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!
how is the mamiya 645 110mm manual focus lens?
- Thread starter faneuil
- Start date
Mamiya M645 C lenses are an older, all metal body design. More modern N lenses (again M645) make heavier use of plastics, are obviously lighter and have different coatings giving them a tad more contrast vs C versions. Some think they MAY be a bit more flare resistant, but I've not seen that (at least yet).
For some M645 lenses, there are also 'interim' S variants - C body style + N coatings. Some of the more modern M645 lenses were only released in N versions.
The same M645 lens be it a C or N (or S) variant are all unchanged (IIRC) formula-wise. Some new auto-focus/electronic aperture D versions of lenses (which are all N obviously) are another matter (e.g. the 150/2.8A D vs the discontinued manual focus M645 version). One exception to this rule is (IIRC) the 120/4 A macro D (electronic aperture but still manual focus) which is optically identical to the M645 version.
All else being equal, I tend to prefer the handling and lower contrast of the C variants, but that's just me.
I'd also love to hear some thoughts on the 110/2.8 if anyone is within earshot.
For some M645 lenses, there are also 'interim' S variants - C body style + N coatings. Some of the more modern M645 lenses were only released in N versions.
The same M645 lens be it a C or N (or S) variant are all unchanged (IIRC) formula-wise. Some new auto-focus/electronic aperture D versions of lenses (which are all N obviously) are another matter (e.g. the 150/2.8A D vs the discontinued manual focus M645 version). One exception to this rule is (IIRC) the 120/4 A macro D (electronic aperture but still manual focus) which is optically identical to the M645 version.
All else being equal, I tend to prefer the handling and lower contrast of the C variants, but that's just me.
I'd also love to hear some thoughts on the 110/2.8 if anyone is within earshot.
Last edited:
I have one and haven't used it for much more than comparison against an RZ67 110mm f/2.8 with a digital back.
I didn't see much difference in sharpness, but I did see a noticeable difference in distortion. Not sure what to attribute this to...I tried to frame the shots identically, yet they still looked different.
It looks a lot like the 80mm f/1.9, trading obviously aperture for length.
Maybe I'll try it out again this weekend.
I didn't see much difference in sharpness, but I did see a noticeable difference in distortion. Not sure what to attribute this to...I tried to frame the shots identically, yet they still looked different.
It looks a lot like the 80mm f/1.9, trading obviously aperture for length.
Maybe I'll try it out again this weekend.
faneuil
Member
I ask because (horrors!) I didn't like the version of a Hassy 110mm F lens I had.
Wide-open, the point of the lens of course, the bokeh was weird bordering on disturbing. Not sure what 'version' it was. PS, I sold it.
But I still like the 110 framing on the 645 and would like to try a different lens.
Hadn't thought of using a RZ lens -- I assume you need an adapter to get it on a 645 body?
What other 110'ish does this crowd like?
thanks
Eric
Wide-open, the point of the lens of course, the bokeh was weird bordering on disturbing. Not sure what 'version' it was. PS, I sold it.
But I still like the 110 framing on the 645 and would like to try a different lens.
Hadn't thought of using a RZ lens -- I assume you need an adapter to get it on a 645 body?
What other 110'ish does this crowd like?
thanks
Eric
Eric,
I used them on their respective cameras...I moved the digital back between the two. I was trying to convince myself that the IQ of the RZ would be noticeably better due to the fixed element lens.
The crop factor was 1.5x on the 645 and 2.0x on the RZ, so neither used the edges of the lens. Perhaps more visible difference would exist there.
Greg
I used them on their respective cameras...I moved the digital back between the two. I was trying to convince myself that the IQ of the RZ would be noticeably better due to the fixed element lens.
The crop factor was 1.5x on the 645 and 2.0x on the RZ, so neither used the edges of the lens. Perhaps more visible difference would exist there.
Greg
We told ya here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15710 and showed ya here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14864
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Yup it is. The 150mm D is something a lot of lenses should be looking up too in all brands.
S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
I have to admit... as someone who likes a LOT of "butter" in my bokeh... there is something strangely appealing about the first shot you posted. Yeah, the BG is a (ok VERY) bit wild, but the drawing of the in-focus region is pretty cool... maybe "3d"?
Lens might be fun for certain shots... I'm thinking B/W.
Last edited:
S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
you know... over the top, fun stuff like this.
(sorry for the uninvited edit... let me know if you want me to pull it)
(sorry for the uninvited edit... let me know if you want me to pull it)
Jonathon Delacour
Subscriber Member
I've also always thought of myself as a buttery bokeh boy but I have to agree with Shelby that there is something strangely appealing about that jittery bokeh. Not a boring test shot at all. And much to my surprise I think that Shelby's desaturated treatment tones it down perhaps a fraction too much. The lens is a total bargain for $104 -- you should be able to do some really good work with it. Thanks for broadening my horizons (although I'll continue to hate swirly bokeh).