Mamiya Twin Lens Reflex Interchangeable Lenses
Mamiya Twin Lens Reflex 180mm Lens
Photo thanks to Jim Greeley
[email protected]
Mamiya Twin Lens Reflex 65mm Wide Angle Lens
Photo thanks to Jim Greeley
[email protected]
Related Links:
Mamiya
C330 Manual Page On Lenses
Mamiya C2xx/C3xx Interchangeable Lenses (Dr. Robert Smith) [5/2003]
Mamiya C Lenses:
| focal length |
Max Aperture |
Min. Aperture |
Style |
elements/groups |
closest focus |
| 55 mm |
f4.5 |
f22 |
black |
9/7 |
9.5 inches |
| 65mm |
f3.5 |
f32 |
black/chrome |
6/5 |
10.5 inches |
| 80mm |
f2.8 |
f32 |
black/chrome |
5/3 |
13 inches |
| 105mm |
f3.5 |
f32 |
black/chrome |
5/3 |
23 inches |
| 105mm D |
f3.5 |
f32 |
black |
5/3 |
23 inches |
| 135mm |
f4.5 |
f45 |
black/chrome |
4/3 |
35.5 inches |
| 180mm |
f4.5 |
f45 |
black/chrome |
5/4 |
50.75 inches |
| 180mm Super |
f4.5 |
f45 |
black |
5/4 |
50.75 inches |
| 250mm |
f6.3 |
f64 |
black |
6/4 |
80.75 inches |
| Mamiya C series (early) Lens Tests |
|---|
| lens: |
65mm |
f/3.5 |
80mm |
f/2.8 |
105mm |
f/3.5 |
135mm |
f/4.5 |
180mm |
f/4.5 |
| f/stops |
center |
edge |
center |
edge |
center |
edge |
center |
edge |
center |
edge |
| max |
very good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
very good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
good |
| 5.6 |
exc. |
very good |
very good |
good |
good |
very good |
good |
good |
good |
very good |
| 8 |
exc. |
vg+ |
very good |
very good |
very good |
vg+ |
good |
very good |
very good |
vg+ |
| 11 |
exc. |
vg+ |
very good |
very good |
very good |
vg+ |
good |
vg+ |
exc. |
vg+ |
| 16 |
exc. |
vg+ |
good |
very good |
very good |
vg+ |
good |
vg+ |
v |
vg+ |
| 22 |
very good |
very good |
good |
good |
good |
very good |
good |
vg+ |
very good |
very good |
| 32 |
good |
very good |
good |
good |
good |
very good |
good |
very good |
very good |
very good |
| 45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
good |
good |
very good |
good |
See Modern Photography, July 1965, p. 85 for full review
and explanation of ratings and tests...
Photo notes:
The mamiya 180mm lens shown in photo fits any Mamiya TLR
(C2/C22/C220 or C3/C33/C330). This lens is the older standard (single
coated) chrome version. The later, black lenses are multicoated to reduce
flare. Understandably, the later lenses tend to command higher prices, but
the earlier lenses can be very sharp too. The 180mm focal length is ideal
for portraiture and telephoto applications too...
Mamiya 65mm TLR Lens
Mamiya 65mm lens Mamiya TLR's (C2 and C3, C22 and C33, C220 and C330's).
An absolute MUST for good landscape photography.
Deja Vu
From p. 11, Camera Buyer's Guide - 1970 in Life Library of Photography:
Lenses for Mamiyaflex C330
55mm f/4.5 $189.50
65mm f/3.5 $153.00
80mm f/2.8 $ 99.50
105mm f/3.5 $124.50
135mm f/4.5 $129.50
180mm f/4.5 $169.50
250mm f/6.3 $249.50
[Ed. note: thanks, Joachim, for this helpful update! ]
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: Joachim Hein [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 180mm for Mamiya TLR
Dear Robert,
thank you very much for the address of your web pages, and I started
looking at the Mamiya TLR things you publish. I am afraid the note on
the difference between the 180 and 180 super is simply wrong. The normal
180 is a simpler optical design than the super. The normal one is 4
element, the super is 5 element. I don't own any of the 180s, but from
what I read in the internet groups, the super must be superior in edge
definition. Please check also with Graham Pattersons web pages.
The same also holds for the difference between 105 D and non D. D is 5
element, non-D 4 element. They also differ in closest focus and you have
to exchange focus scales according to the version you use, some thing
you don't need with the 180.
(I am refering to: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/mamiyatlrlens.html)
Perhaps one more remark. The lenses shown are so called 'chrome' lenses.
There are no spare parts available for these and so these can provide
trouble in fixing. Perhaps you want to include a remark on this problem.
I will look at some more of your pages. Thanks, nice service
Joachim
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: Mamiya C-330/C-220 Lenses.
Date: Mon Jan 18 09:31:46 CST 1999
Nelson Wu [email protected] wrote:
> Does anyone has objective or subject comments on the Mamiya C series
> lenses. I have read a lot about the cameras but is there any link to
> the reviews of the lenses??? How is the quality of the lenses compare
> to other Medium Format Cameras???
My lens test results:
Conditions:
Film: Tech Pan
Developer: Microphen diluted 1+5, 14 min @ 75 deg. F
Illumination: Multi strobes, max duration 1/1000 sec.
Magnification: 1:36
Lenses: All black, 55, 80, 105D, 135, 180 Super, 250
Body: C330, tripod, cable release
Finder: Beattie Intenscreen w/ split prism, type 2 shade
Target: Stepped target, stripes similar to USAF 1951
Neg viewer: Zeiss microscope 100X
Edge limits legend:
T=blurred tangential lines
R=blurred radial lines
C=field curvature
F-stop, center lp/mm, edge lp/mm
55mm:
4.5--57---25TC
5.6--71---32TC
8----71---40T
11---71---40T
16---63---45T
22---57---40T
80mm:
2.8--50---28TC
4----57---36TC
5.6--63---32
8----90---40
11---90---50
16---71---40
22---57---36
105mm:
3.5--57---36R
5.6--71---40R
8----90---57
11---80---63
16---63---50
22---57---50
135mm:
4.5--45---32R
5.6--50---40
8----57---32
11---63---28
16---57---28
22---50---28
180mm:
4.5--71---40T
5.6--80---50T
8----80---45T
11---71---45
16---57---45
22---50---40
250mm:
6.3--63---45T
8----63---45T
11---71---45T
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mamiya Flex
Hi Nick,
sorry there isn't much info on the mamiyaflex itself, but there is lots
of info on-site on the related lenses and lines of
c2/c3/c22/c33/c330/c220/c330f... and also lenses...
see http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/m_faq04.htm#Heading16
for more info and specifics on the mamiyaflex itself, kinds of features etc.
120 film 6x6 format interchangeable lenses - at least 3 options, but the
lenses appear different from the later C2/C3 series lenses at least in
details (see above site comments).
The C2xx series are the lower end model, while the C3xx series has more
features on the bodies, but they use the same series of interchangeable
lenses. I don't know if these lenses can be used on the Mamiyaflex C model
without modifications or not?
