I also noticed the mfd, but I expect to be able to get headshots near that distance. I would be fine with that as I will mainly do portraits with the 200. Anyway a copy of the Mamiya extension ring No. 1 will be in the same box.
A couple of re-posts from my "original" 45mm. I was heart broken to hear my faithful friend referred to as a "dog". Oh well....one man's dog......
These pics were not fed any anabolic puppy chow or post processed in any way other than resizing.
I've owned the original 45mm with the 77mm filters. Shot it extensively on 645, the corner performance was awful until f11 and never got really good (which is pretty much the consensus on this lens in the MF world), centre performance was much better but never exceptional (the 55 is visibly better even in the centre). Looks like you've got one that's sharp in the centre though which means it will do OK on digital as long as you don't use a T/S adapter.
There's a good reason why the 77mm version was replaced early-on by Mamiya in a lens line which saw few to no optical updates from 1975 to the present.
mawz wrote:
Note I never actually called the 150/4 bad, just noticeably less of a performer than the f3.5 version, which it is.
Operative word......"avoid". I have used this lens extensively lately. More pics to follow to show why it such great value.....and deserves a look rather than avoidance.
mawz wrote:
I've owned the original 45mm with the 77mm filters. Shot it extensively on 645, the corner performance was awful until f11 and never got really good (which is pretty much the consensus on this lens in the MF world), centre performance was much better but never exceptional (the 55 is visibly better even in the centre). Looks like you've got one that's sharp in the centre though which means it will do OK on digital as long as you don't use a T/S adapter.
There's a good reason why the 77mm version was replaced early-on by Mamiya in a lens line which saw few to no optical updates from 1975 to the present....Show more →
Just as a reminder.....the title of this thread is "Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread". Although my posted samples can not be used to evaluate corner sharpness due to composition I can however state that my original 45mm is sharp to the corners on my 5D as is without tilt. More samples will follow to demonstrate what this lovely little puppy can do.
pengland wrote:
Operative word......"avoid". I have used this lens extensively lately. More pics to follow to show why it such great value.....and deserves a look rather than avoidance.
The 150/3.5 is generally within $10-20 of the 150/4 and is also generally a better performer. The 150/4 may be a good performer but I'd hesitate calling it a good value when it's functionally the same price as its big brother.
pengland wrote:
Just as a reminder.....the title of this thread is "Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread". Although my posted samples can not be used to evaluate corner sharpness due to composition I can however state that my original 45mm is sharp to the corners on my 5D as is without tilt. More samples will follow to demonstrate what this lovely little puppy can do.
Note that the primary attraction of the 45's and other 645 wide-angle lenses on digital is for the wide image circle for T/S use. Otherwise there's little reason to track one down, good normals are not hard to find.
Of course if you already have one there's little reason to not use it on digital even without a T/S adapter.
Just for the record, the 45f2.8 that i had for a brief period of time was sharp as a tack with great color.I sold it to Mendenhall because i had the 35N.Maybe he can chip in on this discussion and post some samples that he has taken.
-Jim
Here are a few that i took while i had it both wide open on 5D
The fact is that the 45mm is not just a "ho-hum" normal lens on full frame DSLRs. Others have made statements in this thread that go even further and label it basically as garbage. Like:
"Alf Beharie wrote:
No...Most medium format lenses tend to be a bit softer than their smaller format cousins but there are exceptions to the rule. The M645 45mm f2.8 N is noticably softer than any 35mm format 50mm lens I have tried but the M645 80mm f2.8 N is easily as sharp as my Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar T*, its smaller and lighter and can actually have nicer bokeh too because it focuses closer.
I have also tried the M645 150mm f3.5 N and the M645 210mm f4 N...Was'nt that impressed with either of them for what I paid for them so I sold them on. I also had a chance to try the M645 35mm f3.5 N and it was'nt bad but my Nikon 35mm f1.4 Ai-S leaves it for dead.
The M645 80mm f2.8 N was my first M645 lens and its now the only one I consider worth keeping. I really like all the shots in this thread taken with the
M645 200mm f4 APO though and I'd say that its probably a keeper too but of course it will be a lot more expensive than the 80/2.8 or the 80/1.9. ...Show more →
and this......
Cableaddict wrote:
Jim, if you really dig for the few online reviews & threads, you'll find that the 45mm is pretty much universally panned. Yours must have been an exception.
that are inconsistent with current users of this lens that are posting on this thread. I appreciate (and have no experience or evidence to refute) your opinion in regards to its performance on its native mount. This helps quantify your opinion with its performance in that realm. At this point however I believe that although the 45mm may be lack lustre on its native mount, it is far underestimated and very unappreciated on DSLRs.
I would like to see more shots taken with the 45mm and the other "underdog" Mamiya 645 lenses for the enjoyment of all that follow this thread and to help dispel "the myth".
mawz wrote:
Note that the primary attraction of the 45's and other 645 wide-angle lenses on digital is for the wide image circle for T/S use. Otherwise there's little reason to track one down, good normals are not hard to find.
