Mamiya 645 lens 210 f4 'C' type - Yuk!

[peter_robinson2]

I've just bought a 210 f4 'C' type lens for my 645. I'm disappointed

to say the least.

 

It suffers from very noticeable pin cushioning and the bokeh is

terrible. It particularly suffers with off axis, out of focus points

which become eliptical.

 

Has anyone else seen similar problems or is this just a bad example

(it's second hand but looks in good condition so I've no reason to

suspect damage of any kind). Also, can anyone confirm the 'N' version

is any better.

[moses_sparks]

Peter,

 

I used to shoot the 645 PRO TL system, and my 210 was an N version...it had none of the problems you describe and performed very well.

 

When I was researching the system before buying I read a lot of opinions regarding C versus N series lenses, some of them said the changes were merely cosmetic, others maintained that the N versions were updated optical formulas and considerably better than the older lenses.

 

I cannot confirm or deny either argument, but since I bought all 5 of my lenses new, they were the latest versions, and I had absolutely no complaints about the optical quality of any of them. They compared very well to Pentax 67 and Hasselblad lenses I have also owned.

 

(My system included 35/3.5, 55 leaf, 80 leaf, 150 leaf, and 210/4 lenses).

 

Since you're unhappy with the lens you bought anyway, why not return it and try the newer version? Then you can see for yourself what the differences are. Reputable dealers like B&H generally have a 10-14 day period in which you can return an item if unhappy with it.

 

Good luck.

[steve_levine]

It sounds like your lens may be out of whack.I worked with a portrait shooter that used the 210mm N for all his studio stuff.We routinely blew negs up to 11x14 ,and 16x20.I'd have the lens checked by a qualified repair shop.

[peter_robinson2]

Thanks for your answers. You've convinced me to change it for a 'N' type. The dealer has agreed to take the 'C' type back.

[peter_robinson2]

Well I got the 'N' type and, to be honest, it isn't much better. It still has pincushioning, though maybe not quite so severe, and it still sufferes with out of focus points bcoming eliptical at the edge of the frame. I think this is due to vignetting within the lens somewhere. There is also vignetting which ocurs at the exit aperture of the rear of the lens which can also be seen in out of focus points beeing truncated by a straight edge near to the edge of the frame.

Basicaly, I think this is a bad design.

[kowens]

By any chance, do you leave your film in the camera for more than a day or two? I've heard that if you leave your film in for any length of time you will get insufficient flatness. I could be wrong, I'm not an expert. It's just what I've heard through the grapevine.

[peter_robinson2]

Hi Keith

 

Thought this thread had died years ago.

 

I don't think film flatness was an issue here though it can be. The film bends quite sharply around the rollers in the film back and I can believe leaving the film in that position could then cause problems with flatness on the next frame, at least. I also had problems with TMY (Tmax 400) film a few years ago with leaving the film mid roll. The stress on the film where it bent around the rollers caused the film to fog. Kodak, at the time, admitted this could happen but called it a 'feature' of the film. I changed to Ilford and had no more problems.

 

As far as the 210 is concerned, I came to quite like the lens and, despite what I originally said, the bokeh of the lens is actually quite good. It does suffer with some problems when wide open but close it down a stop or two and it's fine.

 

Ironically, I haven't used the lens or camera for some time and it may be about to go on my list for disposal.