Patterson noted these idiosyncracies of Mamiyaflex C:
Original chrome 80mm, 105mm, 135mm lenses (1/400 second), single focus
knob on right side. Frame counter must be manually reset. Also known as
the Mamiya Flex C Professional. The lens retaining wire is hinged from
the opposite side when compared to the C3 and later models, and the light
baffle control is on the right side.
end-quote:
Overall, this camera was the first interchangeable lens mamiya TLR (after
the models A and B fixed lens TLRs, hence sometimes called Mamiyaflex C
or Mamiyaflex C professional.
You can find lots more info on mamiya following links from the main
camera library site on mamiya TLRs see
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html under mamiya TLR...
besides cameras info, I have lens reviews and lens sharpness data etc.
posted for the standard mamiyaflex c2/c3xx lenses - but again, I don't
know if these fit the mamiyaflex C TLR without modifications or not?
Personally, I would recommend buying a later model C33/c330/c330f if you
can swing it, otherwise, a model c22/c220 that uses the full line of TLR
standard lenses. The Mamiyaflex C is from the mid-1950s, only made for a
few years ('56-7?), and later models were much improved with more
features and accessories. But if you find one for the very right (low)
price, it would probably be a very acceptable TLR for many users - but
not a pro use camera (get c330/c220 series for that etc.).
ON the other hand, if you want to make a TLR collection, it's a great
starting point, but I'll bet finding the 3 lenses listed would be a
problem, and frankly, you are missing wide angle (only 80 105 135?) and
the 3 lenses aren't much of a range IMHO - all normal or short teles...
Be sure that the limitations of a TLR fit your needs and interests - see
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/tlr.html for list...
Hope this helps - regards bobm
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182
[email protected] *
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" [email protected]
[1] Re: Mamiya TLR Lens, Any Good?
Date: Thu Mar 25 14:21:45 CST 1999
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] (GolfWest) wrote:
> > I'm interested to hear some opinions on Mamiya TLR lenses. In particular, I'm
> > interested in the 55mm lens. Thanks in advance for replies.
>
> Mamiya TLR lenses are great, there's a report on the lenes on popular
> photographics magazine (somewhere around 1957), I have to find out, then I
> will let you know. p.s. I personally like the 105 DS lens, because it has f
> stops on both view and picture taking lens, plus is coated.
>
> WEI
Wei,
I agree that the Mamiya lenses are excellent.
One point of information, though. ALL the Mamiya TLR lenses were coated.
Some of the later models (usually with the Seiko shutters) were
multi-coated.
Best regards,
Stew
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Mamiya TLR Lens, Any Good?
Date: Thu Mar 25 12:46:40 CST 1999
[email protected] (GolfWest) wrote:
> I'm interested to hear some opinions on Mamiya TLR lenses. In particular, I'm
> interested in the 55mm lens. Thanks in advance for replies.
Check out http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/m_faq01.htm for general
info.
Results of my lens tests:
Conditions: Film: Tech Pan Developer: Microphen diluted 1+5, 14 min @ 75 deg.
F Illumination: Multi strobes, max duration 1/1000 sec. Magnification: 1:36
Lenses: All black, 55, 80, 105D, 135, 180 Super, 250 Body: C330, tripod,
cable release Finder: Beattie Intenscreen w/ split prism, type 2 finder
Target: Custom staircase target, stripes similar to USAF 1951 Neg viewer:
Zeiss microscope 100X
Edge limits legend: T=blurred tangential lines R=blurred radial lines
C=field curvature
F-stop, center lp/mm, edge lp/mm
55mm:
4.5--57---25TC
5.6--71---32TC
8----71---40T
11---71---40T
16---63---45T
22---57---40T
80mm:
2.8--50---28TC
4----57---36TC
5.6--63---32
8----90---40
11---90---50
16---71---40
22---57---36
105mm:
3.5--57---36R
5.6--71---40R
8----90---57
11---80---63
16---63---50
22---57---50
135mm:
4.5--45---32R
5.6--50---40
8----57---32
11---63---28
16---57---28
22---50---28
180mm:
4.5--71---40T
5.6--80---50T
8----80---45T
11---71---45
16---57---45
22---50---40
250mm:
6.3--63---45T
8----63---45T
11---71---45T
From: "Keith Wiebe" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR Lens, Any Good?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999
The only lens combo that won't work is some of the early 18cm 4.5 lens
don't have the cutout for the shutter cock mechanism on the later bodies
and so won't work on the later bodies without mods.
Keith Wiebe
steve [email protected] wrote in article
> Will the 55mm lens fit on the older C2 cameras? Also will the Super
> 180mm lens fit on the older Mamiyas?
>
> Thanks
> Steve
[Ed.note: Warning!]
rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "FRANKEE" [email protected]
[1] Mamiya 180 Super (old type ?)
Date: Fri Oct 29 21:35:10 CDT 1999
I recently sent the above lens to Mamiya USA to get a repair estimate, as
the shutter was sticking sporadically. They mailed me back an estimate
saying "lens has old style shutter, parts not available due to age. Requires
a new shutter unit to repair- $323." I was under the impression that all the
"Black" lenses had the new shutters and the "Chrome" were the old models. I
have emailed this question to Mamiya twice this week and received no reply.
Can someone shed some wisdom on the subject for me? Thanx- F.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: kab [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Checking Maymiya TLR lenses
I check lens accuracy with a collimator. I have a 180 Super that has a
0.060" spacer under the viewing lens so that both lenses are at infinity
focus at the same time. I have repaired and defungused about 2 dozen
Mamiya TLR lenses and have noticed that the shimming commonly is on one
lens and not the other. I put them in a collimator and they check out at
infinity, hence the shimming is correct. Without a collimator, I doubt
that even with a 30x loupe you would be able to compare the focusing
accuracy of the taking and viewing lenses.
karl
Simon Freidin wrote:
> I have a Mamiya TLR and some of the lens sets have been obviously
> dissassembled in the past.
>
> For example, on the 180 super (bought in pieces for $10) there is a 0.1
> mm (.0025") brass shim ring under the first element set on the viewing
> lens, but not the taking. Must there always be a match of shims between
> taking and viewing lenses?
>
> Does anyone have a technique they use for checking the accuracy of focus
> between the viewing and taking lenses. I've tried examining a ground
> glass with a 30X loupe, but it lack accuracy
>
> regards
> Simon
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 03 CST 2001
[1] Re: Mamiya TLR models and wideangles
There were a lot of (early?) 105s that did nott have depth of field
preview. those that did have it (105D, 105DS), of course, have a
diaphragm in the viewing lens.
bob
[Ed. note: thanks to David Grabowski for sharing these tips!...]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: mamiya c330 portrait lens
Vadim Zaliva [email protected]
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I am considering purchase of new lens for my Mamiya C330. Something
>suitable for doing portraits. Any recommendations?
>
>Vadim
Kind of depends on what type of portraits you want to do with it. The
180 is good for head and shoulder portraits or slightly more if you
don't mind backing up a bit. The 135 is more of a do it all in one
lens for portraits but takes the most bellows racking of the lenses
available , especially when shooting in close. It will handle half
length very well but can do the head and shoulder shots too.
I've used the 135 for portraits and especially bridal portraits and
kids for several years, in terms of image appeal I think this lens is
hard to beat even in moving to other systems. The 135mm lens seems to
have that nice level of sharpness but not too much so for portrait
work, it's a really nice lens once you get used to the extra bellows
factor.
That all stated , you can shoot full lengths or small groups with the
80 and more with the 65. I wouldn't exclude these lenses as portrait
lenses, just depends on what you mean by portrait and the style
portrait you want to create.
David Grabowski
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
From: "Keith Wiebe" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR models and wideangles
> I found the 65 very usefull for wedding coverage but it is soft at
> the edges wide open, I often had to crop to get past that problem. But
> that was my example. Anyway if other 65s are like this , you end up at
> about 5.6 before the problem leaves, so the 55. might just be the
> better deal overall. As to the 105, that is a good lens but for
> portraiture I think the 135 is about impossible to beat and that
> includes to move to another system.
>
> Just my opinion and experiences,
>
> David Grabowski
I'll second the recom. on the 135 lens. I have had the 180 and 250 lenses
in the past and I prefered their perspective they were too clumbsy and
often too long. The 135 will go for small groups as well as tight head
shots ok. It's what I use for 90% of my portrait work. I have found the
Ambico 6x6 shade modified slightly to allow the top viewing lens to shine
through and their 6x6 masks make wonderful vignetters. I also love the
Nikon soft focus 1 filter and I'll add the Ambico diffuser for real tight
head shots of pretty girls.
Keith Wiebe
[Ed. note: thanks again to David Grabowski for sharing these
pointers...]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens choice for C-33
[email protected] (Slap Happy) wrote:
>>Do you plan on handholding it though?
>
>Nope I use a big fat bogen tripod
>
>.> doesn't the 105 stick out a ways when focused at infinity?
>
>Yes, a pretty good bit.
>
>Thanks for your reply. I Think I might go for the cheap chrome 135. I wish I
>could find a cheap 55mm also, but being poor has its disadvantages.
Everything is relevant, cheap to one system is expensive to another
and vise versa, same for people. Have a look at a 65 KL for the RB 67
some time or a 60T for the Hassy and you will a feel for what I mean.
Anyway as the system goes , the 55 is one of the more expensive
lenses for the Mamiya TLR but it may well be worth holding out for
over the 65, though if I needed something fairly wide right away I
would take a 65 . Just sold mine recently actually but shot many a
group photo with that lens and it was very good for table shots taking
5 or 6 people. This example I sold was prone to foul up in adversed
light and the flash sync was the older design that takes an expensive
update, so I sold it off now before it gave me trouble.Some body got a
good lens for low use with flash indoors but I couldn't trust it.
The 135 chrome is probably as good shooting as the black but it too
will suffer from upgrade problems if you have trouble with it by
chance. The lens to get, even if you have to save for an extra month
is a black with anticrash shutter, that's my goal in Mamiya TLR ( if I
stick with them much longer), is to upgrade anything I have to this
later lens, that 65 was the only non anticrash I had. Also a hood or
pro style shade becomes all the more needed with the chrome lenses but
they are sharp shooters.
David Grabowski
From: "thc" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 180mm f4.5 lens: super vs. non-super
All the information I have about Mamiya TLR lenses:
180mm f/4.5 lens
4 elements, in 3 groups
telephoto design
180mm f/4.5 Super lens
5 elements, in 4 groups
supposedly more advanced telephoto design than non-Super lens
"Pok Hon Wally Yu" [email protected] wrote
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know the main difference between regular and super version
> of the Mamiya TLR 180mm lens. Seems like the super version has better
> optical quality, but how much better?
>
> Thanks
> Wally
[Ed. note: Thanks to Bob Peters for this clarification!...]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
From: "R. Peters" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mamiya TLR
Looking over your page on Mamiya TLR, I think you could do your readers a
service by pointing out that the term "black lens" and "chrome lens" are
(in my opinion) misnomers. You can have a "black lens" (barrel) with a
chrome shutter, and it's the chrome shutter that (in my opinion) lowers
the value as no (new) repair parts are available.
As I understand it, I think the terms really should be "chrome shutter" or
"black shutter" (Additionally, if the lenses were truly black, you
couldn't take pictures with them! ) :-)
I think there is confusion over the 105D and DS lenses. The "other"
mamiya page (Graham whatsis) says he hasn't seen a 105 D with a diaphragm.
I understood that the 105D was a "non super" with diaphragm, and the DS
was the later "Super" version....but I don't know that for a fact...????
bob
Postscript:
I also believe the 180mm "non" Super has 4 elements rather than 5. (?)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: Charles Meyer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR question.
I had a used 180mm Mamiya TLR lens that exihibited similar optical
qualitites. On a hunch I sent it to my repairman and asked him to check
and see if the lens was assembled correctly. Sure enough, the previous
owner had disassembled the lens and not reassembled it right (probably
was a inverted element). It shot great photos after that.
Charles
MRose wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I recently purchased a used Mamiya 330 with 80mm lens. This is
> my first medium format.
> I shoot one roll and the results are somewhat puzzling.
> All four corners seem stretched a little, it is hard to see if there is
> a reduced image quality since it is the corner. Also one of the
> negative sides, shows a jaggy edge along about half of its length,
> when viewed with and x8 loupe.
> Though, both of these can be easily cropped away, I wonder whether an
> experienced user will consider these as serious defect.
>
> Thank you.
>
> MR
From: "Keith Wiebe" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 180mm TLR lens question.
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001
> Wait! I have been using a C330f with an old chrome dial 150mm for
> years. It does _not_ self-cock by film advance. Were there _three_
> 150's made for Mamiya or is this one unique? Or is some of this
> information faulty?
>
> Truly, dr bob.
You must have the later chrome lens. There probably was a total of 4 styles
of these lenses. The early ones were marked 18cm and didn't fit the C330
style self cocking bodies. The later ones apparently did (probably came out
the same time of the C-33?). The early black 180, the later 180 super.
Possibly 2 versions of the 180 super? Later and older shutters? Check
Pattersons web site for more info.
Keith Wiebe
From: "Rick" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: sellers of Mamiya TLR lenses
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001
This is contrary to my experience... I had a C3 with an 80, and I used it
for about a year with good results. the odd soft neg I blamed on camera
shake or focusing error.. I then had occasion to shoot a large group with
flash, at a fairly large aperture.. and the whole roll was soft.. got me to
thinking, so I put the oily paper at the film plane and focused on the
screen.. sure enough.. unsharp! I then noticed that the VIEWING lens had a
ding in the filter ring... occured to me that they might have been reversed,
swapped viewing/taking, and presto! Problem solved! My analysis was that the
DOF was saving me, outside, always f11-f16 or so.. but there may have been
something else in play than the elements! Anyway, one person's story....
Roland [email protected]> wrote
> I've taken apart both viewing and taking lenses for cleaning and both
> the taking and viewing lenses look identical to each other and are
> constructed the same. This includes taking out individual lens elements
> for cleaning. I've swapped them round and noticed no difference at all.
> They would seem to be identical twins. So next time you see one for sale
> on ebay with a slightly spoiled taking lens then help yourself to a
> bargain.
>
> Bob Fowler wrote:
> >
> > It might seem so at first thought, but.... are all of the viewing and taking
> > lens cells interchangable? I know that unlike Yashica and other TLR's, the
> > viewing and taking lenses are the same speed, but are they of the same
> > construction? If so, yeah, no problem, swap away. If not...
> >
> > Bob Fowler
> > [email protected]
> >
> > "Roland" [email protected]> wrote
> > > It makes me chuckle when they sell a Mamiya TLR lens on ebay cheaply
> > > because it is the *taking" lens that has the scratch on it, rather than
> > > the viewing lens. :o)
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 55 or 65?
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001
"Vincent Becker"
[email protected]> wrote:
>"Joe B." [email protected]> a �crit...
>
>Hello,
>I own the 55mm so I can write about it though I can't compare with the
>65mm.
>Optically, I find the 55mm just superb, even at full aperture. It has
>little flare when used with its lens hood. As for the wheight
>consideration, I think the weight differnce between the 55mm and 65mm
>wil be negligible when compared with the weight of the C330 itself ;-).
>
>> I'm going to get a 55 or 65mm lens to use on a Mamiya 330F and I am
>wondering
>> which to get. I'll be using it for landscapes, interiors and
>environmental
>> portraits, often handheld and in low light. At the moment I am more
>drawn to
>> the 65 because it will have a less obvious wideangle look.
>
>On that part I think the 55mm will be a little too wide-angle as you
>suggest, specially for the environemental portraits. People will look
>tiny on the picture. For low-light use, the maximum aperture of the 55mm
>is f/4.5 as the 65mm is f/3.5. Again I can't compare their optical
>quality at those apertures.
>
>I hope this helps,
>--
>Regards,
>From France,
>Vincent
>Photography and old cameras (in french) :
>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/vincent.becker/sitephoto/galerie/index.htm
>(remove NO SPAM to answer by e-mail)
I owned the 65 and came up with mixed reviews of my own work. It's a
sharp lens and a useful focal length for sure but I had problems with
inconsitant transfer of contrast, in this regard I think the 55 is a
better lens, least from my limited experience. The 55 is like the wide
angle Crowned Jewel of Mamiya TLR users everywhere and demands the
little bit more premium price as well for this reason.
I think the 55 would be a tad wide for environmental portraits of
individuals, the 65 is great in this regard, just use a good shade.
And, actually I like to use as long a lens as I can get away with
personally. For instance, a pair of sitting girls ( little girls, ie
children) shot at a location of say an outdoor scenic or historical
location, where you might want some of the background in there or all
of the scene in there for that matter, might actually go better with
the 135 from further back, or the 105 not quite so far back. To get
the girls in nicely with wide angle , they may distort a bit and would
certainly be of great size compared to the scene. If you move the
girls back, they become very small relative to the scene and you get
all the trash arond the site that you didn't expect in the shot that
needs retouching out.
On the other hand , stand the girls and shoot full length , be careful
of angle, it might go well. Or in the case of smaller homes obviously
you have little choice but 65 is great at this IMO.
The 55 is a great scenics lens, the 65 a great small groups lens or
table shot lens.
David Grabowski
From: "Jim & Lora Wutrich" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 'S' lenses
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001
The 80mm black "S" and the black 105m "DS" are the only lenses to have the
"S" designation. I have both along with a number of other lenses, including
two 135mm's, two 55mm's, and a 180mm Super. I believe that the "S" lenses
are the only one's that are truly coated, considering that the 80mm S and
the 105 DS are the only lenses that reflect a multi-colored purplish-blue
hue under direct light.
For more info go to:
http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/m_faq10.htm#Heading63
Regards,
Jim
"Roland" [email protected]> wrote
> Were the 'S' lenses redesigns of the optics or just a different coating? I
> don't mean the "Super" as in the changed 180mm. I mean the plain 'S'. What's
> the difference between the 'S' and previous 80mm f2.8 lens, for example?
From: "Jorge M. Trevi�o" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR Lens Question
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001
For what it's worth... I've had the chance of making side by side
comparisons of the following lenses:
a) Mamiya Sekor 80/2.8, Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Planar (C type) 80/2.8, Rollei
PQ Planar 80/2.8, Rollei TLR Schneider Xenotar 80/2.8 and Carl Zeiss Jena
Biogon 80/2.8. The undisputable best among the five is the Rollei PQ Planar,
followed some distance behind in sharpness by the Hasselblad Planar and the
Schneider Xenotar in a virtually indistinguishable tie. The Mamiya is a
pretty close third place to the two former... I can tell it apart from the
Rollei PQ but not from the Hasselblad or Rollei TLR. The CZ Jena Biogon is
almost as sharp in the center as the Mamiya but not in the corners. However,
contrast is better as is color rendition (the Pentacon body sucks tho). All
five lenses are -of course- exquisitely corrected and give virtually 0
distortion of any kind. Sharpness in all but the CZJ Biogon is almost as
good wide open as at f/8 -the best aperture of all.
b) Mamiya Sekor 55/4.5, Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Distagon 50/4 (C), Rollei PQ
Distagon 50/4 and Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50/4. Here the pecking order
goes like this:
Sharpness wide open: 1. Rollei, 2. Hasselblad, 3. Mamiya, 4. CZ Jena.
Sharpness at f/8: same as above.
Contrast: 1. Rollei, 2. Mamiya, 3. CZ Jena, 4. Hasselblad.
Distortion: 1. Hasselblad & Rollei, 2. Mamiya, 3. CZ Jena.
c) This is really an apples-oranges case but here it goes: Mamiya Sekor
135/3.5, Mamiya Sekor 250/5.6, Rollei PQS 150/4, Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar
180/2.8 --no Hassie long lens here.
Sharpness wide open: Rollei 150, Mamiya 250, Mamiya 135, CZJ 180.
Sharpness at f/8: Rollei 150, CZJ 180, Mamiya 135, Mamiya 250.
Contrast: Rollei 150, CZJ 180, Mamiya 135, Mamiya 250.
Distortion: Rollei 150, Mamiya 135, Mamiya 250, CZJ 180.
NB: My Hassie lenses are 30 year old C types, single coated. I have no doubt
that the new generation T* lenses are every bit as good or, quite likely,
marginally better than the Rollei counterparts of the same formulae,
manufactured by Rollei proper in Braunschweig.
