Thanks guys! I have purchased from fotodiox before and was always pleased. Now to try to find the lens. Thanks for the help, and I may need some more info when I get everything I need.
Thanks for the fast response!
Gary
Here's a few morning from this morning. We are in the drab time between snow melt and things greening up so it's a bit of a challenge shooting right now. All shots with the 200/2.8 APO on my Canon 5D.
I'm using an unidentified brand on my 80/1.9 and a Zork on the 120/4. I haven't had any significant issues with either adapter. The Zork seems better built but doesn't lock the 80mm on as securely.
Canon has some green fringing. The Mamiya has none.
The Mamiya has nicer color overall, and is actually a hair sharper. (I have seen this in other tests as well, at distance, but they are very close.)
Bokeh is impossible to judge, due to FL differences, but:
The Canon certainly gives more DOF isolation. - I see this also with the Mamiya 55/2.8 vs the Zeiss 50/1.4 - Of course, the Zeiss is a 3D monster, so maybe that's not fair.
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it's almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
I see a subtle but very accurate depiction in the top images, we are into the arena of opinion. What is uncontroversial is that the top image is sharper and more technically a better image, IMO.
May be a big call of yours re MF. You have seen a fair range of medium format? Zeiss on 'blad, Rollei, Mamiya 7, up close and personal?
philip_pj wrote:
May be a big call of yours re MF. You have seen a fair range of medium format? Zeiss on 'blad, Rollei, Mamiya 7, up close and per
I agree, it would be. - but I'm not calling anything. I'm just raising the possibility, for others to look into. It's possible that this is a universal phenomenon, due to the MF lenses being designed for a larger image circle. I have no idea.
jcolwell wrote:
Nope. It's just that we're the only ones posting on this thread, so far. Don't worry, we'll see more.
I just ordered a 645/EOS adapter from Fotodiox...will experiment and post a few once I receive it. From the looks of pictures in this thread, it appears promising (although, alas, I don't have 120/4 macro...yet).
The Canon also seems to have a tad more plasticiy, although it's almost too close to call. To put it differently, the Mamiya has even LESS plasticity than the Canon, which is a very flat lens to start with.
I see the same flatness in the Mamiya 55/2.8, and I suspect this is the major downfall of the entire series. - Perhaps even MF in general?
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr's camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterproductive to the issue of 'plasticity/3D' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM's jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you'll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it 'looking flat' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn't need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for 'plasticity / 3D' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their 'look' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square root of 2) ... up to the extreme end points of 'contact sheets' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today's P&S's are as 'good' as they are ... to a point.)
NOTE: Which body (i.e. sensor, AA filter, jpg programming, jpg user settings, etc.) you use has a significant impact on sooc images also ... which often times, people overlook when evaluating images from a given lens.
Mike Ganz wrote:
How does the MF glass take to extension tubes?
It works fine. The C 80/4N macro goes to 1:2 on its own, and has a dedicated extension tube (with no optics), called the Auto Macro Spacer, to get it to 1:1. The A 120/4 Macro goes to 1:1 on its own. I generally use my 80/4N and A 120/4 Macros without tubes, as I have a M645 Auto Bellows N system for high mag work. I keep the Macro Spacer in my bellows kit case. This bellows offers front standard movements, which I can combine with my Mirex T-S adapter to get both front and rear movements. It's not as versatile as a LF camera, but it's not bad. In addition to some bellows and enlarger lenses for macro shooting, I also have two 6x9 LF lenses at 105mm and 180mm that reach infinity focus on the bellows. It's sort of 'old school', with a 1DsIII hanging off the back of it.
RustyBug wrote:
That may seem to be the case at times for ooc images where the processing is done in camera.
A significant issue to understand with the MF glass on 35mm is that ALL images are post processed ... either in camera or on PC. The post processing programmed into a mfr's camera body is designed to coincide with the light dispersion from the OEM registration distance
Well Said
-Jim.
