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.30 #1Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
I just ordered the Mamiya-EOS adapter via eBay and it was $74+ shipping. Ofcourse I am going crazy with bing.com cashback as it ends tomorrow at 9AM PST, so I saved $6. I returned my Minolta MD>EOS adapter ($40 i get back).
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8? I have some cash to spend on a few lenses (Mamiya), and am going to buy one variant of the 80 and perhaps a 110/120 or 150.
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8? I have some cash to spend on a few lenses (Mamiya), and am going to buy one variant of the 80 and perhaps a 110/120 or 150.
Jul 29, 2010 at 06:51 PM
p.30 #2Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
HBOC wrote:
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8?
It's a very personal thing. I prefer the f/2.8. I sold my f/1.9 to somebody who prefers the f/1.9 - at least, so far he does - he recently borrowed both of my f/2.8's, stay tuned. Anyway, for 'straight up' shooting (i.e. no tilt-shift), I prefer the Summircon-R 90/2 and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 over the Mamiya C 80/1.9 and Rokinon 85/1.4. For T-S shooting, I prefer the C 80/2.8N. If you want to know what you prefer, you'll have to try them for yourself.
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8?
It's a very personal thing. I prefer the f/2.8. I sold my f/1.9 to somebody who prefers the f/1.9 - at least, so far he does - he recently borrowed both of my f/2.8's, stay tuned. Anyway, for 'straight up' shooting (i.e. no tilt-shift), I prefer the Summircon-R 90/2 and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 over the Mamiya C 80/1.9 and Rokinon 85/1.4. For T-S shooting, I prefer the C 80/2.8N. If you want to know what you prefer, you'll have to try them for yourself.
Jul 29, 2010 at 07:32 PM
p.30 #3Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
5D and Mamiya 200APO and one extension tube @2.8
-Jim
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/4842059107_168d130581_b.jpg
-Jim
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/4842059107_168d130581_b.jpg
Jul 29, 2010 at 08:24 PM
p.30 #4Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
jcolwell wrote:
It's a very personal thing. I prefer the f/2.8. I sold my f/1.9 to somebody who prefers the f/1.9 - at least, so far he does - he recently borrowed both of my f/2.8's, stay tuned. Anyway, for 'straight up' shooting (i.e. no tilt-shift), I prefer the Summircon-R 90/2 and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 over the Mamiya C 80/1.9 and Rokinon 85/1.4. For T-S shooting, I prefer the C 80/2.8N. If you want to know what you prefer, you'll have to try them for yourself.
For me, the value or reason to use Mamiya 645 lenses is the Mirex adapter for T/S work in normal photographic situations (I'm not talking about over the top effects or architecture). The control (freedom) this adapter gives you trumps most minor image defects (IMHO) such as CA, sharpness, vignetting, Bokeh, etc etc. Take the MIrex out of the equation and I would personaly look to other lenses, particularly in the 80mm focal length as there is no shortage of great lenses to choose from.
I've never really liked the bokeh of the 80/1.9 but that's subjective and dependant on application. I still might get one one day.
I "HEART" my Mirex and 80/2.8 N (just as well as the Mirex cost me about $600AUD), but on it's own the 80/2.8 N is just another 80mm lens, albeit a very very nice one. I have a Leica R 80, which is a better lens than the Mamiya in many respects, but I would rather use the Mamiya 80/2.8 N and Mirex in most circumstances.
JJ
HBOC wrote
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8?For me, the value or reason to use Mamiya 645 lenses is the Mirex adapter for T/S work in normal photographic situations (I'm not talking about over the top effects or architecture). The control (freedom) this adapter gives you trumps most minor image defects (IMHO) such as CA, sharpness, vignetting, Bokeh, etc etc. Take the MIrex out of the equation and I would personaly look to other lenses, particularly in the 80mm focal length as there is no shortage of great lenses to choose from.
I've never really liked the bokeh of the 80/1.9 but that's subjective and dependant on application. I still might get one one day.
I "HEART" my Mirex and 80/2.8 N (just as well as the Mirex cost me about $600AUD), but on it's own the 80/2.8 N is just another 80mm lens, albeit a very very nice one. I have a Leica R 80, which is a better lens than the Mamiya in many respects, but I would rather use the Mamiya 80/2.8 N and Mirex in most circumstances.
JJ
Jul 29, 2010 at 08:33 PM
p.30 #5Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
JohnJ wrote:
For me, the value or reason to use Mamiya 645 lenses is the Mirex adapter for T/S work in normal photographic situations...JJ
The Mirex is great. OTOH, I think that the C 80/4N Macro, A 120/4 Macro, A 200/2.8 APO and A 300/2.8 Macro with simple, fixed adapters are all at least as good as the very best equivalent 35mm lenses that I've tried. Not including the effects of AF and IS, of course.
For me, the value or reason to use Mamiya 645 lenses is the Mirex adapter for T/S work in normal photographic situations...JJ
The Mirex is great. OTOH, I think that the C 80/4N Macro, A 120/4 Macro, A 200/2.8 APO and A 300/2.8 Macro with simple, fixed adapters are all at least as good as the very best equivalent 35mm lenses that I've tried. Not including the effects of AF and IS, of course.
Jul 29, 2010 at 08:43 PM
p.30 #6Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
jcolwell wrote:
The Mirex is great. OTOH, I think that the C 80/4N Macro, A 120/4 Macro, A 200/2.8 APO and A 300/2.8 Macro with simple, fixed adapters are all at least as good as the very best equivalent 35mm lenses that I've tried. Not including the effects of AF and IS, of course.
I don't doubt that at all. I'd love to pick up a 200/2.8 APO some day.
JJ
JohnJ wrote
For me, the value or reason to use Mamiya 645 lenses is the Mirex adapter for T/S work in normal photographic situations...JJI don't doubt that at all. I'd love to pick up a 200/2.8 APO some day.
JJ
Jul 29, 2010 at 08:48 PM
p.30 #7Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
JohnJ wrote:
I don't doubt that at all. I'd love to pick up a 200/2.8 APO some day. JJ
Well then, there's no time Toulouse [1].
Reference 1. "No Time To Lose" sketch, Monty Python, Episode 38.
I don't doubt that at all. I'd love to pick up a 200/2.8 APO some day. JJ
Well then, there's no time Toulouse [1].
Reference 1. "No Time To Lose" sketch, Monty Python, Episode 38.
Jul 29, 2010 at 08:57 PM
p.30 #8Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
jcolwell wrote:
Toulouse
Ahh, Toulouse. Sounds nice and woody to me. Not tinny at all.
Toulouse
Ahh, Toulouse. Sounds nice and woody to me. Not tinny at all.
Jul 30, 2010 at 03:47 AM
p.30 #9Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Jim Schemel wrote:
5D and Mamiya 200APO and one extension tube @2.8
-Jim
Damn you, Jim, I may have to shell out for this lens.
What kind of tubes are you using? 36mm Kenko? I was looking for some native M645 tubes that I'd feel more comfortable to hang 1.1kg onto, but I'm not sure what to get.
5D and Mamiya 200APO and one extension tube @2.8
-Jim
Damn you, Jim, I may have to shell out for this lens.
What kind of tubes are you using? 36mm Kenko? I was looking for some native M645 tubes that I'd feel more comfortable to hang 1.1kg onto, but I'm not sure what to get.
Jul 30, 2010 at 03:58 AM
p.30 #10Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
I have the following Mamiya M645 extension tubes for use with my Auto Bellows N:
"AUTO-EXT RING No. 1" (12mm)
"AUTO-EXT RING No. 2" (24mm)
"AUTO MACRO SPACER" (40mm)
The last is matched with the C 80/4N Macro to get 1:1, and it's virtually identical to the M645 AUTO-EXT RING No. 3, except maybe 4mm longer.
I don't use the No. 1 rings any more, as I converted the two of them that I have into adapters for my bellows; one with an embedded filter step ring to mount a bellows hood on a reversed M645 mount, and the other with a Schneider-K Xenar 180/4.5 'hardwired' into it.
I sometimes use the A 200/2.8 APO with a Canon Extension Tube EF 12 - no problems.
