Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mamiya 45mm manual focus  (Read 3188 times)
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« on: April 01, 2013, 11:56:11 PM »
ReplyReply


Could anyone advise which of the two manual focus 45mm for 645 is a better optic
One has 77mm filter thread and the other 67mm

Also is manual focus Mamiya 35mm optically sound enough to handle  the sensor in the Leica S2?

Thanks
Mark
Logged
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2013, 05:06:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I have the 55mm f/2.8 N manual focus, the N series are much better built and newer then the C series glass. The 55mm f/2.8 N is a FAR better lens then the Mamiya 55mm f/2.8 AF lens, the 55mm LS is a whole other story, but the 55mm f/2.8 N is an excellent lens, even the 150mm f/3.5 N is better, the 150mm f/2.8 N is also an excellent lens, but the AF version is also pretty stunning.

and those thoughts are from an 80mp IQ180....and the Leica S2 is well, less demanding..
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 08:00:38 PM by Brian Hirschfeld » Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2013, 12:38:23 AM »
ReplyReply


Thanks Brian.
Received a 55 2.8 N and a 45 2.8N from KEH this week.
The 55 is excellent on the S2 while the 45 is just good. Details just don't have the same tight sharpness
that the 55 or an S lens does.
Unfortunately,after 24 hours the 55 focus ring locked up completely rendering it useless.

Any experiences with the 45mm's?

Mark
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2013, 06:25:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

I had a 45mm C (oldest version, 77mm thread) but I only used it on film, years ago.
It was sharp in the centre (even wide open...this is on film, mind) but aberrations got progressively worse towards the edges and corners. Mainly astigmatism, field curvature and lateral colour...some improvement in the former two on stopping down, but not completely cured.

I now have a 45mm S (67mm thread, middle version between C and N: best of both worlds perhaps as it has the refined optics of the N with the all-metal construction of the C). Used on my 37mm square back [with almost exactly the same image diagonal length as the Leica S], this performs very well indeed. Again, it's sharp in the centre wide open, actually really sharp...while the off-axis performance tails off much more gradually than it did with the C lens. Stopped down, I can't really detect any issues, although I haven't rigorously tested for them.

I haven't used a 45mm N but it is optically the same as this S lens. Coatings might be a tad different.

I have a 55mm N and like Brian says, it's awesomely sharp...but not wide open: a pronounced haze of spherical aberration surrounds a sharp PSF core, robbing the image of contrast, and off-axis there's major astigmatism as well. But take it down to f4 (on a cropped sensor DB or a DSLR) or f5.6 (on full-frame 645) and it's an entirely different performer - the aberrations melt away.

Re. the 35mm manual focus...the optics are unchanged from C to N (only the coatings change). I have the N version. It has an imaging personality rather like the 45mm C above, in terms of aberrations. Field curvature is really noticeable. Stopping down for more DOF tends to hide that. If you are picky, I would say that you are much better off with the (also much faster) Leica 35mm, if you can afford it.

Ray
Logged
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2013, 09:26:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I don't have experience with the 45mm,

I have found the 55mm N sharper then the 55mm AF (non D or LS), but of course as Ray points out its not perfect.

The Leica 35mm was a lens that left an impression on me even from my brief use of it during a demo at the Leica Mayfair stores studio (in London) some years ago.

Slightly off topic question, are the focal lengths provided by Leica for a FF-645 lens of 35mm meaning that with the crop its actually a 43mm lens on a FF-645 or does it mean that its 35mm on a FF-645 so its really a 28mm that they applied the crop factor to for easy conceptual understanding of the focal length of the lens with the crop sensor?
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2013, 12:30:27 AM »
ReplyReply


Thanks Ray,
I have the 45n with 67mm filter.
Decent,as you say, but definitely a notch below the 55mm

Just took delivery of the Mamiya 50 shift. Considerably sharper than the 45mm I have.

For 35mm will definitely be sourcing a Leica S lens.

All that remains,now, from Mamiya is the 200 2.8 and 300 2.8 and when all is said and done
6 mint Mamiya lenses should total less than one S lens Smiley

Thanks again for your help.

Mark

P.S.- Brian,don't know the answer to your S lens question
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2013, 03:18:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Slightly off topic question, are the focal lengths provided by Leica for a FF-645 lens of 35mm meaning that with the crop its actually a 43mm lens on a FF-645 or does it mean that its 35mm on a FF-645 so its really a 28mm that they applied the crop factor to for easy conceptual understanding of the focal length of the lens with the crop sensor?

Grown-up lenses (anything bigger than the fixed lens on a digi P&S) are marked with actual focal lengths, not ridiculous "equivalent" crop-factor ones.

So for the Leica, focal lengths are focal lengths. Whatever is marked in mm on the barrel is what the lens really is.

Therefore, your first scenario is the correct one: a 35mm lens on a 45x30mm sensor gives the same diagonal field of view as a 45mm lens on FF-645 (and a 28mm lens on FF-35mm).

Ray
Logged
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2013, 08:04:43 AM »
ReplyReply

All that remains,now, from Mamiya is the 200 2.8 and 300 2.8 and when all is said and done
6 mint Mamiya lenses should total less than one S lens Smiley

I do need to try the Mamiya 200mm f/2.8 APO .... but in the meantime you can check out my Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 APO review, http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2012/08/21/mamiya-300mm-f2-8-apo-lens-review-with-sample-images-and-comparisons/ and salivate over the fact that I got a Mamiya 500mm f/4.5 APO ~ which I have a review coming of soon, I took both lenses to Costa Rica with me and shot them on my IQ180 with extension tubes and TC's for some really great results at times (with A LOT of effort....and stability).

Grown-up lenses (anything bigger than the fixed lens on a digi P&S) are marked with actual focal lengths, not ridiculous "equivalent" crop-factor ones.

So for the Leica, focal lengths are focal lengths. Whatever is marked in mm on the barrel is what the lens really is.

Therefore, your first scenario is the correct one: a 35mm lens on a 45x30mm sensor gives the same diagonal field of view as a 45mm lens on FF-645 (and a 28mm lens on FF-35mm).

Ray

Thanks,
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2013, 08:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply


Brian,

When using the rear drop in filter slot on the 300 2.8 is it possible to use 'generic'
filters such as a slim line B+ W polarizer with the Mamiya filter holder or is one limited
to Mamiya filters

Thx,
Mark
Logged
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2013, 10:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The stock answer would be that you can use an 52mm(?I think) filter. However I'm sure that it is dependent on the size and length of the filter threads / housing, also since the filter is a glass element calculated for in the lens, I could imagine thicker filters might give different results then thinner filters although this is just speculative.

My 300mm f/2.8 came with the full filter set, though I don't normally use filters, so I can't give you a more definite answer, but I can check it out friday when I'm at my house in CT where I keep it, I'll try and measure the size of the filter, also I believe the 500mm has the same size filter, but I'll also check that.
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2013, 03:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

also since the filter is a glass element calculated for in the lens, I could imagine thicker filters might give different results then thinner filters although this is just speculative.

This is correct. Inserting a different thickness of glass (or even the same thickness, but made from a glass or resin with a different refractive index) will shift the focus plane. Just be careful that the filter is not so thin that you can no longer reach true infinity focus (although, on my 200/2.8 APO at least, there is some focus travel "past" the infinity mark, which is there to compensate for focus shifts with temperature...the 300 and 500 should be similar).

Ray
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad