I would want to know the difference of the image quality in reality between the same design lens in different version of the Phaseone lens. e.g the 240mm Blue ring and the older silver ring lens with same optical design. Do you see any difference in real world usage? Any comments?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Phaseone Blue ring lens and silver ring lens
- Thread starter edmund999
- Start date
thedigitalbean
Member
I think that for lenses with the same optical design like the 240 it’s more about the tighter tolerances with the blue ring version that reduces copy to copy variation. I’ve owned a great copy of the older 240 I bought and it was stellar, as stellar as the BR version I got a few years later. I never owned the two at the same time to do a side by side.
alistairsimmons
Well-known member
35mm BR vs SR = New design, much better
45mm BR vs SR = New design, Much better
55mm BR vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
80mm BR vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
110mm BR vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
120mm BR vs SR = SR equivalent is non-Leaf Shutter, so a different lens, but both great
150mm f3.5 BS vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
150mm f2.8 BR = New lens so no equivalent
240mm SR vs BR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
Blue Ring lenses have the advantage of Autofocus-Recompose (AFr) should that be a useful tool.
A
45mm BR vs SR = New design, Much better
55mm BR vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
80mm BR vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
110mm BR vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
120mm BR vs SR = SR equivalent is non-Leaf Shutter, so a different lens, but both great
150mm f3.5 BS vs SR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
150mm f2.8 BR = New lens so no equivalent
240mm SR vs BR = Same, with Blue Ring redesign/higher tolerance
Blue Ring lenses have the advantage of Autofocus-Recompose (AFr) should that be a useful tool.
A
lance_schad
Workshop Member
Here is an article we published a little while ago reviewing / rating lenses for the Phase One IQ4-150MP that you may find useful.
Lenses for 150 Megapixels
Lance
Yes, that is correct.
The XF can recognize all autofocus lenses by their focal length. So you don't need blue ring lenses to allow for focus trim of each lens. It would only be an issue if you had two lenses of the same focal length that needed different focus trim values.
Here is a link to a better description:
https://www.captureintegration.com/xf-focus-trim/
--Steve.
SCHWARZZEIT
Member
The previous 35mm and 45mm versions were Mamiya/Phase One Focal Plane lenses (without LS), just as the previous 150/2.8 IF. If you compare the lens design based on the cross section of the 150/2.8 BR and the Phase One 150/2.8 IF they look virtually the same to me. As I've never used the old 150/2.8 IF I would be interested to see how it compares to the BR version.
I'm also wondering whether the 120 BR Macro is any different in performance than the previous non-LS AF and MF Mamiya/Phase One versions.
-Dominique
The MAMIYA SEKOR AF 150MM F2.8 IF D weighs 1.7 pounds.
The SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH 150MM LS F/2.8 AF weighs 3.65 pounds.
And they don't look at all similar to me. But I haven't seen cross sections of them. Where could I find cross section drawings?
They could have taken the original f/2.8 lens, made it bigger and heavier, changed the filter thread from 72mm to 95mm, added the leaf shutter, put it in the blue ring design, and raised the price. But then would you say it's the same lens and they just added a leaf shutter? I mean, we can say whatever we want, but it doesn't change the price $7,990.00 if you want to buy one.
Thanks,
Steve.
The SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH 150MM LS F/2.8 AF weighs 3.65 pounds.
And they don't look at all similar to me. But I haven't seen cross sections of them. Where could I find cross section drawings?
They could have taken the original f/2.8 lens, made it bigger and heavier, changed the filter thread from 72mm to 95mm, added the leaf shutter, put it in the blue ring design, and raised the price. But then would you say it's the same lens and they just added a leaf shutter? I mean, we can say whatever we want, but it doesn't change the price $7,990.00 if you want to buy one.
Thanks,
Steve.
SCHWARZZEIT
Member
Here are the datasheets featuring the cross section drawings (including MTF data for the older lens):
Phase One Digital AF 150mm f2.8 IF
Schneider Kreuznach 150mm LS f/2.8 IF
-Dominique
Phase One Digital AF 150mm f2.8 IF
Schneider Kreuznach 150mm LS f/2.8 IF
-Dominique
Abstraction
Well-known member
Holy crap! It IS the same lens! Look at the schematic.
edmundphoto888
New member
I think the 120 blue ring and non blue ring without leaf shutter has the same optic design. But not sure if the image quality for both comparison. Someone said both lenses are very similar in image quality. So, I do think the silver ring lens with same optic design are much the same image quality with blue ring! Of course, Phaseone claim the Blue ring lens are much superior! But it may just like the Hasselblad V system CF and CFi version or Nikon lens without D and the D version some years ago!
Smoothjazz
Active member
Wow- this is news. I have been carrying around the big and heavy 150mm lens all this time because I thought it was the best lens. And it is very good, but big. I am currently packing for a hiking trip, and my pack is topping out at over 50 lbs, which is at the very limit of what I can carry. If I could switch to the lighter 150mm, for a saving of 2 lbs; that is great.
Can any of the lens experts verify that the two 150mm lenses are of equal optical quality?
Thanks!
John
Can any of the lens experts verify that the two 150mm lenses are of equal optical quality?
Thanks!
John
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
I had a chance to compare the BR 150 f2.8 with the BR 150 f3.5. The 2.8 is scary sharp at full aperture, but at f8 (where I do much of my landscape work) I couldn't tell the difference. As the f3.5 weighs in a just 652 gms (1.43 pounds), less than half of the 2.8, it was a no brainer for me. I've used the 3.5 for several years now and it is my second most-used lens.
