This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
p.13 #1Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
I was expecting this question.......I used a tube so I got pretty close......I used the shortest tube in my Kenko set.
Nick
Nick
May 19, 2010 at 03:01 PM
p.13 #2Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Mamiya 80mm f1.9 @1.9 on 5D http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/4622537674_63b945edfc_b.jpg
Mamiya 120f4 on 5D@f4 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1162/4622553800_ec782dc60d_b.jpg
Mamiya 120f4 on 5D@f4 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1162/4622553800_ec782dc60d_b.jpg
May 19, 2010 at 04:09 PM
p.13 #3Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Just spotted a nice Mamiya 150 f2.8 on KEH for $299.Here is the link
http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-645-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MS06999001464N?r=FE
-Jim
http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-645-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MS06999001464N?r=FE
-Jim
May 19, 2010 at 06:44 PM
p.13 #4Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Jim Schemel wrote:
Just spotted a nice Mamiya 150 f2.8 on KEH for $299.Here is the link
http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-645-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MS06999001464N?r=FE
-Jim
I bought one just a couple of weeks ago. I'm still trying to decide if I like it. Very nice bokeh, very nice, but possibly not as sharp as I'd like wide open and that's relatively important to me. Jury is still out though.
JJ
Just spotted a nice Mamiya 150 f2.8 on KEH for $299.Here is the link
http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-645-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MS06999001464N?r=FE
-Jim
I bought one just a couple of weeks ago. I'm still trying to decide if I like it. Very nice bokeh, very nice, but possibly not as sharp as I'd like wide open and that's relatively important to me. Jury is still out though.
JJ
May 19, 2010 at 06:56 PM
p.13 #5Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
A couple of questions...
1. I have never seen a 80/1.9 listed anywhere. Is it a rare lens?
2. What adapters are being used and recommended for a 5D?
3. Any mamiyas NOT work on a 5D?
Ok, I know more than a couple of questions
1. I have never seen a 80/1.9 listed anywhere. Is it a rare lens?
2. What adapters are being used and recommended for a 5D?
3. Any mamiyas NOT work on a 5D?
Ok, I know more than a couple of questions
May 19, 2010 at 07:54 PM
p.13 #6Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
trifilmer wrote:
A couple of questions...
1. I have never seen a 80/1.9 listed anywhere. Is it a rare lens?
2. What adapters are being used and recommended for a 5D?
3. Any mamiyas NOT work on a 5D?
Ok, I know more than a couple of questions
The 80/1.9 is not rare but is uncommon.
Check Ebay for an adapter...Fotodiox is a popular source.
Look for Mamiya 645 lenses for use on Canon DSLRs.....they will all work. AFAIK none of the other types are usable on Canon aside from perhaps the older M42 variety.
A couple of questions...
1. I have never seen a 80/1.9 listed anywhere. Is it a rare lens?
2. What adapters are being used and recommended for a 5D?
3. Any mamiyas NOT work on a 5D?
Ok, I know more than a couple of questions
The 80/1.9 is not rare but is uncommon.
Check Ebay for an adapter...Fotodiox is a popular source.
Look for Mamiya 645 lenses for use on Canon DSLRs.....they will all work. AFAIK none of the other types are usable on Canon aside from perhaps the older M42 variety.
May 19, 2010 at 08:22 PM
p.13 #7Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
trifilmer wrote:
A couple of questions...
1. I have never seen a 80/1.9 listed anywhere. Is it a rare lens?
Nope, reasonably common in fact. However it's probably the single most desirable lens for the many people still shooting film with M645 cameras and also is somewhat popular for use on 645AF series bodies due to the speed. They're not expensive but do tend to get snapped up fairly quickly.
2. What adapters are being used and recommended for a 5D?
The Fotodiox adapters are probably the best options out there.
3. Any mamiyas NOT work on a 5D?
Ok, I know more than a couple of questions
All of the Manual focus M645 lenses will work on a 5D except the AF mount version of the 120/4 macro (which is manual focus but AF mount, it's easily distinguishable as it lacks an aperture ring). The N/L and L/S lenses do lose some functionality as the built-in leaf shutters won't work, but they can easily be used in focal plane mode and are otherwise fully functional. Oh, and remember to set the M/A switch to M.
A couple of questions...
1. I have never seen a 80/1.9 listed anywhere. Is it a rare lens?
Nope, reasonably common in fact. However it's probably the single most desirable lens for the many people still shooting film with M645 cameras and also is somewhat popular for use on 645AF series bodies due to the speed. They're not expensive but do tend to get snapped up fairly quickly.
2. What adapters are being used and recommended for a 5D?
The Fotodiox adapters are probably the best options out there.
3. Any mamiyas NOT work on a 5D?
Ok, I know more than a couple of questions
All of the Manual focus M645 lenses will work on a 5D except the AF mount version of the 120/4 macro (which is manual focus but AF mount, it's easily distinguishable as it lacks an aperture ring). The N/L and L/S lenses do lose some functionality as the built-in leaf shutters won't work, but they can easily be used in focal plane mode and are otherwise fully functional. Oh, and remember to set the M/A switch to M.
May 19, 2010 at 08:23 PM
p.13 #8Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Jim Schemel wrote:
Just spotted a nice Mamiya 150 f2.8 on KEH for $299.Here is the link
http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-645-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MS06999001464N?r=FE
-Jim
They say it is 93mm equivalent on 35mm
Just spotted a nice Mamiya 150 f2.8 on KEH for $299.Here is the link
http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-645-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MS06999001464N?r=FE
-Jim
They say it is 93mm equivalent on 35mm
May 19, 2010 at 11:51 PM
p.13 #9Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
They're trying to say that on a 645 body (with the larger 'sensor'), the 150mm/2.8 will give the same field of view as using a ~93mm lens on a 35mm body. Gives photogs, almost all of whom have used a 35mm body and lenses, a frame of reference when lens shopping.
Remember lens FL stays fixed - only thing that changes is FoV and DoF as sensor/film size moves up or down (in size) from 24x36mm.
1. On FF SLR 150/2.8/3.5 = 150mm FoV
2. As sensor/film gets < 35mm, FoV gets narrower (perception of longer lens), DoF at any given aperture gets deeper
3. As sensor/film gets > 35mm, FoV gets wider (perception of shorter lens), DoF at any given aperture gets skinnier
Edited on May 20, 2010 at 05:45 AM · View previous versions
Remember lens FL stays fixed - only thing that changes is FoV and DoF as sensor/film size moves up or down (in size) from 24x36mm.
1. On FF SLR 150/2.8/3.5 = 150mm FoV
2. As sensor/film gets < 35mm, FoV gets narrower (perception of longer lens), DoF at any given aperture gets deeper
3. As sensor/film gets > 35mm, FoV gets wider (perception of shorter lens), DoF at any given aperture gets skinnier
Edited on May 20, 2010 at 05:45 AM · View previous versions
May 20, 2010 at 04:41 AM
p.13 #10Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
120 on 645 is roughly equivalent to 74mm fov on FF 35mm camera
the 150 on 645 is equal to a 93 on FF 35mm
the 150 on 645 is equal to a 93 on FF 35mm
May 20, 2010 at 05:29 AM
p.13 #11Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Oops - quite right, the above should obviously read 150mm not 120mm. Obviously had the 120/4 on the brain for some reason. I'll blame insufficient coffee intake...time to edit....
May 20, 2010 at 05:44 AM
p.13 #12Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
yea man
it gets crazy I had to proofread my post several times for the sake of accuracy for future searchers/database
btw I finally scored a 80 1.9 for use on my AFD and preliminary results are quite good but I don't have anything decent to post yet.