So there you are, the Mamiya C lenses don't really "beat the pants off"
anything else. They can probably win hands down compared to Arsenal, Kiev,
Seagull, Kowa... some Carl Zeiss Jena too, but will pale noticeably compared
to modern glass, be it Mamiya, Pentax, Schneider or -no contest here- Carl
Zeiss for Hasselblad, Rollei or Contax.
--Jorge.
http://www.jorgemtrevino.com
"Roland" [email protected]> escribi�
> Keith Wiebe wrote:
> >
> > > The 250mm Mamiya lens for the TLR deserves a good support.
> >
> > I would agree with that!
> > Keith Wiebe
>
> I think Mamiya medium format lenses beat the pants off anything else,
> judging by the resolution ratings. But I am not a regular user of Mamiya
> (I recently got hold of a C3 Professional but haven't got round to using
> it yet). I think medium format lenses are rather poor in resolution
> (compared to 35mm format) but that the larger film size gets then
> through. But I gather that Mamiya lenses might be an exception in being
> of higher resolving power. I'd be interested in a comparison between the
> Mamiya lenses and the Carl Zeiss lenses used on Hasselblads.
From: "Christopher Bush" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya C33 lens: 250 mm. Quality?
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001
That has got to be biggest reason I miss my C330 system. That lens, and the
180 Super, are just downright stellar. Razor-sharp, nice contast....an all
around great performer. U.S. values range from $250 on the low end to about
$600 on the (very) high end. So a good deal would be around $350-$450
Canadian???
--
Christopher Bush
http://www.christopherbush.com
"George Gill" [email protected]> wrote...
> I have an opportunity to buy a 250 mm black lens for my C33. I do a lot of
> landscapes and nature and could use a long lens. What is the reputation of
> this lens and what is its general value. I'm buying in Canada so if any of
> you know the Canadian price, that would be nice; otherwise I'll convert.
>
> I have the 80mm, and would get a paramender for close ups without parallax
> problems. I have a Canon G1 digital for most of my shooting, but the 6x6 is
> very, very nice if one can carry it, and I can in some circumstances. Or am
> I just wasting my money?
>
> George
From: "Roland" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question on Mamiya TLR lenses
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
There is a Mamiya TLR FAQ here
http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/m_faq.htm
2.1 Fittings
As a broad generality, all lenses will fit all bodies. But early bodies will
not have focus, parallax, and exposure compensation scales for the focal
lengths introduced later. The original 1/400th Seikosha-MX shuttered lenses
and some Seikosha-S shuttered 180mm lenses will not fit C33 and later
auto-cocking bodies. The problem with the MX series is that the lens cocking
arm is located higher than on the later lenses, and the auto-cocking lever
will not engage. It also fouls the lens lever for manual cocking..
Some lenses are known to fail to cock properly on later bodies. This appears
to be due to the auto-cocking lever not moving the lens cocking lever quite
far enough.
> Hi all. Was hoping someone could help me with a question about Mamiya
> TLRs.
>
> There are several different models of these Mamiyas- C2, C3, C33,
> C220, C330. My question is: do the Mamiya lenses fit on every one of
> these models, or are there differences among the camera bodies or
> among the lenses?
>
> thanks,
> Dave
> [email protected]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Was Heresy: yashica TLR, now Mamiya
Philippe Tempel at [email protected] wrote:
> I've read that the black lenses are better. Maybe
> because they are newer and/or have a better coating?
The chrome lenses, in general, are sharper.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Was Heresy: yashica TLR, now Mamiya
Philippe Tempel at [email protected] wrote:
> I'm sure you can get a replacement screen. Have you
> looked at Maxwell or Beattie? Maybe Mamiya themselves
> has one for this camera.
No. Mamiya has nothing for the TLR cameras these days. They and their
accessories were dropped from the catalog more than ten years ago.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] RE: asking advice for a yashica TLR/Mamiya
Siu/Bob,
You're right Siu about the aperture in the DS. Mamiya FAQ says: "At the
moment the best evidence suggests that only the last DS variant has a
viewing lens diaphragm and depth of field calculator ring."
Bob, I don't know anyone with the chrome series Mamiya lenses who thinks
they are better/sharper than the later black series. It may be true, but
nobody seems to say so. The Mamiya TLR FAQ says: "This was the first series
of lenses (ignoring the Seikosha-MX models mentioned previously, which are
presumed to be optically comparable with their successors) produced for
models up to and including the C33/C22." Maybe it's just another case of
people assuming newer is better? Some of the black series lens were
multi-coated, according to the FAQ, but not all.
R.J.
-----Original Message-----
From: Siu Fai [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
> The lens is the "standard" 80mm/f2.8 black lens (the barrel of
> all the later Mamiya TLR lenses is black -- the early lenses are chrome).
Just the shutter (Seikosha vs. Seiko). The lens barrels are all black.
> You'll get different opinions, but most people feel the
> 105mm DS lens (has shutters in both viewing and taking lenses,
> and therefore lets you see DOF),
> and the 180mm Super are the best of the Mamiya lenses.
I think you mean an aperture instead of shutter :-)
There are at least 3 versions of this lens.
1) No DOF and selftimer
2) Only DOF
3) DOF and selftimer
D probably stands for DOF but I have also seen 105D without an aperture on
the viewing lens. The S is for selftimer.
The only drawback I see from the Mamiya TLR system is that there is no DOF
scale, so you need to bring the charts with you. Prochnow mentioned this as
a reason why the Rollei TLR with interchangable lens never make it to
production.
There is also a luxury problem: once you start getting lenses and accesories
for the Mamiya your camera bag start getting heavy :(
Siu Fai
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Siu Fai [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] RE: Was Heresy: yashica TLR, now Mamiya
> > I've read that the black lenses are better. Maybe
> > because they are newer and/or have a better coating?
>
> The chrome lenses, in general, are sharper.
>
Bob, are you sure about this? You are the first one that says that the older
chrome lens are sharper than the later black one. This automatically means
that the 180 Super is LESS sharp than the old 180.
I only have black lenses (55, 80, 135 and 180 Super), so I can't do the
comparison. For me, they are more than adequate.
Siu Fai
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: asking advice for a yashica TLR/Mamiya
Robert at [email protected] wrote:
> Bob, I don't know anyone with the chrome series Mamiya lenses who thinks
> they are better/sharper than the later black series. It may be true, but
> nobody seems to say so.
It is true, and I say so. The chrome lenses were commercial formula lenses,
designed for maximum resolution and contrast. After complaints from
portrait shooters that the lenses were too harsh, they were recomputed. My
information on this comes straight from the horse's mouth, Mamiya designers.
I once did some informal tests, newspapers taped to a wall, and found that
the old Mamiya 80mm was sharper than a Rollei Planar. This showed up
particularly when both were used wide open. The black version Mamiya was
visibly less sharp when negs were viewed with a 10X magnifier.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Was Heresy: yashica TLR, now Mamiya
Siu Fai at [email protected] wrote:
> Bob, are you sure about this? You are the first one that says that the older
> chrome lens are sharper than the later black one. This automatically means
> that the 180 Super is LESS sharp than the old 180.
