john_rogers3

My friend did a side by side with hassy and bronica sq series MC

lenses, and said that bronica was better than hassy, and that the MC

lenses were better than the new PE ones due to the purity of the raw

silica and materials with older lenses and that the newer series raw

materials came from a different source that was not as pure. he did

resolution tests and subjective tests, side by side, same lighting,

same focal lengths, same film and same lab. I was shocked to hear

that.

he also said zeiss CT* lenses were better optically than the newer

CFT series. that i could immediately agree with. the eearlier CT*

lenses with the B50 front filter mounts are really nice, i use them

extensiveley and find them better optically than the newer CFT

series, EXCEPT that some newer lenses are beter against flaring, ie

the 120mm CFi but aside from that one issue, the actual glass is more

pure in older lenses. Too old again gets into design issues and

technology. for hassey, CT* is generally the ticket, 40,50, 60, 80,

100, 180, even the 250. The "dinosaur" C series 100 and 150 are

absolutely superb lenses, and are over 25 yrs old!

anyway, I just wanted to share this with bronica user. He did say

there were some exceptions where newer lens designs had significant

design improvements, and they would be an exception due to superior

design, but added that the vast majority of MC bronica lenses had

achieved the same level of design excellence as the pe series. It s a

facinating thing to me. He kept emphasizing how it was the actual

silica sand source, the raw cobalt and fluorite etc in the older

lenses that was much better, and that as time went on, the locations

wheere lens makers were extracting raw materials got exhausted (for

zeiss it was this little beach in italy) , and less pure sources were

the only option for them to get the raw materials to create their

optics. I hear many praise newer lenses and critisize older series,

and I always thought they are hallucinating, as even my ancient hassy

150mm C lens takes the best images of any of my lenses. Anyway, food

for thought. john rogers

Hey Jeff,

I have a 1000s, and i just bought a 70mm LS lens. what do i set my body at

when using the LS shutter to sync with flash? I was a bit confused about the

discussion is this thread about X vs fp or something like that. I figured if i

have my pc connection plugged into the lens shutter, and my body shutter was

set at 1/8th of a sec, that all would be well. pls clarify what was meant by

X vs pf or whatever it was. thanks, john

I like my mamiya 645 a lot. It is like a tank! I use it as a backup for my hassey

systems that sure screw up more than i'd care to admit, even though they are

rebuilt and impeccably maintained. I do prefer the hassey look for sure. I

would recommend a leaf shutter lens for your mamiya for two reasons,

actually three. 1.) you will need it badly at certain times 2.) if shooting with

a bright background and your subjects are in the shade, you will need it to

make your customers happy ie blue sky withproperly exposed bdgd and subject.

3.) you can use faster shutter sync with flash to control depth of field in a

shot, and you cant really do that too easily any other way. I got a 70mm leaf

shutter lens for $300. that is in excelent cond. It is a older variety, but it

works wonders as a backup for my more frail hassey gear, which i do love, but

hate when it jams or breaks down.....

Thanks for that info. It sounds a little more frail than the original crank. Does

it attach by turning it clockwise and snapping into place? can you pls explain

why its different than the original crank arm. I noticed the pro crank has a

little locking lever, but that crank has a totallly different fitting than

M645 or 1000s. Does this new one not snap snugly into place? I cant imagine

having to baby something that is constantly being turned. obviously not your

fault, but wondering if you could elaborate more on that. I am very familiar

with the subject, but not with the new replacement crank. I am glad you seem

satisfied with it. thanks, john

the person who rebuilt the body is Ernst Weegan, factory trained and certified

hasselblad tech

for 40 + yrs,one of only a handful in america. i think he basically knows what

he is doing, but i think perhaps

there is something he missed. we are all human, arent we?? i talked to him

and several others today, and

nobody has ever heard of such a slip happening. it is really a scarey thing.

so i sent it back to him wiht the back that was on at the time this happened.

can we limit responses to what may have caused the problem? thanks, john

lastly, the two times this happened was with two different film backs, so i

think that rules out the film back being the problem. everything seems tight

with my second body. john

twice the following has happened with my recently rebuilt 500 C/M,

I go to advance the film to next shot, and the gear that connects from

body to film back gear actually slips!!!!! I can feel the sudden lack of

resistance in the crank, and then the crank siticks half way thru cycle.

everythng is jammed. I was able to hand wind the film and take out the

film without exposing the shots that were successful, then the crank spins

making a weird sound, not connected to the gear in film back, so at least

I could take off the lens, but i cannot get the film back off, that mechanism

from body is totally jammed. anyone ever had this happen to you? what causes

it, is it a part inside \body that needs replacement? this is most discouraging

to say the least. how can i get the film back off of the worthless body so i

can send it in for repair?? thanks for your help, everyone!! john

bob,

do you think that if i shoot within 10 feet of subject, i wouldnt need a

rear glass prism screen for accurate focus. I like to use wide angle lenses

close to subject sometimes. thanks for the input. john

I have the opportunity possibly to purchase a very nice biogon, non-T* chrome.

