide looks awfully appealing too......

 

<p>

 

Decisions, decisions. Again, many thanks to all for your help.

[sheldon_hambrick]

Hey Matt, what's the diference between the non-C 50m and the C lens for the RB67?

Thanks

[morthcam]

The "C" lens is coated; the non-C is the same optically and mechanically but without the coatings. I'd be kind of leery of a non-coated wide angle lens; difficult to keep all the sources of flare out of the picture.

[john_munro]

The Mamiya 50mm non-"C" lens is indeed a single-coated lens. My business has this lens and its "C" multi-coated counterpart. Both exhibit identical flare tendencies which are quite reasonable. The only significant difference I have been able to measure between these lenses is that the "C" lens transmit more light and is an effective 1/3 f/stop faster. Hope this helps.

[morthcam]

I started this thread and thought I'd let anyone who was interested know what I ended up with. I got a used Mamiya RB67 Pro and a 50 (non-C) lens for a little over my budget, but who sticks to their budget anyway?

 

<p>

 

I got the lens just before my vacation, and just got the pictures back. I made a serious mistake; I usually shoot slide film, but shot prints this time. So I'm trying to evaluate a new lens on media I don't use that often. The pictures with the light source behind the camera look good; sharp, reasonable contrast, good colors. (Of course, much of that is at the mercy of the printer; part of my mistake). I used Reala, as it has a good rep for landscapes (although I've read a couple of posts terming it a low-contrast film. I'm too inexperienced with it to be able to judge for myself.)

 

<p>

 

But the pictures with the light source -- early morning sun, bright overcast -- in or near the picture have very poor contrast. The pop I expected isn't there. Is it the shift from slides to prints, the printer, or the lens? Since the pictures with the light behind work much better, I'm inclined to say that this lens doesn't handle flare too well. Which is not a good thing for a wide-angle landscape lens.

 

<p>

 

So I'll have a couple of the negs reprinted, do some more shooting on slides, and get some advice and see what I can get out of the lens under what conditions. Any comments?

[paul_wilson2]

If you look around a lot and are lucky, you might find a Pentax 67 for about $650 and a 45 for about $600. This might be tough to find but is worth the extra money.

[michael_heal]

<p>

Prints do look a lot different than slides. Generally, slides give more <em>pop</em> because the backlighting allows more contrast. Also, I think almost all slide film is higher in contrast and has more saturation than Reala. You'd probably be much better evaluating the lens with one of your usual slide films. With print film, be sure to look at the negatives, not just the prints.</p?

<p>

Don't know if you already have one, but if not your next best investment is undoubtedly a lens hood. Except when all the light is coming from behind me, they often yield substantial improvement in my pictures, even though all but one of my lenses are multi-coated! Many wide-angle lenses are prone to flare, so you may well find that carefully shading your lens solves your problem.</p>