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.
Alf Beharie wrote:
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.
Is this based on your experience with one sample of the lens? Take another look at the pics I posted one page back in this thread. First one was taken wide open and the second at f4 and had no PP other than resizing (I don't believe in doing that for pics posted in this forum) for either at all.
I think you'll find that when you compare the different formats (MF vs. 35), you'll find that the 35mm format reigns over the MF glass when shooting the on the 'wide side' of 'normal' if you are looking at sharpness. I'm of the opinion that this is due to the longer registration coupled with the more obtuse angle of incidence, the light spread is noticeably different between the two formats ... less so when you are on the 'tele' side of things ... basically the reverse of the inherent differences noted between rangefinder vs. SLR formats.
With that in mind, I think it's important to understand if you are shooting for contrast/sharpness/acutance ... or tonal values ... then choose your poison, as they are two different animals.
RustyBug wrote:
I think you'll find that when you compare the different formats (MF vs. 35), you'll find that the 35mm format reigns over the MF glass when shooting the on the 'wide side' of 'normal' if you are looking at sharpness. I'm of the opinion that this is due to the longer registration coupled with the more obtuse angle of incidence, the light spread is noticeably different between the two formats ... less so when you are on the 'tele' side of things ... basically the reverse of the inherent differences noted between rangefinder vs. SLR formats.
With that in mind, I think it's important to understand if you are shooting for contrast/sharpness/acutance ... or tonal values ... then choose your poison, as they are two different animals.
Interesting insight.
I believe though that regardless of the physics involved in the projection of light on the sensor or film within one system or another the "proof is in the pudding" and the "pudding" is in "the eye of the beholder".
Jim Schemel wrote:
Yakim,
are you able to post some good examples of the affect that a Mirex adapter can produce.I have seen some shift shots but at times its hard to see the affect it produces
-Jim
There are some good samples in this thread, including some from Yakim. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/881094
Alf Beharie wrote:
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
I did'nt mis-focus. Mine wasa mint version and I was using it on an APSc sized sensor DSLR, with an extremely sharp sensor, and from the same spot at the same settings the Pentacon was noticably sharper. I cant say whether using it on a FF DSLR would give a different result but I dont see how it could.
I am sure that what you saw were accurate results for your lens.Just as with all other manufactures there is variation from one copy of a lens to another.I just do not think its fair to make a blanket statement about a particular focal length implying that they are all not sharp.
-Jim
Jim Schemel wrote:
I am sure that what you saw were accurate results for your lens.Just as with all other manufactures there is variation from one copy of a lens to another.I just do not think its fair to make a blanket statement about a particular focal length implying that they are all not sharp.
-Jim
+1
Mine is very sharp too...in fact I have several Mamiya 645 lenses and they are all sharp. I am amazed that one person could end up with so many bad copies......very strange. I have also repaired and resold a few with faulty (mostly oily blades) apertures that also proved to be very sharp. Out of the approx 25 that have passed through my hands I have not found one yet that could not deliver.
The M645 200mm APO is an f/2.8 lens, you pay the big money for the larger aperture
However, you can sometimes find new versions, from the others side of the dateline (US-centric here) for under $700. Sometimes - New, In Box for $650 or so.
Alf Beharie wrote:
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.
