I know the technical stuff but I'd like to get info from actual users, especially WRT IQ (wide open sharpness, flare resistance, CA, bokeh, distortion etc.).
I'm only really familiar with the 80/2.8 and 80/1.9.
The 80/2.8 is cheap, small and sharp. Bokeh is good. Flare resistance and contrast are decent on the C version and good on the N version. I've not had CA issues but only use them on MF film. Distortion seems well controlled, much like any cheap 50 in 35mm.
The 80/1.9 is larger, heavier and not quite as sharp. It can also give funky bokeh in some situations. Like the f2.8 version, the N has higher contrast and better flare resistance.
No experience with the 80/2.8, but the 80/1.9 C has become my fave and is normally bolted on the 1Ds2. Borrowed a fellow FMer's and the first shot had me looking for a copy.
Remarkably sharp starting WO (surprised me), gets VERY sharp stopped down. Nice pop in VF when focusing (use the Ec-CIV screen in my 1DS2). I prefer the 80/1.9 to the 80 Summilux ( a very nice lens), etc in all respects - and I REALLY liked my lux.
Have yet to see anything but buttery bokeh from the 1.9 from any M645 glass I own, but a lot of that can depend on subject, distance, etc. That said, like Mawz states, I've also heard a lot of very good reports from 2.8 users also.
The M645 70/2.8 Leaf Shutter (which can be used on DSLR - just cock and lock open shutter) also has a nice rep, but have never shot with it. The 80/4 macro, while not in same league as 120/4 A (another one of my faves) is also considered smashing.
Typical of the M645 C variants, contrast is low as is color saturation which I prefer typically as I can salt to taste in post. Tend to find the colors out of camera (again 1DS2) with M645 glass are very 'as remembered' vs the over-saturated, over-contrasty look of some other lenses. That said, it all depends on user taste.
Have yet to see any issues re: CA or flare (get the screw-on rubber hood), but C versions have a rep for being less flare resistant than the Ns with their newer coatings.
If looking for one, ask about focus smoothness. A nice 1.9 is smooth as butter, but I've seen some copies, thru age and simple lack of CLAs over the years that are less than fun to use.
mawz wrote:
I'm only really familiar with the 80/2.8 and 80/1.9.
Me too.
mawz wrote:
The 80/1.9 is larger, heavier and not quite as sharp. It can also give funky bokeh in some situations.
Looks like the 2.8 is the one to get.
mawz wrote:
Like the f2.8 version, the N has higher contrast and better flare resistance.
Yep. If I'll ever buy one it will be an N.
Conner999 wrote:
Remarkably sharp starting WO (surprised me), gets VERY sharp stopped down. I prefer it to the 80 Summilux ( a very nice lens), etc in all respects. Is roughly the same size and heft as say a Nikon 80 AiS. As sharp/modestly sharper at 1.9 than Lux was at F2.0.
I'm confused. Is it or is it not sharp wide open? Can any of you please post wide open pics?
Conner999 wrote:
If looking for one, ask about focus smoothness. A nice 1.9 is smooth as butter, but I've seen some copies, thru age and simple lack of CLAs over the years that are less than fun to use. A nice price is US$200 +/- $50 for the 1.9, the 2.8s however are much easier to find.
Both were wide open. The first is not the best example of what the 80/2.8 can do but I'm lacking much in the way of wide-open shots from it (I usually take the f1.9 if I figure I'm going to be shooting wide-aperture stuff as it's faster).
No idea on price for the 2.8 but they are more readily avail and should be as cheap or cheaper. Drop me an email address and I'll see if I can find a pic for you.
Conner999 wrote:
No idea on price for the 2.8 but they are more readily avail and should be as cheap or cheaper. Drop me an email address and I'll see if I can find a pic for you.
I don't know if life is that complicated. Ok, for the 80mm you get 3 lenses for M645, but one is a relatively fast one, the second is a normal slowish ( by 35mm terms ) compact and light lens and the third is a very nice macro lens. I have the macro, since the others have some stiff competition from 35mm alt lenses, and it is a great lens - I also use ti wide open for general purpose and it is sharp WO already. SO for macro, depending on preference, you can get the 80 or the 120. I also have a 55mm 2.8 and it is a nice lens, somehow lower contrast then the Zeiss 35mm lenses, but very clean and natural color rendering. CA does sometimes show up, but it is not really heavy, so all in all a nice package given the advantage of the Mirex T/S.
