Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hassy vs. Mamiya Lenses  (Read 3406 times)
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1191



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2013, 04:43:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Doug,

Are the new Schneider LS lenses made in Germany or are they made in the Mamiya factory in Japan who made the fantastic Mamiya RZ lenses?

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778


« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2013, 06:27:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The RZ lenses are so good it hurts.  On the mam. 645, the 80 1.9 was a nice, nice lens.  The Mamiya lenses I liked the best, however, were the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses.  All of them.

I agree about the 80mm f/1.9, in fact it's my most used lens on the AFD, despite the inconvenience of stopping down manually. I really wish Phase One would have based their 80mm "D" lens on the f/1.9 instead of the 2.8. Fastest lens in the medium format world would have been a nice selling point for the system, and it would have differentiated it from the LS version too.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2013, 10:59:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree about the 80mm f/1.9, in fact it's my most used lens on the AFD, despite the inconvenience of stopping down manually. I really wish Phase One would have based their 80mm "D" lens on the f/1.9 instead of the 2.8. Fastest lens in the medium format world would have been a nice selling point for the system, and it would have differentiated it from the LS version too.

I agree with this 100%. The problem I see is that sharpness is favored over look in lens design, due to market demand. This is speculation, however look at the threads here and elsewhere where it's endless graphs and test charts. The 80 1.9 would probably fair poorly in the test chart corner to corner sharpness tests. You get people complaining about the Blad CF lenses, saying F lenses are better etc., when some of the most iconic photos in the world were taken with C series lenses, and these same people take 39mpx snap shots and marvel at the leaf detail in the distance. It's absurd, really.
Logged
MarkoRepse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 157


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2013, 05:19:00 AM »
ReplyReply

An 80mm f1.9 D or better yet LS with say 1/800 flash sync would really be something, I agree. Rollei did the right thing I think with slower leaf shutters for fast lenses.

Medium format in general seems to be stuck with rather conservative aperture offerings and even those few that exist are old, manual focus and tricky to use on high res digital.

And whats with Phase leaf shutter lenses having five aperture blades? I mean seriously they could do better than that.

RZ lenses are dope indeed, though the 645 LS lenses are extremely good too. I find the 80LS and 110LS (and 55LS from the samples I've seen) render very similarly to the RZ 110mm, while the 65mm L-A and 210mm APO render differently. I would describe the RZ lenses as more "cinematic" while the LS more "modern". The differences are subtle but they're there. Its all good glass.
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778


« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2013, 06:03:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with this 100%. The problem I see is that sharpness is favored over look in lens design, due to market demand. This is speculation, however look at the threads here and elsewhere where it's endless graphs and test charts. The 80 1.9 would probably fair poorly in the test chart corner to corner sharpness tests. You get people complaining about the Blad CF lenses, saying F lenses are better etc., when some of the most iconic photos in the world were taken with C series lenses, and these same people take 39mpx snap shots and marvel at the leaf detail in the distance. It's absurd, really.

This is my impression too. Never in my life have I been moved by a photo because of its sharpness, yet outside maybe the Leica world this is almost always the only parameter being discussed. The only time sharpness is interesting to me really is when looking at a lens performance wide open, because truth is very few lenses are not sharp enough when stopped down a little. Instead it's the character of a lens, how it draws the image, that is of importance to me. But I guess it's easier to measure and quantify things like sharpness than to create something that stirs emotion in the viewer. It gives certain people a sense of accomplishment, i.e. "Look how sharp it is, you can count the whiskers of that cat in the distance". Like you, I worry that modern lens designs try to cater to this crowd, sacrificing character for absolute sharpness. Many modern lenses today seem to have a certain 'sterility' to them that leaves me cold.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 06:06:52 AM by amsp » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2013, 09:04:10 PM »
ReplyReply

An 80mm f1.9 D or better yet LS with say 1/800 flash sync would really be something, I agree. Rollei did the right thing I think with slower leaf shutters for fast lenses.

Medium format in general seems to be stuck with rather conservative aperture offerings and even those few that exist are old, manual focus and tricky to use on high res digital.

And whats with Phase leaf shutter lenses having five aperture blades? I mean seriously they could do better than that.

RZ lenses are dope indeed, though the 645 LS lenses are extremely good too. I find the 80LS and 110LS (and 55LS from the samples I've seen) render very similarly to the RZ 110mm, while the 65mm L-A and 210mm APO render differently. I would describe the RZ lenses as more "cinematic" while the LS more "modern". The differences are subtle but they're there. Its all good glass.

Yup. Agree.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2013, 09:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

This is my impression too. Never in my life have I been moved by a photo because of its sharpness, yet outside maybe the Leica world this is almost always the only parameter being discussed. The only time sharpness is interesting to me really is when looking at a lens performance wide open, because truth is very few lenses are not sharp enough when stopped down a little. Instead it's the character of a lens, how it draws the image, that is of importance to me. But I guess it's easier to measure and quantify things like sharpness than to create something that stirs emotion in the viewer. It gives certain people a sense of accomplishment, i.e. "Look how sharp it is, you can count the whiskers of that cat in the distance". Like you, I worry that modern lens designs try to cater to this crowd, sacrificing character for absolute sharpness. Many modern lenses today seem to have a certain 'sterility' to them that leaves me cold.

Exactly. To give an example, so many people would refuse to mount he Zeiss 50 1.4 on their D800e's for heir tree and cat pics because its not sharp enough.  Well yeah it's not really a modern design and it vignettes, but how it draws is really nice.  It seems to have faster fall off of focus than the more modern lenses and the color is spectacular.  Few people on the webs seem to care about the beauty of the rendering.
Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360


« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2013, 11:21:26 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems to have faster fall off of focus than the more modern lenses...

Is this actually a physical possibility?
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2013, 12:59:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Sharpness fall off, which would have the same apparent effect.

Logged
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 640



« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2013, 02:37:05 PM »
ReplyReply

This has spurred into a quite interesting topic.  My main desire was to know how the construction of the lenses hold up against each other, primarily to just know.  But this whole conversation about how well one lens renders an image compared to another is quite, well, interesting. 

Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2013, 03:26:31 PM »
ReplyReply

This has spurred into a quite interesting topic.  My main desire was to know how the construction of the lenses hold up against each other, primarily to just know.  But this whole conversation about how well one lens renders an image compared to another is quite, well, interesting. 



Yes, and the perception of how a lens renders is down to taste and what you shoot, so there is no correct answer.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2013, 03:40:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

This is an area where they may be some myth and some reality, IMHO.

Just an example: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77956.0

Some of the interesting factors are:

1) Focus shift, this is mainly caused by the changing amount of spherical aberration when stopping down. Most large aperture lenses suffer from it.

2) Over or under corrected spherical aberration. Under correction preferable on background blur. Over correcting SA yields double contours.

3) Longitudional chromatic aberration. Also affecting most fast lenses at large apertures.

Here is some very good information: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf

Best regards
Erik


Yes, and the perception of how a lens renders is down to taste and what you shoot, so there is no correct answer.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 11:03:12 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad