I always have experimenter bias. Maybe I am over reacting from getting my Mamiya 300/2.8 APO lens. Testing my new Mamiya 645 120/4 APO macro lens (fotodiox pro adapter on my Canon 7D.) I have done color tests, bokeh, sharpness up close and at portrait distances. So far my Sigma 150/2.8 lens wins in every category. I even threw my Oly 90/2 in the mix for the up close sharpness, Oly was a distant third. What am I missing, doing wrong? Could be my eyes, of course. I really wanted to find this "sleeper" lens winning in some way besides price.
Thanks. I am ignoring (I wish!) the newest Leica 100 APO macro thread. I have the Leica 70-180/2.8 APO lens. For medium and far distance I see no need to get the 100 macro. And that darn ZE 100/2 is calling my name as well. I'd love to conclude the Mamiya 120/4 is not special - compared to what I have now. But, as I teach photography, including a macro class, I want to make a fair evaluation.
Leaving aside the ever-present question of sample variation, we must admit the Sigma 150/2.8 is a fine lens, too.
Testing them head to head, image circle and speed issues are going to impact heavily on results: the Mamiya will struggle to match the Zone A resolution of the Sigma at apertures up to f5.6, and above that (on 21+MP), diffraction will be a powerful leveler.
On the other hand, the Mamiya might be expected to resolve better in Zone C at f4 and above, but again, the 645 lens is always one stop behind in the now-short race to diffraction-limitation.
The Sigma's modern coatings will be higher contrast; overall the lens will probably be more strongly saturated and (being a Sigma) almost certainly warmer. In some situations, these factors will result in a more appealing presentation. In others, the gentler tonal gradations of the Mamiya will be advantageous.
The bottom line is that it's not hard to design an excellent 90-150mm prime: most of the ones I've ever used have been superb: subjective and subject-matter-specific concerns dominate; knowing that most are technically sound, we have the luxury of choosing a look. If the Sigma floats your boat, go with it.
The Mamiya is cheap enough to keep as backup, and for tilt/shift, stitching and low-contrast applications.
Having owned the 100 APO, the 100 ZF, CV 125/2.5 APO and M645 120/4A, it's a degree of strengths and picking which one suits your style. One aspect of the (justifiably legendary) 100 APO is it's more Zeiss-like handling of contrast as compared to other Leica glass -- even other APO units such as the 90/2 and modern 180mm's.
The 120/4 A I find very sharp, with very good CA control, great handling + bokeh and an amazing value. One aspect of M645 glass I'VE come to prefer is the combination of resolution with subtle tonal gradations/lower macro contrast - gives me a more neutral pallet to work with in post/when printing.
If I could only pick 1 one of the above that I've owned it would be the 100 APO. That said, my #2 choice would be the 120/4A. No experience with the Sigma or OM 90/2 (though would love to try the latter).
OK, I get the feeling I went into this test looking for, expecting some gross differences. Did not find much. Now, I'll let some time pass and go back and look again, shoot again with subtely in mind.
Well, you appear to have put that myth to rest, Steve! The take home message is to be wary of generalisations, when you have literally decades of fabulous MF lens development.
Gasrocks, I think what is being said to you is that the signature of this lens, its 'look' if you will, is probably not best approached via empirical 'tests'. Yes, I know it is an unpopular view in these days of endless pixel peeping, CA, distortion, etc. 'tests'...with the high scores being good lenses; the rest are garbage...so pick the lens that has those characteristics than are harmonious to your photographic aims and desired look for your work. You probably feel the Mamiya is not what you want...
I finagled a new-in-box Mamiya M645 120mm for something ridiculous like $450. It's a very sharp lens, I find, and built like a tank. Having run through a bunch of other M645 glass as well, it certainly does have that Mamiya look which Conner describes well. I find they are inherently less contrasty, with pleasing warm, almost pastel-like tones. The files they give are a great starting place, for things like portraiture - in my opinion.
Conner999 wrote:
The 120/4 A I find very sharp, with very good CA control, great handling + bokeh and an amazing value. One aspect of M645 glass I'VE come to prefer is the combination of resolution with subtle tonal gradations/lower macro contrast - gives me a more neutral pallet to work with in post/when printing.
You all are such a help, thanks. My go to macro lens (so far) for sharpness and contrast is the Sigma 150/2.8. I do not do many flowers with it. For flowers I prefer a lens with different colors, a bokeh that is not overly smooth - maybe one with some character. I need to test my Mamiya 120 against those lenses. Also against my Leicas. I must say that so far, with only 2 lenses, I am impressed with the Mamiya 645 line-up. Especially when you think about adding a T/S adapter.
That's impressive, to say the least. THis explains why they sell for so much.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 645 150/4 is also in that league. -Both being macro lenses specifically, and the latter having quite a following even with 35mm users.
I can't even consider this lens right now, but for future reference:
What's the difference between the CFi and the CF T? Is the "T" newer, with Zeiss T coatings?
What's the difference between the CFi and the CF T? Is the "T" newer, with Zeiss T coatings?
********
From my limited research, the optical "formulae" are the same. The differences:
* new internal design and new anti-reflection materials reducing stray light and enhancing the image contrast
* improved design and a new main spring extending life expectancy and increasing precision
* PC-socket with positive lock
* redesigned focusing mechanism
* reinforced rear bayonet
* front bayonet in durable non-metallic material
* new external design for comfort and style
CFi the “i” signifies improved
1. Easier to read scales (numbers are larger)
2. The main spring is made of "Nivarox”
3. Improved grip controls on the focusing ring, shutter speed ring and on the FLE ring on the 40mm and 50mm lenses.
CFE The “E” signifies electronic. In addition to the improvements above, E lenses have 4 data bus contacts on the lens mount that allow the lens to communicate with the 200 series cameras metering system. CFE lens offer all the improvements found in the CFi lenses.
And the major difference COST. A CF is perfectly good for use with non-electronic "V"series and certainly for DSLR + adapter.
T* is the Zeiss multi-anti reflective lens coating, first introduced ~1973. I am uncertain if there have been changes since then.
For 35mm use "F" lenses would also be a good but more limited, choice. They may be cheaper on the used market. They don't have internal shutters like the CF series and unlike the FEs don't have the electrical connections, again not needed with DSLR.
I am not sure of the cost/benefit of older MF Zeiss glass as opposed to the new Japanese "35mm" Zeiss lenses. The 110mm f/2 F or FE vs the 100mm F/2 Makro for example. I suspect that the newer "35mm" is better but don't really know.
My 120/4 is superb WRT IQ so maybe it's a copy problem as suggested above. It's the changing length that drives me mad. I have put mine up for sale for that reason alone! That said, I contacted a friend of mine (an engineer) who promised to build me a custom made tripod collar. Maybe then I'll be able to enjoy it properly.
Yes, feature wise, my Sigma 150/2.8 which has a tripod collar, AF, EXIF data, never grows in length, etc. wins easily. The Sigma even has so much focus past infinity that it can still give me infinity with a 12mm tube attached. Handy for when you are bent over a flower and a cool bird lands in the tree above you.
mengenlehre wrote:
if I do a search for "sekor 120 macro" on Ebay, this is what it returns
(I admittedly am a noob to alt lenses)
This is the one you want.The "A" version is the one that has the aperture setting ring.There is a newer version that is for Auto focus and will not allow you to set the aperture.
-Jim
I don't have the 120 macro, but rather the 150 2.8 A and the 80/4 macro. I have shot the Sigma 150 2.8 (rented) and seen some razor sharp stuff posted here. The Sigma cranks out very nicely, but with regard to the M645 glass, it's not just the size of the imaging circle that creates a difference, but the registration distance that renders a bit 'softer' look with GREAT TONAL GRADATION.
It's somewhat like moving your light source closer or farther from your subject to effect your falloff rate, you've changed the angle at which light is being transmitted to the film plane. Additionally,the design (image circle) for a broader spread (think 12" softbox vs. 36" softbox) renders a different look that will be softer, but not necessarily less sharp.
Very loose correlation, but I think of the M645 glass as smooooooothly sharp rather than cutting sharp. Lower the head of an enlarger so that it is closer to the paper and your projected image will always be sharper than with it raised higher. Projecting from a registration distance of 44mm vs. 63.3mm is a factor of 1.4 (ever see that number anywhere before) ... the spread of light falling on the film plane is going to be different. Essentially the opposite of going from a 44mm EOS registration distance to a Leica M registration distance of 28mm giving rangefinders a different look from SLR (contrastier, etc.) ... the M645 is going to project a less contrasty look (not necessarily less sharp) than the Sigma counterpart, and WOW do they play nice in PP.
If I want tonal gradation ... I grab for the M645 glass. If I want ooc contrast, I grab the Zeiss. M645 for flowers & gals, Zeiss for guys and critters, well sorta. It's not a sharper issue, its a transition issue.
Sorry for lack of correct technical terminology, my brain is on vacation today.