When we mount an MF lens with a registration distance of nearly 50% farther away, the fall-off amount is different (square root of 2) ... thereby the light reaching the sensor is different ... so, the pp should be different. It is this very issue that (imho) yields the tonality gradations differently from the MF glass. And yes, while on the surface, that seems counterproductive to the issue of 'plasticity/3D' ... I find it to actually be quite helpful ... but you are not likely to get it to reveal itself from the OEM's jpg post-processing in camera.
If you shoot the images RAW ... and then optimally process them both ... then I think you'll notice the greatest difference and the issue of it 'looking flat' is radically different. Some will suggest that it shouldn't need to be PP (but really a jpg is simply automated PP) ... so, like any other form of automation vs. manual ... it becomes an issue of convenience vs. control.
If you are looking for 'plasticity / 3D' or high contrast from jpgs straight out of camera ... then DO NOT use MF glass ... stick with 35mm glass. If you are looking for glass that can give you a gentler transition to work with (& more control in post ) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).
In fact, this very issue is what gives rangefinders their 'look' as compared to 35 SLR ... the shorter registration yields even greater contrast (square froot of 2) ... up to the extreme end points of 'contact sheets' and/ or LF this continues to hold true. (Which is why today's P&S's are as 'good' as they are ... to a point.) ...Show more →
jcolwell wrote:
It works fine. The C 80/4N macro goes to 1:2 on its own, and has a dedicated extension tube (with no optics), called the Auto Macro Spacer, to get it to 1:1. The A 120/4 Macro goes to 1:1 on its own. I generally use my 80/4N and A 120/4 Macros without tubes, as I have a M645 Auto Bellows N system for high mag work. I keep the Macro Spacer in my bellows kit case. This bellows offers front standard movements, which I can combine with my Mirex T-S adapter to get both front and rear movements. It's not as versatile as a LF camera, but it's not bad. In addition to some bellows and enlarger lenses for macro shooting, I also have two 6x9 LF lenses at 105mm and 180mm that reach infinity focus on the bellows. It's sort of 'old school', with a 1DsIII hanging off the back of it. ...Show more →
I have a set of Kenko tubes that I can use with the 645 lenses once my adapter gets here...should be interesting. But talk about old school...I have a 30-year old Novoflex bellows unit, along with the same vintage Schneider-Kreuznach 105mm lens that I use at times with my 5D2... Here it is on the former 5D:
Does anyone have a crop camera at hand? All these truly beautiful images are from cameras with large and kind pixels. But the future belongs to the small and nasty pixels. As I wont go FF before I can get a pixel size about the same as the cropped 12Mp of today, it feels a bit uncertain to invest in MF Mamiya lens(es)+adapter if they are just so so on future cameras. Some results from small pixel torture of the 200 APO would be particularly interesting.
Nice ... how are you adapting to the EF mount? Is that M42-EOS?
Actually, the entire assembly had a Canon FD mount affixed to it when I came into possession of it many years ago (threads onto the unit). I couldn't dig up any info on the bellows unit to figure if the threads were M42 or not, so I just picked up an el cheapo FD/EOS adapter off ebay. If I knew for a fact, or find out now, that the bellows is indeed an M42 mount, I'd switch to a straight M42/EOS adapter and get rid of the bellows/FD/EOS rig. As it is, though, it works just fine. I'm surprised that the bellows has held up for this long...nice and tight, no light leaks.
One thing I think (theory) that you'll find is that the longer registration distance will provide for a straighter light path, which should hold up very well under the constraints of smaller pixel sizes. It should also (theory) yield less vignetting than 35mm counterparts because of BOTH the larger image circle AND the straighter light path (same thing, kinda/sorta, due to the registration distance)
I'm only shooting on a 1.3x crop @ 8MP, so I've got nice large MP, but I expect my 150 2.8 A or 80/4 Macro would hold up well to the smaller pixel densities ... so I'm actually of the theoretical persuasion that the M645 glass is 'future proof' ... pending actual proof.
)
) ... MF is nice to work with ... although I generally find it counter to my WA intentions (where I use 35mm glass).