How the hell does one focus this lens with any certainty that it will actually

be in focus. I cant understand why it doesnt have a split focus viewfinder.

I can imagine the DOF is amazing, but it is a little nerve wracking to measure

distance and trust that all will be in sharp focus. I hear the chrome 38 is still

an amazing, sharp and low distortion lens. anyone experienced in this subject?

Thanks in advance, John

Kornelius,

thanks for your reply. I mostly intend to use it for portraiture where i want

to distance myself from subject, or when i want the compresion increase

inherent with the 250 vs the 150. From all i have heard, the hassey 250 in

any shape or form is tricky to use, good results are achieved with very

carefully executed effort, and a very steady tripod, perfectly aligned focus

screen and lens elements, etc. My professional friend

owns a CT* version, and doesnt like it as much as his 180. he says that

hand held portraits render uncertain results with the 250, that one has to use

a tripod

for sure. He like I enjoy the flexibility and spontanaiety of hand held shooting.

He loves the 180 handheld, but wishes he had the magnification of the 250,

and just does not like the 250 very much. He explains that telephoto lenses

with medium format are not like 35mm telephotos at all. Much more critical

in terms of body and lens alignment, movement per magnification, etc. ie

a lens comparable to the 250 medium format lens in 35mm is super easy to

hand hold, and is not anywhere near as unpredictable or uncertain. Its all an

education to me. I may end up getting the mamiya 300 f5.6 ULD lens, another

friend owns one, and says it is very nice with LD glass, and light in weight

so easier to hand hold and shoot. I'm open to what you have to say. Thanks

again, Kornelius. wish the Zeiss site was in english! john rogers

I have decided i want to buy a hasselblad 250mm lens

VS a Mamiya 645 300mm ULD lens for many reasons,

mostly due to hasselblad's leaf shutter for outdoor portraiture.

Flare problems aside, how much difference optically is there

between the c, CT* and cft ?? I use a 150 C non-T* lens

and love it, even with occaisonal flare problems. Thanks for your

help. I bought a mamiya 645 older body for the purpose of

using their fisheye lens, which is not quite as good as

hasselblad, but i would say it is superb, affordable, and

probably the second best fisheye for mediym format in the world.

Thanks again.

Roger,

I finally was able to try the lens, look thru it on my old 645 1000S

the focusing is quick, but with bright focus screen, its really easy

to focus. It does seem to have less depth of field, backgd gets

blown out quickly, lot of light loss with close up, but I suppose

any lens that allows you to get that close without bellows or

tubes would have to have the exact same performance. My

friend showed me some chromes he shot with the lens. It

looked good, nice perspective with that focal length, man it gets

so much closer than my nikon 105mm macro, it can shoot a

very small object full screen, like 1.5 inches tall object shooting

horizontally with the 645. head and shoulder seems to be not

too close for comfort. everyone i talk to likes the 120 macro on

both mamiya and hassey. the hassey only focuses about 2.5 ft

away, vs 1.3 ft with mamiya. amazing how recessed the ft

element is on the mamiya, seems like that might have solved

the flare problems that the hassey had on earlier versions.

anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge! John

Roger,

just talked to a friend who owns the lens, and you are correct about

f stop loss. I just never heard of that, I use my nikon 105 macro

and there is no such compensation. how do your pics look like when

you focus at infinity, any flatness or distortions that you can

notice? How do you like the results when shooting at say 10-15 ft, and

is the depth of field less than on say a normal 120 or 150 med format

lens? I have heard that it nicely blows out the background on a head

and shoulders portrait more than with a 150mm standard lens. thanks,

John good thre

thanks to both of you for sharing your experience with the lens. It

seems unfortunate that such a small change in focus ring causes such

a huge change in focus. If it is hard to focus accurately past 5 ft.,

is it really a useful lens for non-macro work?? Is it hard to focus on

a full-body shot at 15 ft. or so? and is the loss of light sequential

when focusing at minimum distance, one of you mentioned that when

shooting at 1:1, you lose 2.5 stops, is there loss of light when

shooting a little further away at say 2.5 ft? how does one know if

shooting without metered prism? that is a major bummer in my book.

