Follow up re: Mamiya TLR Black vs. Chrome Lenses

[morthcam]

This isn't actually a question -- back in MFD Vol 7 #1 (1/14/97) I posted a question about the difference in Mamiya black and chrome lenses. I want to share what I learned from several responses with the rest of the MFD readership.

 

<p>

 

First of all, there were no complaints about the picture-taking quality of the chrome lenses. All chrome lense users reported sharp, excellent results. The significant difference is the shutters -- the chrome are Seikoshka, the black are Seiko. Mamiya no longer supports the Seikoshka shutters -- no more spare parts. As Glenn Stewart pointed out to me, it's not much of a savings to buy a less expensive chrome lens and then have to buy another one in a year's time if the shutter fails. As a long-term investment, the chrome lenses are a riskier choice.

 

<p>

 

So I let my local used-camera dealer (Eastern Camera in Beltsville Maryland) know I was looking for a black 180, and just today they found a practically mint 180 Super, complete with case, sportsfinder mask, and chrome filter thread guards for me. I haven't actually taken a picture with it yet but will do so very soon.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again to all the respondents who helped me make the right decision.

[mike_regish]

I didn't know about the shutters. I was told that the main difference between the chrome and black was that the chrome were not multi coated and the black were multi coated.

[morthcam]

You can get more information on the user forum on the Mamiya site at www.mamiya.com. It's a great web site; Mamiya technical people check in and answer questions and lots of Mamiya fans (and more than a few TLR fanatics) put in their $.02 worth.

[harry_liston]

I doubt if there's any difference optically between the lenses, but the older governors were made from steel instead of brass. These shutters are hard on thier governor mechanisms, and the newer governors won't fit in the older shutters. I use the older chrome lenses because I like taking risks, and because I don't use them that much.

[frans_van_de_camp___]

Hello,

 

<p>

 

As I used Mamiya C220 and C330 cameras for years I have gathered some information on these TLR's. As far as I know, the construction of the lenses remained unchanged throughout the years. I used the 3,5/65 mm, which was very good, the 4,5/135, which was fair and the 6,3/250 which was awful. To get some sort of a decent shot you had to stop down to f 16 and the result was still poor; the lenses can't be made faster because there are two together on the lensplate. If the lensopenings were to be made larger, the lenses would have to be put wider apart and this is impossible.

To get back to your question, there were two versions of the 180 mm lens, a normal and a Super one. Make sure you get the Super 180, because it has much less distorsion. Apart from this addition and the finish in black instead of chrome, no development was put into these lenses, as far as I know.

I was really fond of my Mamiya cameras but found them quite cumbersome to use. Nevertheless, it was a very interesting and unique design.

I now own a Pentax 67, which makes better use of the film format. The lenses are much better, and much faster too.

Crisp from corner to corner.

 

<p>

 

I hope to have rendered some useful information.

Frans

[eugene_crumpler]

My chrome 105 bit the dust this weekend. Put it in the junk pile. I have losy luck buying used. I'll go new all the time or just not have it! Any one willing to pay a few bucks for parts?

[david_mcsparron]

Does anyone know anything about Lippische TLR's. In particular the Optipet camera.

I believe Lippische also made the Rollop and the Flexora TLR's.

Ther are/were? a German company.