Well, I set out this morning to do a quick comparision of my newly acquired Mamiya 645 200/2.8 APO lens against my Leica R 180/3.4 and Canon 70-200/2.8L IS USM. But like an idiot I did not check the battery and left my 40D and grip with it's two batteries at home. I got about 10 frames in before the weak battery expired in the 20 degree weather. So here are only a few shots and 100% crops from the Mamiya. Full comparision coming by this weekend hopefully.
Focus point was the front of the red barn and done at f/2.8 using my Minolta anglefinder set a 2x. Tripod mounted and MLU used on the Canon 5D.
Wish the morning had been a bit clearer but still I feel that the differences are apparent. Real curious to see how it does against the others.
The lens itself seems very well made but is front heavy as reported by others. The built in hood extends and locks much easier than the one on my Canon 400/5.6 which has a tendancy to jam sometimes. Mounted it with a Fotodiox pro adapter and do not have any problem getting to infinity.
Nice shots, but I wish you'd stop it. I keep considering this lens, but then I take it off my list because I figure my 135/2L with 1.4x TC is good enough. Between you and Conner999, I'm fighting a losing battle here...
The crops of distant parts of the image do show better resolution and contrast, but as you say, it's limited by atmospheric clarity.
foto-z wrote:
I'm not sure why you are showing 100% crops from parts of the image that are not in focus?
Well as a landscaper shooter the difference in sharpness (shape definition) of these out of focus areas at the various DOF's give you an idea of how they will show apparent sharpness in your prints. The larger the print the more shape definition you want to see in the background also.
But the other piece of the puzzle is that I never actually got to run the comparision test, these are just the first images. A full blown comparision will come this weekend hopefully and will include shots at infinity where I expect the competition to be tight between the Leica and the Mamiya.
Had to go close out an exhibit I had going at Antelope Island this morning. Got in a couple quick shots while out there despite the heavy overcast. Noticed some nice reflections and snapped off a couple of shots with the Mamiya.
Your results look very good. I was considering the lens well over a year ago (when like new copies were going for about $500), but after trying it out in the store I couldn't get beyond the bad handling and minimum focus distance (8ft). It's very front heavy and non-IF, so the closer you focus the more it extends and weights the front. From looking at some limited online samples, I also thought the bokeh looked a little bland, especially at close (portrait) distances.
Well I ran a quick comparison during 1/2 time of the Steelers football game. Rapidly changing light though as a storm moved through. But from what I see and with all 3 lenses set at infinity the Leica R gives the most detailed and sharpest image. Even the color seems better. It is close between the Leica and the Mamiya but clearly the Leica did better. Hopefully tomorrow I can shoot and more controlled test as the changing light makes it tough to really judge.
I'm not sure one can find a 180-200mm lens sharper at infinity than the Leica 180/3.4 APO, although others can hang with it at f3.4. But, it is not without some issues. It is 1/2 stop slower than the f2.8 lenses, has noticeable light fall-off at f3.4, closer focus performance falters, and the 8ft close focus is limiting for tight portraits.
If you are going to mainly use it for long range shots like the one above the Leica 180/3.4 is your best best out of those three lenses, especially if size and weight are a concern.
I agree with pdm re: any infinity test. Infinity is the 3.4s home rink as it were. Where the Mamiya (speed and light fall-off aside) will shine vs the Leica (which was after all designed for optimum performance at infinity) is at closer distances where I found the 3.4 gets well outside it's sweet spot. As a compact long landscape (e.g. infinity) lens, the 3.4 is hard to beat.
pdmphoto wrote:
I'm not sure one can find a 180-200mm lens sharper at infinity than the Leica 180/3.4 APO, although others can hang with it at f3.4.
I would like to see it against the 200/2.8L and the 70-200 f4 IS.
Why would a landscaper use infinity? I use modified hyperfocal. Truly distant objects cant be well resolved anyway due to atmosphere. Shooting at infinity wastes a lot of resolution that could have been used in the foreground.
I realized this weekend that a reason a lot of people who stop wide lens down shooting landscapes don't understand hyperfocal. The hyperfocal focus point for an ultrawide might be 8 feet.
dcmiller wrote:
I would like to see it against the 200/2.8L and the 70-200 f4 IS.
Why would a landscaper use infinity? I use modified hyperfocal. Truly distant objects cant be well resolved anyway due to atmosphere. Shooting at infinity wastes a lot of resolution that could have been used in the foreground.
I realized this weekend that a reason a lot of people who stop wide lens down shooting landscapes don't understand hyperfocal. The hyperfocal focus point for an ultrawide might be 8 feet.
"Edited for my stupidity, !" Let me explain my thoughts on using infinity sometimes. A lot of my shots involve a barn in the foreground off about 100 meters and then a mountain backdrop off several miles. So my foreground subject is already at infinity. So, when doing this kind of work hyperfocal does not really apply. I could back off from infinity as a step down but I don't see where I would gain anything. I step down to make sure the edges come into focus and to even out the light fall off. This allows for a very sharp foreground barn in on clear winter days mountain detail so sharp that every tree is rendered and even skiers on the slopes can be made out.
Since we are discussing telephoto's not wide angles.so the effects of using hyperfocal focusing are a bit different don't you agree? When I do use my wide angles then hyperfocal focusing is my norm.
I keep considering this lens, but then I take it off my list because I figure my 135/2L with 1.4x TC is good enough. Between you and Conner999, I'm fighting a losing battle here...
!" Let me explain my thoughts on using infinity sometimes. A lot of my shots involve a barn in the foreground off about 100 meters and then a mountain backdrop off several miles. So my foreground subject is already at infinity. So, when doing this kind of work hyperfocal does not really apply. I could back off from infinity as a step down but I don't see where I would gain anything. I step down to make sure the edges come into focus and to even out the light fall off. This allows for a very sharp foreground barn in on clear winter days mountain detail so sharp that every tree is rendered and even skiers on the slopes can be made out.