Yes, I am very sure. This was common knowledge among Mamiya users in the
70s when the cameras were still in production.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Roger Wiser [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Was Heresy: yashica TLR, now Mamiya
When I had a Mamiya, the chrome cost much less. The 55 & 250 came only in black,
the 65 and others came in both. I assumed the blacks were better suited for
color. The 180 blacks cost a lot more that the 180 chromes.
Roger
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] RE: asking advice for a yashica TLR/Mamiya
Bob,
Wow! I won't hesitate to pick-up one of the early chrome series lenses and
see for myself, especially since they routinely sell on eBay for less than
$100. Thanks for the information.
R.J.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: "Joe B." [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: asking advice for a yashica TLR/Mamiya
...(quote Bob S. above)
Sometimes people say that such and such a lens isn't as sharp as another but
has nicer characteristics in some other way, out of focus rendition, or
whatever. For example some people say this about the Heliar. Did these Mamiya
designers say that anything about the performance or imaging characteristics
was better in the black lenses, or just that they weren't as sharp?
Joe B.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: asking advice for a yashica TLR/Mamiya
Joe B. at [email protected] wrote:
> Sometimes people say that such and such a lens isn't as sharp as another but
> has nicer characteristics in some other way, out of focus rendition, or
> whatever. For example some people say this about the Heliar. Did these Mamiya
> designers say that anything about the performance or imaging characteristics
> was better in the black lenses, or just that they weren't as sharp?
Just that they were recomputed to be less harsh at the request of portrait
and wedding shooters, who were the main users of these cameras at the time.
Bob
From: "Stefan Geysen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: flat, subdued color rendition of Mamiya TLR lenses
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002
I've been using a Mamiya TLR system for the past couple of months, mainly
for B&W. No complaints there, good sharpness and pleasing tonality. Visibly
better than 35mm. So far, I can understand all the comments about bang for
the buck, etc.
But color shots are another matter. The colors seem a bit flat and cold,
they lack punch and have a strange "feel" to them. Having worked with Nikon,
Hasselblad CF and Pentax 67 lenses, I certainly notice a difference (better
saturation and realism).
Films used: Fuji Astia, Provia and Reala, processed in a reliable pro lab.
The lenses are the later black versions (55, 80, 135 and 180 Super) always
used with a lens shade. The lens elements are crystal clear.
Perhaps I expect too much from 1970's lens coating technology?
From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 18 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: flat, subdued color rendition of Mamiya TLR lenses
...(quotes above)
You are talking about the "Mamaya look" which many like. It is a softness of
color rendition which many prefer who don't like "lollypop" colors. If it
bothers you then you might consider moving up to Blad or Rollei or one of many
other cameras that dont have that problem. I don't think it is just a matter
of coating. I think it is inherent in the lens design.
.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
[Ed. note: probably long sold by now, but posting here for info on this adapter]
From: "Albert Ma" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: Minolta Autopole Polarizing Filter for Twin Lens Reflex TLR Bay I mount
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
This is the rare Minolta Autopole Polarizing Filter for Twin Len Reflex
cameras with Bay 1 lens mount.
You mount the filter and actually see the effect of the polarization through
the viewing lens. The rotations of the two pieces of polarizers are
synchronized.
This is the ONLY way to see the actual effect of polarization on twin lens
reflex cameras.
In original Minolta paper box, which is a little worn. There is also an
instruction leaflet.
The synchronization gear of the filters works perfectly. The lens mounts are
good and tight. There is no separation. There are some coating marks, which
can be seen from the picture. Otherwise, the glass is clear and clear.
Cosmetics are in like-new conditions. $85 shipped for US address.
See pictures at
http://home.attbi.com/~ctalbertma/autopole_1.jpg
http://home.attbi.com/~ctalbertma/autopole_2.jpg
From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Q: Mamiya lens sharpness
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
I haven't done any comparisons myself, but I get the impression that Mamiya
lenses either are or were soft compared to many rivals (not Zenzagon
Bronica). Does that bear out with people's experience? I get the impression
that the 80mm 5 element standard lens on the TLR was even softer than the 4
element Tessar clones. Can anyone confirm this or otherwise? How do their
other lenses compare with rival MF lenses (again, ignoring Zenzagon Bronica
whose lenses are known to be soft)? And if they *were* soft then did they
become sharp at some stage? And if so, does anyone know why?
From: "Rod" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya lens sharpness
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
"Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote
> Robert at [email protected] wrote:
> > Bob, I don't know anyone with the chrome series Mamiya lenses who thinks
> > they are better/sharper than the later black series. It may be true, but
> > nobody seems to say so.
>
> It is true, and I say so. The chrome lenses were commercial formula
> lenses, designed for maximum resolution and contrast. After complaints
> from portrait shooters that the lenses were too harsh, they were
> recomputed. My information on this comes straight from the horse's mouth,
> Mamiya designers.
>
> I once did some informal tests, newspapers taped to a wall, and found that
> the old Mamiya 80mm was sharper than a Rollei Planar. This showed up
> particularly when both were used wide open. The black version Mamiya was
> visibly less sharp when negs were viewed with a 10X magnifier.
>
> Bob
> end-quote
FWIW on a purely subjective basis - just looking at Velvia chromes my Chrome
105mm is probably the sharpest lens I own and the contrast etc suits my
garden, flower and landscape subjects just fine. I have several modern Nikon
lenses and a couple of other lenses for the TLR as well as RB67. The C330f
and 105 is the one I would keep if I was only allowed one.
From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya lens sharpness
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
"David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
>
>"roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected] wrote:
>> I haven't done any comparisons myself, but I get the impression that Mamiya
>> lenses either are or were soft compared to many rivals (not Zenzagon
>> Bronica). Does that bear out with people's experience? I get the impression
>> that the 80mm 5 element standard lens on the TLR was even softer than the 4
>> element Tessar clones. Can anyone confirm this or otherwise?
>
>See: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
I've had a couple of incredibly sharp Mamiya lenses
1. 150mm on the Super 23: One example was a waist up portrait I did
once on tri-x. I spotted a mole and hair on the subject and blew it
up and I had the little hair 5 inches long (Couldn't get the enlarger
up any farther) and it was still sharp as a tack
2; 80mm C-33 lens. With strobe just took a shot of someone sitting on
their legs in a chair and blew the arms up to 8" thick and the hairs
on her arms were razor sharp.
Both were with flash and on a tripod.
THOM
[Ed. note: Mr. Perez performed a wide ranging series of MF and LF lens tests...]
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: "Christoper M Perez" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya lens sharpness
In general, Mamiya TLR lenses are OK, but not spectacular. Regardless of
vintage. Same with Bronica.
For truely spectacular, one needs to try Mamiya 7 lenses. No mirrors to
upset or convolute lens designs. Great glass. Well constructed. Fuji RF
cameras hold similar promise (though film in 6x9 format appears difficult to
hold entirely flat and aligned to the RF mechanism).