Do you like the results with this lens, and how do you manage all of

these problems, and the vignetting at infinity, I dont think the

hassey 120 has that problem at all. Hmm. any feedback on this would

be most appreciated. J

I have heard so many glowing remarks about this lens. I understand

it can focus as close as 1.3 feet, and give one to one reproduction.

How does it perform focusing at infinity, and how does it

compare to hassey 120 CFI in these ways and in flaring, which i hear

so many mention as a problem. It seems by all accounts to be an

outstanding lens, with ED glass. anyone have experience using this

lens? It seems as though it is an ideal all-purpose lens for in the

field macro work without tubes/bellows, ideal for full-body portraits

and close up portraiture.

is there any benefit to medium format macro with tiny objects? I

understand 1:1 is the same image size on the film negative, regardless

of format. am I correct on that? any recommendations? I own a fairly

extensive hassey system, and bought 645 for the fisheye, 35mm and

thinking about the 120 macro and the 300mm APO,. would like to stick

with one system, but I am very impressed with mamiya fisheye, and at

$2500. less than hassey. It is a superb lens in every way. The hassey

remains the mainstay for general photography. thanks for your

thoughts. J

what is the nulmber for maxwell precision optics, do they make a split

focus with grid, and approx how much do they cost? thanks, john

Mike,

thanks for your reply. Products I shoot range from tiny , but are

generally about 2-3" tall, as tall as 6" maybe, small enough that a

regular hassey lens is basically worhless, due to minumum focusing

distance being too far away. what is your experience with the 100mm

lens in the non-macro work i desc above? it seems like i could really

get a lot of goood use out of 100mm, and was wondering if it could be

decent, beter than 80mm with bellows. If i cant shoot anlthing talleer

than 3", I can see where the 120 would be an awesome lens, but a bit

spendy. I corresponded with kornelius several times. He recommended

the CFI with a newer body. the newer body accounts for 50% of the

anti-flaring due to dark, velvety interior VS greyish, more shiny

body interior on 500cm for example. I also spoke with ernst weegan,

my repairman, and he said the flaring problems with non-cfi 120 lenses

is grossly exagerated, adn not even an issue in his mind. so on one

hand kornelius is suggesting to add a late model hassey body to my

arsenal with a CFi 120 makro, and ernst is saying to even get a C 120

makro. that is why I was wondering about the 100mm because it could

be useful in other arenas theat the 120 would be, but not in the field

makro work. I wish I could see first hand before spending all this

money. Maybe i can shoot some with my 80mm or 150mm on bellows and

see what that looks like. I know that a macro lens is engineered for

close-up. part of the equation is that i have a really nice nikon

makro 105mm lens, so i do use that, but want to get into med format

macro with my hassey. I like the fact that the 120 Makro is so

useful in the field without any bellows, as well as being a tack-sharp

portrait lens, and great for larger product shooting at closer

distances (5-20' shooting distance) thanks Mike. j

I am thinking of buying the 100mm CT* lens for general use, full-body

and waist-up kind of shots, aerial work, archetectural detail, etc.

I understand the lens to be very good for these things, but my

pressing question is, how does it do using a hassey makro bellows

(mine has dual cable release) I am told it was designed to be best not

focusing extrremely close up, that it was designed to shoot from

space at infinity, yet it is virtually distortion free, edge to edge.

anyone use the 100 with bellows for makro work, not serious serrious

makro work, but for clients that are not expecting ad agency quality

necessarily. real world general makro work. thanks for sharing your

experience! I have read threads, but have not come across one that

addresses my question exactly. joh

If i use ND, then lets say bkgd is 1/60 at f22 with asa 400 just

for an example. so subject is effected by ND the same amt of stops,

right? so then Im dealing with an f11 situation as far as flash and

subject are concerned. If im using a camera mounted flash only

without any special equipment, ie no time to do that, if I'm at a

distance of 10 ft, at f22, then my flash will be firing at about 1/2

power, is that going to look OK, considering the time, and not being

able to use umbrellas or softbox? using such gear would necessitate

a very powerful norman or quantum flash, wouldnlt it? my 120j would

not put out enough lite in that scenario, I wouild not think. thanks

for the inpu

how do i fill flash with a sunset bkgd that is 2+ stops brighter than subject (person) with a mamiya 645

that has max flash sync of 1/60th of a sec?? seems like i have to stop down, but is the flash super harsh

at full power or whatever it needs to be at when lens is stopped down radically to properlly expose the

subject enough to balance against bkgd? I dont have this situation with my hassey. i got 645 just to use

fisheye, 35mm and 300 mm lenses, which are good lenses at a great price compared to hassey. mamiya

seems to only make a few leaf shutter lenses, certainly not the fisheye and 300 uld. I'm not sure about the