I think the 2.8 is a studio lens, not for hiking!
I think the 2.8 is a studio lens, not for hiking!
SCHWARZZEIT
Member
I wouldn’t consider these datasheets as proofs that the optics for the 150/2.8 lenses are exactly the same. Should it turn out that a good copy of the 150/2.8 D performs just as great as the 150/2.8 BR on a 151MP back then it would indeed be a low-weight option at a much more attractive price point.
However, in this thread from 2016 when the 150/2.8 BR was released Christopher tested all three 150mm lenses and concluded that the 150/2.8 BR was much better than the other two. Unfortunately, the test images are no longer online.
If anybody else has made a comparison of the two lenses I would also be interested in your findings.
DT’s article on Lenses for 150MP says:
”Finally, the Schneider 80mm LS, Schneider 55mm LS, Schneider 75-150 LS, and Schneider 150mm LS f/2.8 all borrow heavily from non leaf-shutter predecessors. It’s our feeling that they are sufficiently improved from previous iterations that they deserve to be considered “optical improvements” but there is some subjectivity in that decision.”
On this webinar Drew Altdoerffer and Niels Knudsen discuss what it takes to be a Blue Ring lens. It seems there are three approaches for Blue Ring lenses regarding their optical design:
1. Completely new lens design. As far as I can tell the 35 BR (2015) and 45 BR (2016) are the only lenses from the Blue Ring era to be new designs.
2. Overhaul of an existing design to make it work with a leaf shutter and tweaking the design for improved performance. I think the 120 BR and 150/2.8 BR fall into this category.
3. Rehousing an existing LS lens design into a BR lens body with the updated electronics and tightening the production tolerances to Blue Rings specifications.
I would assume Phase One took the same approach when they introduced the Silver Ring LS lenses. I looked through a couple of Mamiya brochures (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamiya_645#References for the links) to find out more about the origins of Phase One’s lens line-up. Here is a list of lenses where the lens schematics match with the current corresponding LS lenses (listed with the number of lens elements and groups in brackets):
• Mamiya 80/2.8N (6/6) and Mamiya 150/3.5N (5/5) first appeared in the brochure that introduced the Mamiya 645 Super which was launched in 1985.
• Mamiya Macro A 120/4 MF (9/8) first appeared when the Mamiya 645E was introduced in 2000.
• Mamiya AF 55/2.8 (7/6) first appeared when the Mamiya 645 AFD was introduced in 2001.
• The Mamiya Sekor AF 28/4.5 D Aspherical (14/10), Mamiya Sekor AF 150/2.8 IF D (8/7) and Mamiya Sekor Zoom AF 75-150/4.5 D (11/10) first appeared when the Mamiya 645 AFDIII was introduced in 2008.
As I couldn’t find any more detailed information on when those lenses were released the information when they appeared in the brochures are just indications of the minimum age of their basic lens design.
As far as I can tell there hasn’t been a matching iteration of the 110/2.8 LS from Mamiya. So I would assume it was a completely new lens design when Phase One launched the first three LS lenses for their DF camera system and introduced the partnership with Schneider-Kreuznach in 2009.
The completely new designs that followed were the 240 LS (2012) and the 40-80 LS (2014) while the other Silver Ring LS lenses were probably overhauls of existing previous designs.
-Dominique
From my experience - 80 mm LS Silver Ring vs. Blue Ring (I own both) no difference in practical use. I also have the 55 mm LS SR which is my favourite lens (could not find a used BR lens ... so bought this one cheaply). The price difference in the used market is like 4:1. Unless you absolutely need AFr (I don't) then this is a no brainer, in my view. I use an IQ4 150 back and shoot mostly fine art nude / fashion nude, so I am not always obsessed with the minutest detail (unlike landscape etc. shooters). I have no hesitation about recommending the SR lenses, if in good used condition. Just bought a mint used 120f4 macro Mamiya 645 manual lens, with electrical contacts, for Eur700, to use for negative scanning. Have not used it "critically" so far, but it seems to work just fine upon initial inspection (and seems to be the same optical design as the latest BR lens, minus leaf shutter). From among the latest BR designs, I have the 150 2.8 and the 45 2.8 which are both fabulous....but they weigh a ton. For a location shoot, if I need to hike, I just pack the 55LS Silver Ring plus 110 LS BR.
My website www.martindrazsky.com (not everything is shot on P1...also Leica SL2, S3, OM System OM-1).
My website www.martindrazsky.com (not everything is shot on P1...also Leica SL2, S3, OM System OM-1).
Amazing works! TFS!
I read somewhere that 120SR & BR are the same optical design, 120SR is without LS and AFr but yeah it's a trade-off. I chose the affordable one ^^ and 120SR AF is quite rare, isn't it?
Good to have it in my collection
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The BR has a slightly different coating on the front element and is built to tighter tolerances which may impact quality.
But the main reason why you would want the blue ring macro is because it has focus stacking via the XF body - this is a crucial feature for macro photographers ... without it you need to do it manually which can be a big nuisance if you are really close given the amount of pictures you need ... in my view especially for the 120 BR this is a clear reason to get the BR lens ... but ofc if you shoot portraits it does not matter ...
But the main reason why you would want the blue ring macro is because it has focus stacking via the XF body - this is a crucial feature for macro photographers ... without it you need to do it manually which can be a big nuisance if you are really close given the amount of pictures you need ... in my view especially for the 120 BR this is a clear reason to get the BR lens ... but ofc if you shoot portraits it does not matter ...