"AUTO-EXT RING No. 1" (12mm)
"AUTO-EXT RING No. 2" (24mm)
"AUTO MACRO SPACER" (40mm)
The last is matched with the C 80/4N Macro to get 1:1, and it's virtually identical to the M645 AUTO-EXT RING No. 3, except maybe 4mm longer.
I don't use the No. 1 rings any more, as I converted the two of them that I have into adapters for my bellows; one with an embedded filter step ring to mount a bellows hood on a reversed M645 mount, and the other with a Schneider-K Xenar 180/4.5 'hardwired' into it.
I sometimes use the A 200/2.8 APO with a Canon Extension Tube EF 12 - no problems.
Jul 30, 2010 at 04:59 AM
p.30 #11Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
AhamB wrote:
Ahh, Toulouse. Sounds nice and woody to me. Not tinny at all.
Yes. Like caribou. Splendid word.
jcolwell wrote
ToulouseYes. Like caribou. Splendid word.
Jul 30, 2010 at 05:06 AM
p.30 #12Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
jcolwell wrote:
It's a very personal thing. I prefer the f/2.8. I sold my f/1.9 to somebody who prefers the f/1.9 - at least, so far he does - he recently borrowed both of my f/2.8's, stay tuned. Anyway, for 'straight up' shooting (i.e. no tilt-shift), I prefer the Summircon-R 90/2 and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 over the Mamiya C 80/1.9 and Rokinon 85/1.4. For T-S shooting, I prefer the C 80/2.8N. If you want to know what you prefer, you'll have to try them for yourself.
That would be me (thanks again JC).
Bottom line is if I had to pick between an M645 2.8 and the 1.9, I'd still pick the 1.9 - but not because the 2.8 sucks in comparison. The 2.8s render very nicely, but I still prefer the having the speed on-hand of the 1.9 given how close I felt the 1.9 and the 2.8C rendered. That said, I am going to pick up a 2.8N (my 1.9 is a C) . The lens is a great performer and given it's price for a mint copy, a no-brainer. Having the higher contrast of the N version would be nice to have on occasion - despite my preference for C-style rendering. Never one solution.
I've owned a good number of 80-90s across a number of brands, from dirt cheap to 'how much?!" including all three from Leica, some multiple times and have also managed to shoot with other borrowed glass in that range thanks to kind folks like Jim. If he'd developed his Leica Lust a little earlier, I'd be returning the favor, but I'm working on it ;>
Bottom line, I don't know if I could pick one clear winner. Some are real sleepers that are given the "but it's not a ___" treatment by Leica/Zeiss fanboys and some are so over-billed by web hype it's comical, but none would ever (or have ever) gotten immunity from re-sale.
There are so many nice lenses in that FL range to pick from, it really comes down to what mix of strengths, for you, outweigh each lenses weaknesses. Of the ones I've used, if I had to pick one lens, speed aside, in the 75-100mm range it would be the CV 90 APO. In the case of the CV, I've always been VERY impressed with their glass and am currently starting the process of re-acquiring the complete line (now that EoS mounts are coming out) that I sold when prices hit asinine levels (prior to the 90SLII's release) or in moments of stupidity. The CV 20 is the only one I'm iffy on as don't know how often I'd shoot that wide.
-----------------------
As an aside, the quest for the ultimate uber-fast yet sharp moderate tele lens is a bit of a funny obsession we get into (sometimes more than once). We get obsessed with it yet when you think of it in moments of lucidity (a.k.a non-gear-head mode), when you shoot such a 'Holy Grail' lens wide open, so little of the final story/feeling your trying to convey with your image is actually showing the len's resolving capability that you need to be careful you're not spending more to feed your gear-head side vs any actual benefit to your 'story telling'.
Having a razor thin sharp plane of focus is nice (everything else being equal -- which it never is), yet it's the non-resolution aspects of the rendering that should concern us more: color accuracy, bokeh, tonality, bokeh CA and how the plane of focus is transitioned in & out of (some lenses are so abrupt it looks odd, almost like Gaussian work in post). The 'unsharp' aspects of the lens is what dominates the pic, what we're paying a $%^ fortune for in paper and ink to print and what viewers/clients notice first. No one wants a F1.2 piece of sandblasted beach glass, but there's a limit - at least for me anyway.
