oskar_ojala

As I would see it, 645 is much more threatened by 35mm-equivalent DSLR's than larger formats (I mean it's hard to argue with the portability, flexibility, features and lens selection with a Canon or Nikon).

 

But it's only a matter of cropping and personal preference. Maybe you could say that it's best to use the format that you crop the least in. Anyway, I don't care much as long as there are 6x6 cameras available in plenty, I find a 4:3 aspect ratio a bit boring in general.

Regarding the posted examples: it would only be natural for a macro to be designed to have good bokeh. My experience with Nikkors make me think that the engineers probably optimized the lenses according to expected usage, eg. I don't remember my 85/1.8 ever behaving badly when shooting portraits at large apertures and my 135/2.8 hasn't caused problems either. But take a 50/1.4 - a Zuiko 50/1.4 if you like - and you'll be much more in the risk zone.

 

So I'd guess that bokeh was a higher priority on portrait lenses than others, a logic I don't find bad at all. You can always do "tricks" to make the bokeh more discrete, eg. choose another aperture, shooting distance, background, (lens :)

<i>Is the Maco 820 easy to use?</i>

 

<p>Yes, if you mean handling. I load it in darkness, but I'm not sure it's necessary. My plastic Paterson tank doesn't cause any fogging or other problems.

This is difficult: a wide-angle lens will stretch the edges to some degree and correction is not as easy as for a 80/2.8 planar. The Björn Rörslett site Mike suggested is a good starting point. If your budget allows, also look at the 17-35/2.8 AF-S, it has a reputation of being excellent.

 

I've used the 24/2.8 AF-D extensively, but not in the conditions you describe. However, I've found that it performs nicely in high-contrast situations (I shoot cityscapes at night and daytime I often shoot with the sun in the frame.)

I've had my 400/5.6 IF ED for some two years. I don't think it was all that expensive compared to new offerings and the 300 mm lenses.

 

Basically, this is a sharp lens, sharp enough even wide open. My main problem with it is keeping it stable for those critical exposures of about 1/15 s, but it sounds like you have this part covered. Other than that, it's nice to handhold and the focusing feel is good. My other problem is taking it with me when I go shooting, but the image quality has not presented any problems whatsoever. I don't think newer designs will be better, maybe a 400/2.8, but that's a different beast.

Last weekend when I looked, B&H also listed E100G. I remember that the price was reasonable.

I've used a chrome 105 mm lens on a C2 (or was it C3? I don't remember) and it was very sharp when stopped down and used properly. If you need more sharpness, I guess you need a larger format. Flare performance and image rendition apart from sharpness wasn't as good as my best Nikkors or a CZ Tessar for a Rolleiflex for that matter, but this was so minor that I wouldn't change brands because of that. So if the Mamiya TLR lenses are like the lens I tried, I'd say they're a pretty good bargain.

I've used both a Mamiya C2 and a Rolleiflex MX for nightscenes on a tripod and had no problems. It isn't harder than focusing a zoom on a 35mm SLR and the night scenes I shoot usually feature some strong contrast that you can focus on. More problematic is that streetlights can cause a lot of glare on a WLF, but it only slows me down a little.

I'll also say go for the TLR! They are completely different than a Rebel 2000 and you'll learn a lot. Get a basic camera and a cable release, it won't cost much and you can have some fun experimenting.