35mm. any suggestions. thanks in advance. I appreciate this forum. i ask a lot of questions, and get a lot

of valuable info and input. thanks for your patience and help!! John

i am very interested in hearing user comments on the 35mm lens for

mamiya 645, specifically how it handles shooting close to subject,

and how it treats vertical elements such as light poles, shoooting

close to a door way, etc. do the vertical lines curve inward from

bottom to top. also if shooting say a large gp of people, is there

noticeable distortion on the people at the far left and right of the

picture, ie is there noticeable end to end distortion, and how much.

I understand the 45mm is very nice, i was interested in shooting a bit

wider, and am interested in what to expect. My fisheye has all the

distortion i want on vertical lines, so i'm looking for a wide angle

lens like a 35mm meduim format wilth the leasst amt of distortion. I

understand that to get extremely low distortion, one has to use a

special camera body that is very shallow so the lens to film plane is

at a minimum, bodies like hassey SWC or mamiya 7 were specifically

built to accomodate low distortion wide angle lenses. the 645 is not

in this category, but i am curious as to how much distortion the 35mm

lens has. the prospect of using a distortion free wide angle lens

with a MF system is very exciting to me personally. I want the depth

of field and lack of distortion.

thanks in advance,

Vertical distortion is like when you shoot a background with lots of

vertical lines, like trees or light poles, or doorways, the vertical

"members" of the backgd or subject curve inward from bottom to top,

rather than just being straight, like you obviously seee with a

fisheye lens, which has a much greater vertical coverage (usually

close to 180 degrees). end to end distortion is when say you

photograph a large gp of people, and the people on the ends of the pic

show somewhat curved, distorted shoulders. that is due to a lens

exhibiting distortion basically visible at the left and right ends of

the field. The zeiss 100mm lens for hassey is famous for no end to

end distortion. A lens in the 35-45 mm range (Med. format) obbviously

has a much greater potential to show vertical and end to end

distortion. I have heard that the 43mm lens made for the mamiya 7

system, for example, is an extraordinary, distortion free wide angle

lens, and it is very expensive brand new also. I am looking for an

somewhat affordable wide angle lens to use with my 645 that has the

least distortion, so I can shoot close up and not necessarily straight

on with the least possible distortion. My 24mm fisheye gives me the

fisheye look when that is called for, but that is not always called

for with my wide angle photography. I owned a hassey 50 CT* lens that

is sharp as a tack, and reasonably low in distortion, although too

high in end to end distortion for my tastes, but i want at least 45mm,

and most preferably 35mm focal length, so i am very interested in

hearing how the mamiya 35mm lens is, and which version is best in

terms of vertical and end to end distortion, if any. thanks for your

I own a Hassey system with 60mm CT*, 80 cT* and 150 C. I just bought an older 645 1000s for the sole

purpose of buying mamiyas superb 24mm fisheye lens. Now i want to get a wide angle lens or 2 with

as little vertical distortion as possible. any recommendations? I see they make a 35mm, that sounds

enticing, but i dont know how much distortion it has, both end to end and vertical. also the 45 seems

very popular. anyone have a lot of experience with these lenses? Jump on in! thanks! I think the

mamiya fisheye is the absolute sharpest lens i have ever used, and think that the 645 system is a

bargain. I also look forward to using the 645 system with telephoto lenses, like the APO 200mm.

I love my Hasey system, but the specialty lenses that i want are prohibitive in cost, or the older

C lenses, like the 40C are just not great lenses, IMHO. Certain other lenses like the 100mm Zeiss

are truely one of a kind, sharp and made for a very particular purpose.

are the brand new kiev 88 bodies any better now than previous model yrs? any final advice on where to

get body and backs tweaked? I hear generally favorable comments on fisheye with Kiev 88 body. any

opinions ie flair problems, sharpness, consistencey, etc. is the 250mm lens any good? thanks, John

I am hassey user, looking to just use kiev only with fisheye and possibly 250mm. am i gambling with my

reputation by doing this, even if everything is properly tweaked so i dont suffer with light leaks and

poor spacing?? or is that a contradiction in terms?

is this a good thing if i want to warm-up skin tones on fair to medium and oriental complexions?

Can anyone desc. what it looks like. I have only one filter slot for softening, want to warm with gel on flash

if it is a desireable way to go. thanks in advance, John