I'll use the fast Leica's as a 'one family' example. The 80 lux & 90 'cron are both reasonably sharp w/o, yet get VERY sharp in center very quickly as you stop down (the 'lux at F2.8-4, the 'cron at 4-5.6) with great bokeh, great CA control, etc, etc. The only difference between the 90/2 and 80 is the price, speed and the fact the 'lux gets sharper in center faster as you stop-down. On the flip side, the more 'clinical' 90/2AA is WTF sharp w/o, has smoother handling than the aforementioned and is better across the frame at wider apertures and has that clarity' or 'transparency' you see from APO glass. Yet it's bokeh can get iffy, it's CA control is not as good as the other Leica APOs (or the CV90 or CV180), it's very pricey and ANY work, from a simple CLA on up, requires a a lengthy and $$$ round-trip to Leica. Stopped down to mid-apertures, you'd be hard pressed to tell any of the three apart. Which is better?
Hell, if I $$$ for every time I've showed a print (or emailed) a sharp skinny DoF image to someone to look at just to have them 'oooh' and 'ahh' over the 'soft background' and how 'nice' it goes 'in and out of focus' vs the cut-your-corneas sharp 0.5" actual plane of focus, I'd be running that Hassy H4D-40 MFD kit I covet so much ;>
-------
I also agree with JC - M645 (or Hassy) glass is not for Mirex use only. A lot of the glass in M645 can give any comparable AF native mount 35mm lenses a should-to-shoulder run for their money and sadly (given what Canon or Nikon ask for glass and their QC) in more cases than not, win.
HBOC wrote
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8?That would be me (thanks again JC).
Bottom line is if I had to pick between an M645 2.8 and the 1.9, I'd still pick the 1.9 - but not because the 2.8 sucks in comparison. The 2.8s render very nicely, but I still prefer the having the speed on-hand of the 1.9 given how close I felt the 1.9 and the 2.8C rendered. That said, I am going to pick up a 2.8N (my 1.9 is a C) . The lens is a great performer and given it's price for a mint copy, a no-brainer. Having the higher contrast of the N version would be nice to have on occasion - despite my preference for C-style rendering. Never one solution.
I've owned a good number of 80-90s across a number of brands, from dirt cheap to 'how much?!" including all three from Leica, some multiple times and have also managed to shoot with other borrowed glass in that range thanks to kind folks like Jim. If he'd developed his Leica Lust a little earlier, I'd be returning the favor, but I'm working on it ;>
Bottom line, I don't know if I could pick one clear winner. Some are real sleepers that are given the "but it's not a ___" treatment by Leica/Zeiss fanboys and some are so over-billed by web hype it's comical, but none would ever (or have ever) gotten immunity from re-sale.
There are so many nice lenses in that FL range to pick from, it really comes down to what mix of strengths, for you, outweigh each lenses weaknesses. Of the ones I've used, if I had to pick one lens, speed aside, in the 75-100mm range it would be the CV 90 APO. In the case of the CV, I've always been VERY impressed with their glass and am currently starting the process of re-acquiring the complete line (now that EoS mounts are coming out) that I sold when prices hit asinine levels (prior to the 90SLII's release) or in moments of stupidity. The CV 20 is the only one I'm iffy on as don't know how often I'd shoot that wide.
-----------------------
As an aside, the quest for the ultimate uber-fast yet sharp moderate tele lens is a bit of a funny obsession we get into (sometimes more than once). We get obsessed with it yet when you think of it in moments of lucidity (a.k.a non-gear-head mode), when you shoot such a 'Holy Grail' lens wide open, so little of the final story/feeling your trying to convey with your image is actually showing the len's resolving capability that you need to be careful you're not spending more to feed your gear-head side vs any actual benefit to your 'story telling'.