Comparing against Hasselblad/Zeiss optics, Mamiya TLR lenses don't stand a
chance. Seems like the old Zeiss lenses are 30% to 40% sharper across the
board. While this doesn't fully explain the price differences in used
equipment (Hasselblad lenses still cost vast sums of silly-money), it might
begin to explain certain brand-name devotional behaviours.
I hope this helps - Chris
...
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: "Christoper M Perez" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya lens sharpness
Mamiya's TLR lens designs are somewhat simplistic. Total engineering and
manufacturing costs may have had some influence on design and quality.
These are the usual tradeoffs for any company developing consumer goods.
Where the Mamiya 7 has it 'all over' earlier models is in it's exposure
meter (Zeiss Ikonta, Mamiya TLR, and even current Fuji RF systems are
sometimes found without meters), AE mode metering, consistancy in
manufacturing, and lens design/construction/QA (the 10 element Biogon design
43mm Mamiya L is just one outstanding example).
While cameras are just 'tools' to be used by image makers, and some image
makers can use Ikontas to good effect, I suspect Mamiya sell well for a
number of tangible and in-tangible factors.
Regards - Chris
...
From: "McLeod" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya lens sharpness
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
I use Zeiss CF lenses every day at work and I have found that my 80mm Mamiya
TLR lens was as sharp and contrasty as the Zeiss 80mm. The Zeiss 50mm lens,
both the old version and the new CF version has got to be the worst medium
format lens I have ever used. I go out of my way not to use it. On the
other hand, the sharpest zoom I have ever used is the 140-280 zoom. I find
it even sharper than the 150mm lens. I imagine specific lenses perform
differently, but I have used at least 20 different 50mm Zeiss lenses in my
career and have only been happy with 2 of them.
[Ed.note: as with many cameras, this one appears to be mis-aligned; worth checking!]
From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Mamiya TLR 80mm f2.8 focussing
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002
I've seen it written plenty of times that the 80mm f2.8 lens for the Mamiya
TLRs is soft. So I've been checking on more than one sample of this lens
today. I just could not believe a 5 element lens was noted for its softness.
It should be able to better those TLRs using Tessar-type lenses, for
example. So I taped a ground glass screen to the film plane and have been
doing some careful checking. What I have discovered is that the focus for
the viewing lens is way different to the taking lens. You have to advance
the taking lens a significant distance to bring into proper focus the image
in the viewer if you have focussed using the taking lens and ground glass.
If I use the scale on the mamiyaflex for focussing, this is way better than
using the viewing lens. Also, I would point out, that the taking lens is
*extremely* sharp. Also if you swap the lenses round it makes no difference.
Both those lenses are *extremely* sharp.
I have tried this with two 80mm lenses on a Mamiyaflex and a C3 and they
both show the same effect. I used a 105mm lens as well. Still the same.
Using the scale on the C3 for the 105mm lens was accurate but the viewing
screen was not. Again, this lens is extremely sharp when focussed correctly
(the chrome 105mm is a Tessar clone, I believe). So it seems to me that the
problem comes from the design of the camera. If you focus using the scale
then you will get much sharper pictures than if you use the viewing lens.
Maybe somebody could try this out and report back. Even without putting a
roll through, maybe you could report on any mismatch between the viewing
focus and the scale. But a roll shot doing landscape photography comparing
viewing focussing and scale focussing would be most interesting.
From: [email protected] (Bob G)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 07 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 80mm f2.8 focussing
>What I have discovered is that the focus for
>the viewing lens is way different to the taking lens.
I can't believe Mamiya would be so careless as not to match focal lengths or
fail to implement stringent manufacturing quality controls
It could be the camera's mirror is mis-aligned, or the ground glass is out of
position, or the lens cells are not tightly screwed on, or any number of things
Most likely, though, you did not have your taped groundglass exactly at the
film plane. It would be helpful if you told us how you determined its precise
position
Bob G
From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 80mm f2.8 focussing
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002
...
OK, I removed the mirror from the Mamiyaflex and cleaned it (it was only
slightly dirty) and have put it back and it seems to be seated slightly
backwards from where it was before. The focussing is a lot closer between
the viewing lens and the scale marking that I found was best for the taking
lens. I am finding that even at f2.8 then there is a significant range of
movement for what appears to be in focus. I have tried maybe 20 times to get
it into perfect focus and compare it with the scale and there is a lot of
variation from about 25 feet to slightly beyond infinity marking. I guess
there is play in the front housing near the top as well as an assumption as
to how close to the lens the mirror gets seated. I am finding that the scale
markings give a much more reliable indicator as to focus no matter how sharp
your eyes are using the viewing lens. I would guess that this camera and
lens are capable of superb results doing landscape photography but under the
strict condition that the scale is used for focussing and not the viewing
lens. This issue of the lens at full aperture not being sharp makes sense
now. At that aperture the depth of field is still significant and there is
enough uncertainty with that combined with play in the front housing making
a difference between top and bottom lens distance as well as a built-in
assumption about mirror position. All enough to make a picture taken with it
to be soft. But using the scale then it is a lot more accurate and it shows.
In fact the lens at full aperture is so sharp it reminds me of a Voigtlander
Heliar with its lines almost cut into the ground glass screen with a razor,
so long as it is focussed correctly.
I guess its time to take the mirror out of the C3 as well and put that in
better adjustment.
I'm thinking of taking one of them to Prague with me. The Mamiyaflex, I
would guess, because of all the thieves there. You can't even get on to a
tube train there in the centre without having your back pocket felt. If I
get a good weather day then I'll post the results somewhere.
From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 80mm f2.8 focussing
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002
...
> I guess its time to take the mirror out of the C3 as well and put that in
> better adjustment.
I've just done that (i.e. take the mirror out of the C3) after having
convinced myself again it was way off the mark. Its ground glass screen has
thick spacers on it to raise it higher. But it is still not enough. I've
taken the mirror out and tried to build up its thickness by using super-glue
gel where it slips under the brackets to space it away from the lens. I'll
get double the thickness effective spacing that way. And I'll try it again.
It seems these TLRs were not made well at all and require checking and
perhaps adjusting if you want to get good performance out of your lens. And
with the C3 having these spacers in place it is obviously a known problem
with this type of camera. It is no wonder these lenses that should have a
reputation for sharpness have gotten themselves a reputation for softness
instead.
From: [email protected] (Gary Beasley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 80mm f2.8 focussing
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002
...(quotes above post)
I've seen Mamiyas that have taken a bump to the front standard and
have suffered just such a misalignment as you describe. Seems the
focusing rails can be bent slightly from impacts and be hard to detect
otherwise.
From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 80mm f2.8 focussing
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002
...(quotes above posts)
> I've seen Mamiyas that have taken a bump to the front standard and
> have suffered just such a misalignment as you describe. Seems the
> focusing rails can be bent slightly from impacts and be hard to detect
> otherwise.
