Mamiya 645 glass with the a900 (a query)

[wayne_s]

Robert,
Sorry for going off on a more general alt glass tangent.
Using "joint" glass makes sense but the downside would be the extra weight and front-heavy ergonomics of say the Mamiya 200 APO vs. using the Leica 200 APO 2.8 which could be an issue for a wedding shooter hand holding all day. How much heavier is the Mamiya 200 APO vs. the Leica?
For weddings, the convenience of AF and zoom probably most of the time outweighs the extra IQ benefit of the alt glass.
Probably only one or two fast primes to have for low light conditions and for small DOF portrait shots at a wedding is all you need.

 

[robmac]

I haven't looked at the specs and it's been awhile since I sold my Leica 180/2.8 APO, but the M645 would likely be heavier, if for no other reason than the larger diameter tube and elements (both are all metal construction).

Going off memory on the Nikon, I find it about the same heft-wise as say the Nikon 180 AiS. The weight is a bit front biased, but don't find it an issue. Another shooter who bought a Mam 200 after playing with mine remarked he found it less bulky and easier to carry around than his Canon 70-200/2.8 and not notably front biased (for him).

Having owned the Leica 180/2.8 APO (and the oh-so-awesome 180/2) - I have no regrets moving to the Mamiya in that FL. Had the Cv 180/4 APO AiS as well (an awesome and TINY lens) and sold it - found I always kept picking up the Mamiya.

I'm pretty fast at the whole alt glass thing and while obviously more cumbersome than AF or auto-aperture, I typically focus at the aperture I'm going to shoot at -- up to (depending on the lens) about F5.6 - F8. The latter especially if using focus confirm (which I've seen triggered at decent light up to as high as F11 which surprised even me). That said, using manual stop-down glass on any system is w/o question best suited to slower pace work.

If it were me owning an A900 and thinking of a Phamiya to go with, I'd pick the AF Mamiya glass I NEEDED, look at my A900 lineup and the fill the gaps (or GAS needs) if any, with choice M645 lenses. The same scenario would apply if it were a Hassy system and a FF DSLR - acquire some (depending on if H, 500 or 200 series) V/F glass, a H-V Hassy adapter if needed and some Hassy-____ adapters.

Other considerations/fun aside, allows DSLR (or vice versa?) to act as a nice backup w/o lugging around any more extra glass than necessary.

No MF back to consider ? Then belly up to buffet and pick your poison - Leica, Mamiya, OM, CZ, Hassy - as long as it has an aperture ring and someone's put a milling machine to an adapter for it.

 

[robmac]

Got curious. Size/heft difference are minimal, add 1M to close focus distance (barring a skinny tube):

Mamiya 200/2.8 APO
-----------------
Dimensions (Length x Diameter) 143.5 x 91mm
Weight 1100 g.
Close focus: 2.5M

Leica 180/2.8 APO
------------
Dimensions (Length x Diameter) 132 x 76mm
Weight 970 g.
Close focus: 1.5M

 

[wayne_s]

Thanks for the comparison info.
Only 130 grams more than the Leica, not bad. I would have thought it would have been more. 11.5mm more length would be more noticeable as far as balance. Definitely, alot cheaper than the Leica.The Mamiya 300 2.8 would be a great deal considering the price of ones from Canon/Nikon.Sounds like you will be getting one of these soon, thanks to trying out Jim's. I love my Leica 180 APO 2.8, so sharp wide open its amazing and with the 2x Leica extender I can get a surprisingly good 360mm 5.6.
Is the Mamiya 200 2.8 as sharp as the Leica 180 2.8 at f2.8? Just curious?

 

[carstenw]

I wonder if it would be possible to use Contax 645 glass and somehow get the automatic diaphragm to work. The 35/3.5 would make little sense, but the 80/2 and 120/4 Macro would be interesting.

 

[fotografz]

I wonder if it would be possible to use Contax 645 glass and somehow get the automatic diaphragm to work. The 35/3.5 would make little sense, but the 80/2 and 120/4 Macro would be interesting.

Conrus would be the one to contact on that. He cracked the Contax N lens to Canon EOS to provide all functions including AF ... I used to use a Contax N 24-85/3.5 on my 1DsMKIII (a lens that Mark K now owns).

Conrus was working on hacking the Contax 645 lenses for use on EOS cameras which will be available in 2010.

http://en.conurus.com/

 

[robmac]

Funny you should mention the 300. I remember when I handled Jim's thinking "this sucker is far lighter than I would have thought..". I won't look up the numbers, but having owned the EoS 300/2.8 (non-IS), I'd call it an easier lug-around than the Canon. Surprised me as I envisioned this Hubble-like behemoth.

The 300 APO is on the list, but so are a lot of other things. Right now my 200APO and 1.4x do an amazing job. Jim hefted my 200 on his 1D2 (or 5D can't recall), twisted the focus ring a couple of times - then bought one. :clap: I don't think he ever hit the shutter. Offered to lend it to him as we could only meet for a couple of minutes, but I guess knowing the IQ of the 300, he knew what he'd be getting.

I REALLY liked my Leica 180s, but I would call both Mamiya 200 and the Cv 180/4 as the crown princes to the Leica's King. The CV and Mamiya I'd call at par in terms of resolving power with one another, bokeh of all three on par. However, I do prefer the color native from the Mamiya over the CV or Leica's. One advantage of the Mamiya over the CV is the ability to use a TC - and any TC at that (will adapt to it).