It really gets sharp stopped down just a tiny bit from what I'm seeing so far but I got it for wide open mostly as I already have an AF 80mm 2.8
it gets crazy I had to proofread my post several times for the sake of accuracy for future searchers/database
btw I finally scored a 80 1.9 for use on my AFD and preliminary results are quite good but I don't have anything decent to post yet.
It really gets sharp stopped down just a tiny bit from what I'm seeing so far but I got it for wide open mostly as I already have an AF 80mm 2.8
May 20, 2010 at 05:58 AM
p.13 #13Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Here is one from the 80mm 1.9 on 645 TMX in D76 1+1
wide open in poor light handheld so it wont show the full capabilities but it shows the bokeh
some don't care for it but the highlights aren't too bad on this one
Dead skunk in the middle of the road
wide open in poor light handheld so it wont show the full capabilities but it shows the bokeh
some don't care for it but the highlights aren't too bad on this one
Dead skunk in the middle of the road
 |
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4624214470_c82bd2557f_o.jpg | ||
|
May 20, 2010 at 06:24 AM
p.13 #14Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Conner999 wrote:
They're trying to say that on a 645 body (with the larger 'sensor'), the 150mm/2.8 will give the same field of view as using a ~93mm lens on a 35mm body.
Remember lens FL stays fixed - only thing that changes is FoV and DoF as sensor/film size moves up or down (in size) from 24x36mm.
1. On FF SLR 150/2.8/3.5 = 150mm FoV
2. As sensor/film gets < 35mm, FoV gets narrower (perception of longer lens),
3. As sensor/film gets > 35mm, FoV gets wider (perception of shorter lens),
jcolwell wrote:
A 645 lens on a 35mm body has the same AOV as a 35mm lens of the same focal length. The 645 lens has a much wider AOV on the 645 body, as the larger sensor or film area captures more of its image circle.
Are these different statements. Or is it saying that all FL is based on 35mm FF
They're trying to say that on a 645 body (with the larger 'sensor'), the 150mm/2.8 will give the same field of view as using a ~93mm lens on a 35mm body.
Remember lens FL stays fixed - only thing that changes is FoV and DoF as sensor/film size moves up or down (in size) from 24x36mm.
1. On FF SLR 150/2.8/3.5 = 150mm FoV
2. As sensor/film gets < 35mm, FoV gets narrower (perception of longer lens),
3. As sensor/film gets > 35mm, FoV gets wider (perception of shorter lens),
jcolwell wrote:
A 645 lens on a 35mm body has the same AOV as a 35mm lens of the same focal length. The 645 lens has a much wider AOV on the 645 body, as the larger sensor or film area captures more of its image circle.
Are these different statements. Or is it saying that all FL is based on 35mm FF
May 20, 2010 at 07:48 AM
p.13 #15Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Khun Hans wrote:
Are these different statements. Or is it saying that all FL is based on 35mm FF
Focal length is a property of the lens itself and has NOTHING to do with the format (although lenses are designed with image circles for specific formats). Essentially the focal length defines the principal focal point of the image behind the lens. This is nicely illustrated in view cameras where (at inifinity focus) a 150mm lens will be about 150mm from the film plane, 300mm lens will be 300mm from the film plane and a 90mm will be, you guessed it, about 90mm from the film plane. As an aside, this is why you can't get very wide angles with large format lenses with digital cameras adapted to the rear of a view camera. There simply isn't enough space between the sensor and the lens to allow infinity focus, but macro is OK.
A 150mm lens designed for use with a 4x5 view camera is still a 150mm lens when a 35mm (FF) digital camera is in place of the 4x5 sheet film. Your perception and experience with 35mm or FF bodies tells you that a 150mm lens is a telephoto lens however a 4x5 user considers a 150mm lens to be about the same angle of view as your own eye sight (about 50mm for a lens on a 35mm or FF body) so it's considered a 'standard' lens for that format and not at all telephoto.