Of course if you already have one there's little reason to not use it on digital even without a T/S adapter.
The fact is that the 45mm is not just a "ho-hum" normal lens on full frame DSLRs. Others have made statements in this thread that go even further and label it basically as garbage. Like:
"Alf Beharie wrote:
buggz2k wrote:
Are these lenses better than any L glass?
A lot better, or slightly?
I just got a 5DMkII, and I want some really good glass.
No...Most medium format lenses tend to be a bit softer than their smaller format cousins but there are exceptions to the rule. The M645 45mm f2.8 N is noticably softer than any 35mm format 50mm lens I have tried but the M645 80mm f2.8 N is easily as sharp as my Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar T*, its smaller and lighter and can actually have nicer bokeh too because it focuses closer.
I have also tried the M645 150mm f3.5 N and the M645 210mm f4 N...Was'nt that impressed with either of them for what I paid for them so I sold them on. I also had a chance to try the M645 35mm f3.5 N and it was'nt bad but my Nikon 35mm f1.4 Ai-S leaves it for dead.
The M645 80mm f2.8 N was my first M645 lens and its now the only one I consider worth keeping. I really like all the shots in this thread taken with the
M645 200mm f4 APO though and I'd say that its probably a keeper too but of course it will be a lot more expensive than the 80/2.8 or the 80/1.9.
and this......
Cableaddict wrote:
Jim Schemel wrote:
Alf Beharie wrote:
Jim Schemel wrote:
Mike,
these look good.IMO the 45 f2.8 is a very nice sharp lens with great color.Were the 100% crops taken @2.8?
-Jim
Actually Its not very sharp at all...I tried it head to head against a cheapo £3 Pentacon 50mm f1.8 and it was no contest...The Pentacon was far sharper...Needless to say I sold the Mamiya.
Maybe your copy was not sharp.But i do not think you can speak for them all.Maybe you mis - focused or something.All i know is that my copy is extremely sharp, and i have tried other glass such as Zeiss,Canon,Sigma etc.
-Jim
Jim, if you really dig for the few online reviews & threads, you'll find that the 45mm is pretty much universally panned. Yours must have been an exception.
that are inconsistent with current users of this lens that are posting on this thread. I appreciate (and have no experience or evidence to refute) your opinion in regards to its performance on its native mount. This helps quantify your opinion with its performance in that realm. At this point however I believe that although the 45mm may be lack lustre on its native mount, it is far underestimated and very unappreciated on DSLRs.
I would like to see more shots taken with the 45mm and the other "underdog" Mamiya 645 lenses for the enjoyment of all that follow this thread and to help dispel "the myth".
imo ... the M645 glass stays best when on the longer side of things, i.e. 80mm+. As you go wider, then angle of view the glass was designed to project light at gets a pretty broad, compared to the 35mm counterparts. This broader angle of view will necessarily result in a lower contrast projection than an otherwise comparable 35mm format WA. This is the very thing that gives smoother tonal values, but it does come at the cost of lower contrast/apparent sharpness. This isn't as noticeable at the 80+ range ... (my theory).
Hey Kent, I can't say that I agree with your 'projected angle of light' theory. All M645 lenses have the same projected cone of light from the rear element to the film plane, regardless of focal length. I've found that my C 35/3.5N and C 55/2.8N are every bit as good as most of the equivalent 35mm lenses that I've tried, including some stellar performers from Zeiss, Leica, Pentax and Canon. Jim.
jcolwell wrote:
All M645 lenses have the same projected cone of light from the rear element to the film plane, regardless of focal length.
Agreed ... but that registration distance, combined with the wider angle of view ... is more susceptible to the light being dispersed less densely by the time it reaches the film plane. We kinda see this with WA in the form of vignetting on the 35mm format as those angles & distances get greater, the reduced concentration of photons becomes noticeable.
I'm not doing a good job of explaining myself, but I don't think you'll ever get a MF WA to have the same perceived sharpness as 35mm glass with the shorter registration / smaller cone (not saying it isn't sharp) ... just that the same FL with a shorter registration distance is going to have more densely packed photons at the film plane, and that difference may be more noticeable in the wider FL's than the longer FL's.
I'm HUGE FAN of the M645 glass and really love to utilize the 'looser packed' photons. I'm wanting to get the 45mm, but since I so rarely shoot with 50mm, I'm having a hard time justifying or figuring out what I'd shoot with it, but not because I think it's inferior ... I just think that people mistakenly take the drawing style of the glass as 'less sharp' and I disagree that it is less sharp, but try (poorly done ) to offer explanation of why they perceive this ... it's a trigonometry/physics thing.
Dr J. would be appalled ... apologies for the lack of proper technical.
Dr. J. is reference to Doug Jenkins who was my physics instructor in the 1970's. He also happens to be the co-inventor of night vision for the Pentagon (along with his twin brother) before he began his teaching career.
Dr. J was the perfectionist 'cool geek' ... probably explains a lot about me (just not as perfect, nor as cool, and I don't wear a tie that much).
) to offer explanation of why they perceive this ... it's a trigonometry/physics thing.