The Leica would have an edge in terms of resolution, but either of the alternatives above are so close it' not even funny. You may notice a difference at 100% on screen. In prints, I'd doubt it.

Actually, I just finished printing a medium-sized (13x19) color image on Epson VFA taken last year with my 5D and 180/2.8 APO for a charity auction and either of the CV or Mamiya could have matched what I'm seeing in terms of print resolution, color, contrast, etc. I've done the same print at 17x 22 and would say the same.

Using the Mamiya on a FF dslr gives sweet results, but it must be something on a MFDB unit with those nice fat CCD sensels and skinny DoF - as per John Black's website.

The Leica kicks butt w/o question, but as Guy put it the 200 APO (or IMHO CV 180/4) at $600ish is just "..killer". Hey, if I can save $1200+ and be close enough to tap on a Leica APOs shoulder (saw same with my 90AA R and Cv 90/3.5 APO) , I'm a happy camper :thumbs:

Thanks for the comparison info.
Only 130 grams more than the Leica, not bad. I would have thought it would have been more. 11.5mm more length would be more noticeable as far as balance. Definitely, alot cheaper than the Leica.The Mamiya 300 2.8 would be a great deal considering the price of ones from Canon/Nikon.Sounds like you will be getting one of these soon, thanks to trying out Jim's. I love my Leica 180 APO 2.8, so sharp wide open its amazing and with the 2x Leica extender I can get a surprisingly good 360mm 5.6.
Is the Mamiya 200 2.8 as sharp as the Leica 180 2.8 at f2.8? Just curious?

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Hey all... sorry to start this thread and then disappear, lol. Been pretty sick AND traveling some on and off for the last few days.

Some great thoughts on here... and I really appreciate the insights into the alt glass on the a900. One thing that Guy said really does hit home as I begin to get more experience with the 135/1.8 ... I'm not sure I could want more than I already get from the ZA glass (from MF glass).

There surely are lenses that outperform the ZA glass out there, but the combination of great IQ and ease of use make it really difficult (as a people/commercial shooter) to use alt glass.

One place I can see it maybe being useful is in beauty photography where, in the studio, you want detail and depth of field while shooting in pretty static conditions. Something like the 120 macro could be useful indeed. Still... the 135 would be a great beauty lens... so it's kind of a wash.

Tough decisions!

 

[gsking]

How about the Mirex adapter-via-M42 mount? You get focus confirmation (if you get a chipped M42 adapter) AND tilt-shift capability to boot?

This is my plan. I've kept MF versions of the Mamiya lenses even if I've covered them with AF versions.

30 fish/35/45/55/80 1.9/110...and the 300 2.8

Wonder how that 300 would work tilted. Could be interesting, eh? But I only have the A700 so far, so I'll be seriously cropping the lens.

Alas, the $500 bill for the adapter will have to wait until I sell off some stuff.

 

[conurus]

Mamiya autofocus lenses have electronically controlled aperture diaphragms, whereas the Sony Alpha mount uses a mechanical lever to control the aperture diaphragm. I think there are fundamental differences in the mount which makes using Mamiya AF lenses impossible on a Sony. Of course, for manual focus Mamiya lenses, all you need is some way to mechanically be able to mount the lens on the camera, and stop down the aperture manually.

Bo-Ming
conurus

 

[carstenw]

Mamiya autofocus lenses have electronically controlled aperture diaphragms, whereas the Sony Alpha mount uses a mechanical lever to control the aperture diaphragm. I think there are fundamental differences in the mount which makes using Mamiya AF lenses impossible on a Sony. Of course, for manual focus Mamiya lenses, all you need is some way to mechanically be able to mount the lens on the camera, and stop down the aperture manually.

Bo-Ming
conurus

How about Contax 645 on A900?

 

[picman]

I contacted David Llado from Leitax, and unfortunately he is after all not going to do what he told me a few months ago he was planning to do, when he was apparently only waiting for a certain type of chip to make a bayonet for Contax AE lenses. This is what he wrote to me a few days ago:

"I'm planning to make a Contax-Sony bayonet soon, but it will be only for the MM lenses of small diameter, like my Contax-Pentax bayonet that you can find in my site."

At the moment I see no way of getting Contax AE lenses on an A900.

Cheers, Bob

 

[robmac]

Contax 645 glass has an electronically controlled aperture (no ring), so no go. Maybe if you talk nicely to Bo-Ming...

 

[carstenw]

That is what I was attempting After all, Contax N must be somewhat similar, being similar vintage. There *is* an aperture ring, btw, but of course, no manual stop-down.

 

[conurus]

The aperture ring of a Contax N or a Contax 645 lens is "fly by wire". It works, on the original N1 body, as follows. The camera body asks the aperture ring for its position, and then sends a separate command to the aperture diaphragm to stop it down (when DoF preview is pressed, or when an actual picture is taken). There is absolutely no direct pathway of any kind from the aperture ring to the aperture diaphragm. It is the same technology used in an Airbus A320.

My dream is to be able to mount any lens on any camera, but unfortunately, reality sets in and there exists no current technology to make a camera which controls the aperture mechanically to control a lens whose aperture is controlled electronically.

BTW, I know the newer Nikons such as a D700 is able to do both because the camera body needs to control both PC-E Nikkors (electronic aperture) and all other Nikkors (mechanical aperture control lever). However, no existing lens with Sony Alpha mount is equipped with an electronic aperture diaphragm, and the camera body is not expected to know how to control such a non-existent lens.

 

[carstenw]

Is there a dumb adapter? Then one could shoot wide open...