This explains focal length;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
JJ
Are these different statements. Or is it saying that all FL is based on 35mm FF
Focal length is a property of the lens itself and has NOTHING to do with the format (although lenses are designed with image circles for specific formats). Essentially the focal length defines the principal focal point of the image behind the lens. This is nicely illustrated in view cameras where (at inifinity focus) a 150mm lens will be about 150mm from the film plane, 300mm lens will be 300mm from the film plane and a 90mm will be, you guessed it, about 90mm from the film plane. As an aside, this is why you can't get very wide angles with large format lenses with digital cameras adapted to the rear of a view camera. There simply isn't enough space between the sensor and the lens to allow infinity focus, but macro is OK.
A 150mm lens designed for use with a 4x5 view camera is still a 150mm lens when a 35mm (FF) digital camera is in place of the 4x5 sheet film. Your perception and experience with 35mm or FF bodies tells you that a 150mm lens is a telephoto lens however a 4x5 user considers a 150mm lens to be about the same angle of view as your own eye sight (about 50mm for a lens on a 35mm or FF body) so it's considered a 'standard' lens for that format and not at all telephoto.
This explains focal length;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
JJ
May 20, 2010 at 08:10 AM
p.13 #16Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Yes, John understand what you say. What I was trying to say is that it is either a so-called crop in terms of FOV on a smaller sensor or an extension on larger film/sensor.
May 20, 2010 at 08:17 AM
p.13 #17Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Khun Hans wrote:
Yes, John understand what you say. What I was trying to say is that it is either a so-called crop on a smaller sensor or an extension on larger film/sensor.
I think the concept of 'crop' only came about because sensors smaller than the 'standard' 35mm started to be used. It was a way of illustrating the effect compared to the 'standard' that we were used to and understood.
JJ
Yes, John understand what you say. What I was trying to say is that it is either a so-called crop on a smaller sensor or an extension on larger film/sensor.
I think the concept of 'crop' only came about because sensors smaller than the 'standard' 35mm started to be used. It was a way of illustrating the effect compared to the 'standard' that we were used to and understood.
JJ
May 20, 2010 at 08:27 AM
p.13 #18Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Khun Hans wrote:
Yes, John understand what you say. What I was trying to say is that it is either a so-called crop in terms of FOV on a smaller sensor or an extension on larger film/sensor.
Not so much, there's nothing special about the 35mm format other than it's what most people are familiar with. The entire thing about 'crop' comes from the introduction of cameras with 35mm format lensmounts with sensors that are smaller than 35mm so that people could quickly get an idea about how a lens would behave on the new, smaller, sensors.
Prior to that it was generally just assumed that one could figure things out based on what the normal length of the format is (which is about 43mm for 35mm format, 29mm for APS-C digital, 75mm for 645, 150mm for 4x5 Large format.. etc)
Yes, John understand what you say. What I was trying to say is that it is either a so-called crop in terms of FOV on a smaller sensor or an extension on larger film/sensor.
Not so much, there's nothing special about the 35mm format other than it's what most people are familiar with. The entire thing about 'crop' comes from the introduction of cameras with 35mm format lensmounts with sensors that are smaller than 35mm so that people could quickly get an idea about how a lens would behave on the new, smaller, sensors.
Prior to that it was generally just assumed that one could figure things out based on what the normal length of the format is (which is about 43mm for 35mm format, 29mm for APS-C digital, 75mm for 645, 150mm for 4x5 Large format.. etc)
May 20, 2010 at 08:37 AM
p.13 #19Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
I opt for crop ... I think of it akin to having a darkroom enlarger set at a height to project an image large enough for an 8x10 print ... then without changing the height of the enlarger (Focal Length, if you will) replacing the 8x10 sheet of paper with a 4x5 sheet of paper. The physical properties of the light being PROJECTED from the enlarger has NOT CHANGED in any way ... only a smaller capture portion of the projection would be captured on the paper and the image would have been cropped, i.e. crop factor.