I guess this is the cause of this problem. I am sure the camera would have
been in good adjustment when it left the factory. These cameras do tend to
get dropped and unfortunately seem to land on the taking lens, judging by
some of the filter rings I have seen. And this is enough to bend the lens
board and push the viewing lens closer to the camera. I noticed that my
Mamiyaflex has a thin spacer also. And the spacer has the same "design" as
the C3 has so this is maybe a Mamiya repair. I would guess this is a common
problem. I would recommend that anybody who has a Mamiya TLR checks out the
focussing.
From: [email protected] (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya C 220 - C 330
Date: 19 Dec 2002
The last series of Mamiya TLR lenses, DS, was, IIRC, multi-coated.
All the previous were single-coated, though I suspect on more than just
the exterior elements.
It's the different coatings of the various companies that provide
the slightly different appearance in the resultant images.
In 35mm, some of the Canon stuff is pretty bad. Pentax has a new
"ghostless" coating, but I've not seen the results of it yet.
(It's one of my reasons for liking Pentax 35mm. Though the bodies may not be
pj-grade, but they're good, and the lenses outstanding.)
There is a difference and it's visible in any format. It's just not
something we usually look for.
Collin
"McLeod" [email protected] wrote
> I don't know that there has been a huge change in coatings in the last 16
> yrs or so. I think my C330 was built in the last year of production.
From: "Arno Daalder" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What focal length....
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003
Hello Patrick,
>From the brochure of the Mamiya C-330F:
55mm - image angle is 70 degrees 30'
65mm - image angle is 63 degrees
80mm - image angle is 50 degrees 40'
105mm - image angle is 41 degrees 20'
135mm - image angle is 33 degrees
180mm - image angle is 24 degrees 30'
250mm - image angle is 18 degrees
I am not sure if 'image angle' is the correct translation, but I think you
know what I mean. You can compare these angles with your 35mm equipment and
decide which one you need.
Arno
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003
From: "dcbrowntim [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Mamiya TLR Teleconverter
Comparison: http://home.flash.net/~brownt/mam+a200.htm
dcbrowntim wrote:
> I put an Olympus A-200 1.5X convertor [bought for my Minolta 7i, $85
> from B&H] on the front of my black 250/6.3. [375mm equiv.]
From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 105mm DS lens - why focus capability?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003
The following is a direct quote from Clyde Reynolds. "The Mamiya Book" p.
86, Focal Press, 1977 ISBN 0 240 50974 9.
"The 105 mm /3.5 DS lens has a number of useful additions. On the upper
(viewing) lens, there is an iris diaphragm. This allows you to see your
depth of field in the viewfinder image. As you close down the diaphragm, so
more of the picture becomes sharp (and the whole darkens). To complement
this, the upper lens has a depth of field scale. Set the front ring so that
the focus distance (white-meters; yellow-feet) is against the red index. The
limits of the depth of field are then represented by the distances on this
scale which fall against the two calibrations on the center ring for the
aperture in use. Naturally, these controls have no effect on the
picture-taking lens, they just help you to see what will happen.
The 105 mm/3.5 DS lens also has a delayed action setting for the shutter.
Set the flash synchronization lever to V; then the shutter will fire about
seven seconds after you press the release. Note that this lens and the older
105 mm 3.5 D lens do not use the same focus scale as the ordinary 105 mm/3.5
lens."
Truly, dr bob.
"Dennis O'Connor" [email protected] wrote
> OK, my 105D doesn't have any such... Never noticed the self timer the one
> time I handled that DS lens at a camera show...
> So, splain to me the iris in the viewing lens and this focusing stuff... I'm
> willing to learn...
> Denny
...
From: "Keith Patterson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rear lens cap for 55mm Mamiya C330 lens
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003
cut down some 35mm film plastic canisters and use the base part - some are a
better fit than others. I think I used Ilford, but I can't remember.
Certainly works for the 55mm lens set, and I think for some of the others
too.
--
with all due respect ... from Keith Patterson
"Brendan Clarke" [email protected],net wrote
> Hi all, just picked up a new lens for my C330. One problem - no rear lens
> cap. Anyone got any sources for one - I've had a quick look round some of
> the shops I normally use, but no joy. I'm in the UK if that's any help (or
> hindrance)
>
> Thanks
From: Simon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya C330 - Minimum Focusing Distance
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003
TWW wrote:
>
> What is the minimum focusing distance for the C330* camera? How does
> it compare to the RB67?
It depends on the lenses you happen to have - the C330 manual says:
55mm f/4.5 - 21.4cm (0.89)
65mm f/3.5 - 27.1cm (0.85)
80mm f/2.8 - 35.4cm (0.66) - Note: all these distances are
105mm f/3.5 - 58.4cm (0.31) - FILM to subject.
135mm f/4.5 - 90.2cm (0.23)
180mm f/4.5 - 129 cm (0.21)
250mm f/6.3 - 205 cm (0.18)
The RB67 manual says:
50mm f/4.5 - 4.9cm (0.88)
65mm f/4.5 - 8.5cm (0.71)
90mm f/3.8 - 20.0cm (0.51) - Note: all these distances are
127mm f/3.8 - 43.3cm (0.36) - LENS to subject.
180mm f/4.5 - 84.7cm (0.26)
250mm f/4.5 - 160 cm (0.18)
360mm f/6.3 - 346 cm (0.13)
Figures in brackets are reproduction ratios on film - for the
330 I've calculated these based on the subject coverage given
in the manual and assumed a 57mm wide image on the film. For
the RB67 these figures come straight from the manual. Note that
the distances are measured from different points from the two
cameras.
To get your own copies of the manuals, go to:
http://www.mamiya.com
Click on CUSTOMER SERVICE then Instruction manuals on the left hand
side of the page and select the camera system on the menu on the
right hand side.
Simon.
Dr. Simon J. Harris email: [email protected]
From: "Dennis O'Connor" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR 180/4.5 lenses.
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003
I have both versions of the 180mm... Unless you get serious with the
magnifying loop, you can't see the difference in 8x10 prints (them's real
inches, not your puny cm)... Larger blowups will begin to show the
superiority of the 5 element Super at the edges...
The real difference is the shutter... As long as a chrome shutter continues
to work you are ok, but if it breaks repair parts are no longer available
from Mamiya, and that is the likely reason for the large variation in price
between the two, that you quote.. I always tell prospective buyers to
consider chrome lenses as throw away items if they break, and price them
accordingly... OTOH, my chrome 180 soldiers on without so much as a
hiccup...
Denny
"Simon" [email protected] wrote...
> I was thinking of getting one of these for my C33 and have seen two
> available from one shop - one listed as a 180/4.5 Sekor at 99UKP
> (condition described as E+) and the other a 180/4.5 Super Sekor at
> 229UKP (condition described as M-).
>
> While I've found that the lens configuration for the Super is different
> from that of the cheaper lens (thanks to G A Patterson's Mamiya FAQ at
> http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/mfaq/m_faq.html), can anyone
> say whether the final image quality is that much different - different
> enough to warrant spending an extra 130 quid on the Super?
>
> Ta!
>
> Simon
End of Page