Having a razor thin sharp plane of focus is nice (everything else being equal -- which it never is), yet it's the non-resolution aspects of the rendering that should concern us more: color accuracy, bokeh, tonality, bokeh CA and how the plane of focus is transitioned in & out of (some lenses are so abrupt it looks odd, almost like Gaussian work in post). The 'unsharp' aspects of the lens is what dominates the pic, what we're paying a $%^ fortune for in paper and ink to print and what viewers/clients notice first. No one wants a F1.2 piece of sandblasted beach glass, but there's a limit - at least for me anyway.
I'll use the fast Leica's as a 'one family' example. The 80 lux & 90 'cron are both reasonably sharp w/o, yet get VERY sharp in center very quickly as you stop down (the 'lux at F2.8-4, the 'cron at 4-5.6) with great bokeh, great CA control, etc, etc. The only difference between the 90/2 and 80 is the price, speed and the fact the 'lux gets sharper in center faster as you stop-down. On the flip side, the more 'clinical' 90/2AA is WTF sharp w/o, has smoother handling than the aforementioned and is better across the frame at wider apertures and has that clarity' or 'transparency' you see from APO glass. Yet it's bokeh can get iffy, it's CA control is not as good as the other Leica APOs (or the CV90 or CV180), it's very pricey and ANY work, from a simple CLA on up, requires a a lengthy and $$$ round-trip to Leica. Stopped down to mid-apertures, you'd be hard pressed to tell any of the three apart. Which is better?
Hell, if I $$$ for every time I've showed a print (or emailed) a sharp skinny DoF image to someone to look at just to have them 'oooh' and 'ahh' over the 'soft background' and how 'nice' it goes 'in and out of focus' vs the cut-your-corneas sharp 0.5" actual plane of focus, I'd be running that Hassy H4D-40 MFD kit I covet so much ;>
-------
I also agree with JC - M645 (or Hassy) glass is not for Mirex use only. A lot of the glass in M645 can give any comparable AF native mount 35mm lenses a should-to-shoulder run for their money and sadly (given what Canon or Nikon ask for glass and their QC) in more cases than not, win.
Jul 30, 2010 at 07:25 AM
p.30 #13Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Conner999 wrote:
It's a very personal thing. I prefer the f/2.8. I sold my f/1.9 to somebody who prefers the f/1.9 - at least, so far he does - he recently borrowed both of my f/2.8's, stay tuned. Anyway, for 'straight up' shooting (i.e. no tilt-shift), I prefer the Summircon-R 90/2 and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 over the Mamiya C 80/1.9 and Rokinon 85/1.4. For T-S shooting, I prefer the C 80/2.8N. If you want to know what you prefer, you'll have to try them for yourself. That would be me (thanks again JC).
Bottom line is if I had to pick between an M645 2.8 and the 1.9, I'd still pick the 1.9 - but not because the 2.8 sucks in comparison. The 2.8s render very nicely, but I still prefer the having the speed on-hand of the 1.9 given how close I felt the 1.9 and the 2.8C rendered. That said, I am going to pick up a 2.8N (my 1.9 is a C) . The lens is a great performer and given it's price for a mint copy, a no-brainer. Having the higher contrast...Show more →
+1
Very well put.
I am grateful that so many think that most of the M645 line-up is only worth using with the Mirex. Although I have not had the opportunity to compare them to the CV and Leica offerings, I do tend to reach for my M645 lenses more and more often because I consistently prefer the results I get when I use them.
I say....."Let the myth continue!".
Edited on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM · View previous versions
jcolwell wrote
HBOC wrote
Is the 80 1.9 THAT much better than the 80/2.8?Bottom line is if I had to pick between an M645 2.8 and the 1.9, I'd still pick the 1.9 - but not because the 2.8 sucks in comparison. The 2.8s render very nicely, but I still prefer the having the speed on-hand of the 1.9 given how close I felt the 1.9 and the 2.8C rendered. That said, I am going to pick up a 2.8N (my 1.9 is a C) . The lens is a great performer and given it's price for a mint copy, a no-brainer. Having the higher contrast...Show more →
+1
Very well put.
I am grateful that so many think that most of the M645 line-up is only worth using with the Mirex. Although I have not had the opportunity to compare them to the CV and Leica offerings, I do tend to reach for my M645 lenses more and more often because I consistently prefer the results I get when I use them.