In this way the resolution is still the same, the perspective is the same, the contrast is the same, etc. The angle of projection remains the exact same, but if we consider the angle from the enlarger to the edge of the smaller paper (capture area), it is different since we didn't take advantage of the full projection area. This is akin to the angle of view, but the properties of the projection (FL) remain UNCHANGED.
If one HAD lowered the enlarging lens to cover ONLY the area of the 4x5 to project an image the same as the 8x10, it would have been at a different height (i.e. FL) to project the full image on the smaller paper (capture area). In doing so, the resulting print would have had a different resolution & contrast because now we have changed the physical properties of the light concentrating the light to the smaller paper (capture area). In this manner, a lens DESIGNED with an image circle for for the smaller sensor (capture area) will yield a different optical properties (resolution, contrast, DOF, etc.) than one DESIGNED for the larger image circle, even if the FL is the same.
Using glass with an image circle sufficient for MF area of capture, but only capturing it on the smaller sensor size, yields no change in the optical projection properties of that lens. Putting MF on FF, 1.25, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (crop factors) is the same as leaving the enlarging lens set at a height sufficient to cover the 8x10 and simply using smaller pieces of paper ... no changes in the projection, only the area of capture. Conversely, using a lens of the same FL designed for the smaller crop image circle will give different optical properties (i.e. contrast,DOF), similar to lowering the enlarger to cover only the 4x5 sheet of paper.
Hope this helps.
Edited on May 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM · View previous versions
In this way the resolution is still the same, the perspective is the same, the contrast is the same, etc. The angle of projection remains the exact same, but if we consider the angle from the enlarger to the edge of the smaller paper (capture area), it is different since we didn't take advantage of the full projection area. This is akin to the angle of view, but the properties of the projection (FL) remain UNCHANGED.
If one HAD lowered the enlarging lens to cover ONLY the area of the 4x5 to project an image the same as the 8x10, it would have been at a different height (i.e. FL) to project the full image on the smaller paper (capture area). In doing so, the resulting print would have had a different resolution & contrast because now we have changed the physical properties of the light concentrating the light to the smaller paper (capture area). In this manner, a lens DESIGNED with an image circle for for the smaller sensor (capture area) will yield a different optical properties (resolution, contrast, DOF, etc.) than one DESIGNED for the larger image circle, even if the FL is the same.
Using glass with an image circle sufficient for MF area of capture, but only capturing it on the smaller sensor size, yields no change in the optical projection properties of that lens. Putting MF on FF, 1.25, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (crop factors) is the same as leaving the enlarging lens set at a height sufficient to cover the 8x10 and simply using smaller pieces of paper ... no changes in the projection, only the area of capture. Conversely, using a lens of the same FL designed for the smaller crop image circle will give different optical properties (i.e. contrast,DOF), similar to lowering the enlarger to cover only the 4x5 sheet of paper.
Hope this helps.
Edited on May 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM · View previous versions
May 20, 2010 at 08:41 AM
p.13 #20Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
The 80/1.9 is one of my faves and probably my most used lens (being partial to that FL as my 'normal' lens). Great performance and handling - and for me just the right size (tend to prefer a larger barrel lens).
brucemuir wrote:
Here is one from the 80mm 1.9 on 645 TMX in D76 1+1
wide open in poor light handheld so it wont show the full capabilities but it shows the bokeh
some don't care for it but the highlights aren't too bad on this one
Dead skunk in the middle of the road
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4624214470_c82bd2557f_o.jpg
brucemuir wrote:
Here is one from the 80mm 1.9 on 645 TMX in D76 1+1
wide open in poor light handheld so it wont show the full capabilities but it shows the bokeh
some don't care for it but the highlights aren't too bad on this one
Dead skunk in the middle of the road
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4624214470_c82bd2557f_o.jpg
May 20, 2010 at 09:08 AM