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!

Okay MAMIYA 645AFD shooters, share your Lens knowledge..Please!!

Tim Ernst

New member
What about stopped down with some of these lenses on a P-45+? Is there much image quality difference when shooting at f8, f11 or even f16 range? I never shoot wide open so that doesn't concern me. I shoot quite a bit with the 35, 55-110, and 105-210 - mostly for stitching multiples - but find I need a 45 and would like to skip the longer zoom on some hikes but a 150 would be useful.

45mm manual, vs. AF, vs. D
150mm f2.8 or f3.5 manual, vs. f3.5 AF, vs. f2.8 D

Thanks for any thoughts...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
45 manual is a older lens I would avoid it . My D is very nice even wide open but F8 is the sweet spot. The AF are some corner complaints but never owned that one

150 2.8 excellent wide open and just adding DOF after wide open
150 3.5 comes to life around 5.6/ f8
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Tim, the 45mm AF (pre-D) can vary from copy to copy. Reports suggest that the 55mm AF is more consistently better than the 45 AF, and that reflects the results from my kit too (I have both, and have not shot the new 45).

Stopped down, my 45 AF is OK. I have gotten some great results from it, but wide open it does get a little mushy (mostly in the lower-left corner). For most landscape it has not really been an issue though. I don't recall where you're located Tim, but you'd be welcome to shoot mine sometime.

And I like my 150mm f/3.5, but I would rather have the new f/2.8 because of it's stellar performance. I have never been disappointed with the 150 AF f/3.5 though. I have used it for landscape to great success, and used it together with the 210 ULD for an outdoor portrait session where it would have been fun to have the new 150 D, but the humble f/3.5 AF performed fantastically. I don't think it's really fair to compare the last two versions of the 150, as the new "D" is so special, but I do feel that the 150 3.5 AF is a good performer for the money. There may be copy variation (I don't know), and if so, I got lucky the first time around on mine.
 

Tim Ernst

New member
Thanks for your thoughts guys (and for your offer to loan me a lens!). I needed both lenses in the couple of hours since my last post (and seem to every time I shoot), so I'll have to get them in the next day or two if I"m going to utilize them for the three new book projects I'm working on. (We have some spectacular fall color going on now in Arkansas, with plenty of water too, which is rare for us, so I only get to sit at the computer for a few minutes at a time, then run back out and shoot for an hour or two before making another commute for quick office work.)

One item that always sort of puzzles me is when comparing one lens to another. My high-water mark is to produce large prints that look like real life - in other words, the rock or leaf or moss-covered log should look just as sharp and colorful and detailed in print as the real thing does. Is it possible to get better than that? If so I don't know what that would be. For instance, the 150 D lens is a terrific lens no doubt, and I'm sure it would beat the others when shot wide open. But can I get the cheap 150 af 3.5 lens to reproduce real life when stopped down? If so, then I have no reason to pay through the nose for the D version. If the cheap lens would not be able to produce real life, then I would not be interested in it even if it was free and I would want the D version. Does that make sense?

Same deal with the 45mm af vs. D - can the 45 af reproduce something as real in print? If so then I don't see any reason for a person like me to pay for the D version if I'm always going to be shooting it stopped down and with manual focus - unless there is something better than real life? But if the af version won't do this and I need to get the D version, that is fine. Spending the money isn't an issue, spending it on something I don't need is silly though. I don't actually care what things look like at 100% on screen, only in a large print or in a book.

Thanks again for any thoughts. Back out to the woods....
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Tim, I think that in your case it would make sense to shoot the lenses side-by-side. I don't think that anyone can give you a definitive response without the risk of subjective interpretation, processing skills factoring in, etc.

The previous model lenses can be purchased used and resold with little loss in price, so it's a relaxed way of "renting" IMO. Unfortunately, you may play a bit of "hit and miss" regarding specific copies, especially concerning the 45. But if money is not an issue I would probably buy the 45 D and perhaps the 75-150mm D since landscape seems to be your primary use, but that's just me.

As for "real-life" reproduction (or better than real life maybe ;) ) one of my favorite images to stand in front of and admire the results of what medium format can do is a four shot horizontal stitch of vertical frames to create a high-res file using the 210 mm ULD. It's a complex scene that reproduced beautifully. There is a discernible difference between this image and anything I have done with my 45mm AF.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
What about stopped down with some of these lenses on a P-45+? Is there much image quality difference when shooting at f8, f11 or even f16 range? I never shoot wide open so that doesn't concern me. I shoot quite a bit with the 35, 55-110, and 105-210 - mostly for stitching multiples - but find I need a 45 and would like to skip the longer zoom on some hikes but a 150 would be useful.

45mm manual, vs. AF, vs. D
150mm f2.8 or f3.5 manual, vs. f3.5 AF, vs. f2.8 D

Thanks for any thoughts...
Tim, keeping in mind I use Phase for landscapes where I need ultimate detail and corner sharpness, I find f11 is generally the best image quality for most Mamiya lenses. In my case, that means the 28, 35, 55, 75-150 and 210. Diffraction hasn't started to move in yet at that f-stop, whereas at f16 you might (just might) see a little. F22 or smaller is not good.

F8 is pretty much indistinguishable from f11 except for DOF, and if there is a difference it will be found in the extreme corners.

The big exception is my 300 APO, which is at it's best at 2/3 stop less than wide open. Further stopping down only increases DOF. (From what I hear - and hope to see for myself very shortly, the 150 f2.8 D is much the same. Likewise, the 120 Macro D is in that league.)

I did have a 45 mm and wasn't very impressed, although I only really sold it because Mamiya announced the 45-90 zoom - which of course never materialized. I also rarely use the 35 mm because the 28 mm is so good; I'd rather use it and crop!

My unsung hero is the 55 mm which has become my walk-around lens for casual stuff like shooting the grandchildren! It's light, sharp and has nice bokeh - though mine is pretty soft wide open. Again f8 and f11 are its best stops.

Hope all this helps - F11 is best!

Bill
 

Tim Ernst

New member
Hey Bill - yup, I shoot most everything at either 11 or 16. And Dale I also shoot most everything as 4-8 shot stitches no matter what the field of view or lens. I've never been a lens-testing kind of guy, and hate to send anything back, especially something new that I have used - I also hate to receive a lens sold as new that has been "field tested"! Most lens tests I've seen online are crap shoots in themselves - can't believe folks still try to judge image quality shooting handheld, in changing light, etc. It is rare that you can make exactly the same image using different lenses outside in the real world. Guess I'll just have to flip a coin and see what happens! Now I'm really back out into the woods. thanks...
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Hey Bill - yup, I shoot most everything at either 11 or 16. And Dale I also shoot most everything as 4-8 shot stitches no matter what the field of view or lens. I've never been a lens-testing kind of guy, and hate to send anything back, especially something new that I have used - I also hate to receive a lens sold as new that has been "field tested"! Most lens tests I've seen online are crap shoots in themselves - can't believe folks still try to judge image quality shooting handheld, in changing light, etc. It is rare that you can make exactly the same image using different lenses outside in the real world. Guess I'll just have to flip a coin and see what happens! Now I'm really back out into the woods. thanks...
I agree with you about lens returns, etc., Tim.

Happy shooting!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Oregon? Never been to Oregon.. + steak dinner with new friends..Hum
We have one slot left and be happy to put your name on it! Plus, your new dealer will be there, along with a bunch of toys and C1 training. PLUS, you're right, this is a great group of folks on this workshop and we always have a bunch during the evening meals! (Not to mention some great photographic opportunities!)

If you want to come, please tag me ASAP as we're there next week!
 
Top