I say....."Let the myth continue!".
Edited on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM · View previous versions
Jul 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM
p.30 #14Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
When asking if the 1.9 is THAT much better than the 2.8 ... the question that comes to mind is 'Better in what regard?' ...
... sharpness, DOF isolation, bokeh, transitions, light gathering, color, contrast, aberrations, tonality, mfd, weight, portrait use vs. landscape, etc.
"Better" sometimes is really code for "In what ways are they different?" (that would justify / warrant the $$$ diff) that would make / not make them 'better' for my shooting style.
In a simple example alone, the N versions have different coatings that yield a bit more contrasty images, while the C versions have a bit less contrast. If you want contrastier imagery ... the N is likely to be better suited for you style. If you want a bit less contrast (still very nice and easily bumped in post) file so you have a bit more tonality lattitude in post, the C might be better suited.
In the case of the 80mm I've got the 80/4 Macro C version, so I can't comment on the diff between the 1.9 vs. 2.8 ... but it might be helpful to clarify for others where your interests / utilization / concerns are with the 80mm M645. My guess is that unless you have a specific reason for wanting the 1.9 (other than the obvious f-stop) the 2.8 will likely serve you well (for little $$$). Shooting the M645 glass is a bit different from 35mm glass ... but for me I find the M645 glass to have what I would call a very neutral drawing style ... rather than a 'Mamiya Look' akin to an Oly look or a Zeiss or Leica look, etc..
For me, I've got some Zeiss (35mm registration) for contrastier shots ... and Mamiya (M645 registration) for tonality shots.
Edited on Jul 30, 2010 at 01:27 PM · View previous versions
... sharpness, DOF isolation, bokeh, transitions, light gathering, color, contrast, aberrations, tonality, mfd, weight, portrait use vs. landscape, etc.
"Better" sometimes is really code for "In what ways are they different?" (that would justify / warrant the $$$ diff) that would make / not make them 'better' for my shooting style.
In a simple example alone, the N versions have different coatings that yield a bit more contrasty images, while the C versions have a bit less contrast. If you want contrastier imagery ... the N is likely to be better suited for you style. If you want a bit less contrast (still very nice and easily bumped in post) file so you have a bit more tonality lattitude in post, the C might be better suited.
In the case of the 80mm I've got the 80/4 Macro C version, so I can't comment on the diff between the 1.9 vs. 2.8 ... but it might be helpful to clarify for others where your interests / utilization / concerns are with the 80mm M645. My guess is that unless you have a specific reason for wanting the 1.9 (other than the obvious f-stop) the 2.8 will likely serve you well (for little $$$). Shooting the M645 glass is a bit different from 35mm glass ... but for me I find the M645 glass to have what I would call a very neutral drawing style ... rather than a 'Mamiya Look' akin to an Oly look or a Zeiss or Leica look, etc..
For me, I've got some Zeiss (35mm registration) for contrastier shots ... and Mamiya (M645 registration) for tonality shots.
Edited on Jul 30, 2010 at 01:27 PM · View previous versions
Jul 30, 2010 at 10:59 AM
p.30 #15Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Amen brother on maintaining the illusion outside the digital walls of this thread. Draw the bridge, put fire to the torches, let loose the (pick nasty critters of choice), etc. The longer prices stay down, the better.
On a more serious note - virtually all my glass are now M645 and a re-growing CV line. It's kind of funny actually. I currently NEED to get some AF glass, but while I'll pound the 'BIN' button on a nice MF lens listed like a meth-addict mainlining Red Bull, when looking to buy AF glass, the finger just hovers there and hovers there and hovers....then I change websites telling myself "I'll decide later". ;>
Edit - RB, well put. It's funny how many people get blinders on and will only buy one line of glass, singing it's praises and in far too many cases tearing apart all others. There are far, far, far too many lenses and lens makers, current and defunct to have such a narrow mind set.