I've used five variants of the M645 80mm lens; C 80/1.9, C 80/2.8, C 80/2.8N, C 80/2.8N/L (leaf shutter), and C 80/4N Macro. They're all excellent lenses, and so I think your plan to "decide by the technical stuff" is the right way to go.
In resolution tests 80/2.8N/L is slightly sharper at f/2.8 and f/4 than the (sharp) 80/2.8N. I bought the N/L for its shutter, but I later sold it because I couldn't find a way to use it independently. I didn't know that it works in combination with the body shutter, anyway "live and learn".
I have both the C 80/4N Macro and A 120/4 Macro. They're both good, but the 120 is gooder, it's the goodest macro I've ever used (I sold my Canon 100/2.8 USM). I was going to sell the 80/4N, but then I realized that it has a valuable place for shooting at near-macro magnification in a table-top studio setting, where the 120/4 working distance is too long.
One nice thing about having both the C 80/2.8 and C 80/2.8N is that I can select which to use according to the subject: I can use the C 80/2.8 on low contrast subjects, for which I would have used Astia film, in the old days; and, I can use the C 80/2.8N on high contrast and colourful subjects, for which I would have selected E100G.
slungu wrote:
I don't know if life is that complicated. Ok, for the 80mm you get 3 lenses for M645, but one is a relatively fast one, the second is a normal slowish ( by 35mm terms ) compact and light lens and the third is a very nice macro lens. I have the macro, since the others have some stiff competition from 35mm alt lenses, and it is a great lens - I also use ti wide open for general purpose and it is sharp WO already. SO for macro, depending on preference, you can get the 80 or the 120. I also have a 55mm 2.8 and it is a nice lens, somehow lower contrast then the Zeiss 35mm lenses, but very clean and natural color rendering. CA does sometimes show up, but it is not really heavy, so all in all a nice package given the advantage of the Mirex T/S....Show more →
Forgot to say that I already have the Mirex TS adapter and the 120/4. The 35/3.5 is on it's way. I also have the 60/2.8 for close-up of inanimate objects and 300/4 IS for semi-close-up of skittish creatures.
Conner999 wrote:
Yakim - emails sent
10X. I'll look at them when I get back home.
Conner999 wrote:
The nice thing about M645 is that they are so inexpensive that you're not taking a large monetary risk when you buy & try.
You are right but buying just for trying is not my usual MO.
jcolwell wrote:
Hi Yakim,
I've used five variants of the M645 80mm lens; C 80/1.9, C 80/2.8, C 80/2.8N, C 80/2.8N/L (leaf shutter), and C 80/4N Macro. They're all excellent lenses, and so I think your plan to "decide by the technical stuff" is the right way to go.
In resolution tests 80/2.8N/L is slightly sharper at f/2.8 and f/4 than the (sharp) 80/2.8N. I bought the N/L for its shutter, but I later sold it because I couldn't find a way to use it independently. I didn't know that it works in combination with the body shutter, anyway "live and learn".
Yep, and I learn quite a lot here.
What is that leaf shutter? What is it good for?
jcolwell wrote:
I have both the C 80/4N Macro and A 120/4 Macro. They're both good, but the 120 is gooder, it's the goodest macro I've ever used (I sold my Canon 100/2.8 USM). I was going to sell the 80/4N, but then I realized that it has a valuable place for shooting at near-macro magnification in a table-top studio setting, where the 120/4 working distance is too long.
I was in that exact situation when I took this shot.
And may I say I really like your choice of words?
jcolwell wrote:
One nice thing about having both the C 80/2.8 and C 80/2.8N is that I can select which to use according to the subject: I can use the C 80/2.8 on low contrast subjects, for which I would have used Astia film, in the old days; and, I can use the C 80/2.8N on high contrast and colourful subjects, for which I would have selected E100G.
jcolwell wrote:
... I bought the N/L for its shutter, but I later sold it because I couldn't find a way to use it independently. I didn't know that it works in combination with the body shutter, anyway "live and learn"...
I don't own one but isn't the shutter on the N/L cocked by rotating a ring on the lens. The shutter is then fired manually (independant of the camera) from the lens itself with a cable release. So it's entirely useable, but some what like using a view camera with a copal shutter? Very slow and deliberate work only. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Can you try again please?