Edited on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:10 AM · View previous versions
On a more serious note - virtually all my glass are now M645 and a re-growing CV line. It's kind of funny actually. I currently NEED to get some AF glass, but while I'll pound the 'BIN' button on a nice MF lens listed like a meth-addict mainlining Red Bull, when looking to buy AF glass, the finger just hovers there and hovers there and hovers....then I change websites telling myself "I'll decide later". ;>
Edit - RB, well put. It's funny how many people get blinders on and will only buy one line of glass, singing it's praises and in far too many cases tearing apart all others. There are far, far, far too many lenses and lens makers, current and defunct to have such a narrow mind set.
Edited on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:10 AM · View previous versions
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM
p.30 #16Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
The longer prices stay down, the better.
+1
The Mirex myth and the contrast / sharpness myths can live on as well. While my bag has Nikon, Oly, Canon, Tamron & Zeiss along with my M645 glass, M645 sits closest to the camera body ... kinda speaks for itself.
while I'll pound the 'BIN' button on a nice MF lens listed like a meth-addict mainlining Red Bull, when looking to buy AF glass, the finger just hovers there and hovers there and hovers....then I change websites telling myself "I'll decide later". ;>
Too true ... +1
+1
The Mirex myth and the contrast / sharpness myths can live on as well. While my bag has Nikon, Oly, Canon, Tamron & Zeiss along with my M645 glass, M645 sits closest to the camera body ... kinda speaks for itself.
while I'll pound the 'BIN' button on a nice MF lens listed like a meth-addict mainlining Red Bull, when looking to buy AF glass, the finger just hovers there and hovers there and hovers....then I change websites telling myself "I'll decide later". ;>
Too true ... +1
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:09 AM
p.30 #17Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Edit - RB, well put. It's funny how many people get blinders on and will only buy one line of glass, singing it's praises and in far too many cases tearing apart all others. There are far, far, far too many lenses and lens makers, current and defunct to have such a narrow mind set.
Some really good FM'ers educated me some time back about 'drawing style' ... which really replaces the word "better' in my photographic vocabulary to a large degree. Now I strive to understand what the 'differences' are much more so than figuring out which one is 'better' ... and deciding how / if I want to incorporate that drawing style into my bag.
After all, how do you say the cute redhead is cuter than the cute blonde?
(unless of course, the redhead is your wife)
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:23 AM
p.30 #18Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
As to the 80/2.8 vs 80/1.9 issue, they're very similar. My experience (all C versions) is that the f2.8 is a hair sharper and it also focuses closer. The 1.9 is faster. That's about it. I almost always haul the 1.9 for its speed.
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:26 AM
p.30 #19Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Wow, this forum is amazing! Such helpful people. I wish I would have been shooting alt gear years ago!
Anyways, I hear you guys about the BIN button, especially with bing.com ending. I am awaiting like $95 back from recent purchases. I think I will go with the 80 2,8. I would like the 80 4,0, but I don't shoot Macro (would like to, but realistically I would shoot portraits 90 times more).
I think I will try to pick up a 55, 50 or 58mm in some sort of mount that I already have an adapter for.
Anyways, I hear you guys about the BIN button, especially with bing.com ending. I am awaiting like $95 back from recent purchases. I think I will go with the 80 2,8. I would like the 80 4,0, but I don't shoot Macro (would like to, but realistically I would shoot portraits 90 times more).
I think I will try to pick up a 55, 50 or 58mm in some sort of mount that I already have an adapter for.
Jul 30, 2010 at 12:06 PM
p.30 #20Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
AhamB wrote:
-JimDamn you, Jim, I may have to shell out for this lens.
What kind of tubes are you using? 36mm Kenko? I was looking for some native M645 tubes that I'd feel more comfortable to hang 1.1kg onto, but I'm not sure what to get.
I bought the el cheapo Extension tubes found on ebay for like $7 shipped No AF a little getting used to but they do the job very well.
-Jim
Jim Schemel wrote
5D and Mamiya 200APO and one extension tube @2.8-Jim
What kind of tubes are you using? 36mm Kenko? I was looking for some native M645 tubes that I'd feel more comfortable to hang 1.1kg onto, but I'm not sure what to get.
I bought the el cheapo Extension tubes found on ebay for like $7 shipped
No AF a little getting used to but they do the job very well.-Jim
Jul 30, 2010 at 04:29 PM