Out of curiosity, Which lenses are you using for your Mamiya TLR?
I used 55-80-180 for mine.
2 or 3 lens kit?
-
A
- Thread starter xtolsniffer
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 C Outfit - Body, 3 Finders, A24 Film Back, More!
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Toyo-View D45M LF Camera, Symmar 150mm/f5.6 Lens, 45R Binocular Finder
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Guess what I found! 6 packs of Polaroid 665!!!
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
Out of curiosity, Which lenses are you using for your Mamiya TLR?
I used 55-80-180 for mine.
55 and 80 - I'm not really a telephoto sort of chap, so I've passed on the 180 for the moment...
Just as the 65mm lens is too close to the 80mm lens, I found that the 180mm lens is to close to the 80mm lens, unless you are really into taking portraits, and the the 250mm is a much better all round lens for telephoto work. ==> I recommend 55mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses for the Mamiya Cxx or Cxxx. I use 50mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses or SWC [38mm], 50mm and 80mm lenses when I travel; more the latter than the former.
During my brief love-hate relationship with the Mamiya TLRs, I ended up preferring the 65mm, 105mm combo....but the 80mm is great if you're just gonna carry one lens.
I too had a love-hate relationship with the Mamiya TLRs, because I had the older lenses that had aperture and shutters on opposite sides of the lenses so I was constantly flipping the camera back and forth when I need to take a photograph, especially when I was in a hurry. That and some of the lenses automatically cocked when the film was advanced and others did not.
Attached will help deciding which lends to take next and reduce been switching
Back when I shot a 35mm Contax I owned 5 lenses (25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, and 180mm).
If I had to decide on only three of them then the easy choice would have been the 25, 50 and 100. In fact, that is what I usually left the house with.
For me, 50mm is the most important focal length. The 25 and 100 were equally important. I mostly used the 100 for portraits and landscape. The 25 was for getting in close.
If I had to decide on only three of them then the easy choice would have been the 25, 50 and 100. In fact, that is what I usually left the house with.
For me, 50mm is the most important focal length. The 25 and 100 were equally important. I mostly used the 100 for portraits and landscape. The 25 was for getting in close.
One thing I like about the Mamiya TLR lenses is that because the bellows are on the camera, they are so thin that I can fit the 65mm or the 80mm into the pocket of my jeans. This makes them a natural choice as a 2 lens combo, the 80 staying on and the 65 being there in case I need just a little extra angle.
For Hasselblad, I think the perfect combination is the 60mm and the 150mm. The 60mm is in my opinion, the single best lens in the Hasselblad lineup, and the 150 complements it perfectly for extra reach. I own the 50FLE, and 250mm each which I feel are for specific situations, and the 80 for when I only want one lens on the camera.
For Hasselblad, I think the perfect combination is the 60mm and the 150mm. The 60mm is in my opinion, the single best lens in the Hasselblad lineup, and the 150 complements it perfectly for extra reach. I own the 50FLE, and 250mm each which I feel are for specific situations, and the 80 for when I only want one lens on the camera.
A 24 or 28mm, 50, and a 90 or 105mm would be my choice. I've used that set successfully on many trips and assignments. On Nikon I'm mostly using a 28 f2, 50 1.8, and 105 2.5, though I have also experimented with a 24 2.8 and a 20 2.8 for the wide. I just find the speed helpful for focusing and flexibility. I have also considered swapping in a 90mm macro, but generally don't because the filter size is different, and carrying a second set of filters is a big pain for little gain.
On APS-c Fuji I used their 18/35/60 combo very effectively, though eventually switched back to Nikon due to poor autofocus performance.
For a two lens kit 35/105 is quite good, but I can't seem to get on with a 35mm FoV, so for me it's a three lens kit or just one. A friend who's work is pretty good was using a 35/85 combo on Olympus OM for a while. Seemed like a nice kit.
As some here have pointed out, one lens is a very effective way to work, but depending on your goals and the situation sometimes the extra glass is either a necessity or advisable to cover your ass.
On APS-c Fuji I used their 18/35/60 combo very effectively, though eventually switched back to Nikon due to poor autofocus performance.
For a two lens kit 35/105 is quite good, but I can't seem to get on with a 35mm FoV, so for me it's a three lens kit or just one. A friend who's work is pretty good was using a 35/85 combo on Olympus OM for a while. Seemed like a nice kit.
As some here have pointed out, one lens is a very effective way to work, but depending on your goals and the situation sometimes the extra glass is either a necessity or advisable to cover your ass.
24, 50 and if a three lens kit 135.
For much of my work, 24 has a distinct edge over 28mm.
Steve
For much of my work, 24 has a distinct edge over 28mm.
Steve
Traveling by plane to overseas cities: 24 mm, 50 mm, and 100 mm (all taking 55 mm filters) with the first two seeing probably 80% of the use.
In my backpacking days: 35 mm, 85 mm, and 135 mm (space permitting). All small, light, in 50 mm increments, and taking 52 mm filters.
Traveling solely by car I'd be violating the 2 -3 lens limitation.
In my backpacking days: 35 mm, 85 mm, and 135 mm (space permitting). All small, light, in 50 mm increments, and taking 52 mm filters.
Traveling solely by car I'd be violating the 2 -3 lens limitation.
I started to photograph with one camera and one lens. Where I was it was total norm for tens of millions people. Looking back I see absolutely no limitation been applied. We photographed what is most interesting and valuable. Moments of live.
Somehow, even after buying, selling consumerism came, I'm still able to manage how I started in photography.
I went on more than two weeks trips many times with just one camera, one lens. It is more productive than two camera, two lenses.
Of course, I don't take cameras which are sitting in the drawers among dozens of others. I use same camera, lens I use daily.
Then it is absolutely no difference. You go out just as you go out everywhere.
I'm not vacation, weekends only voyager. I have camera with single lens on me every time I go out.
I also see zero value in tele lens. Tried it many times, it gives unnatural images to me. I'm not even 50, but 35 and wider.
With this focal lengths, I must come close, be part of happening, be engaged, socializing or just hike longer to get to the spot.
Very different style comparing to keep on switching lenses, cameras. High style.
VM took just one Leica on long trip with her, she used nothing but single TLR for years at home town. Victror Kolar used one Leica, one lens across Canada for years. I see nothing wrong, nothing missing in their pictures. Do you know what Karsh didn't have spares with him? Are his portraits bad?
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with confining oneself to one camera, one lens (and one film). I too only had one camera (and two lenses but only ever used one at a time) for a very long time and never felt any deficiency.
However, as a sort of counter example, when somebody has paid you to travel to and to make photos in a small, remote village 6500 miles from home and 75 miles over rugged dirt roads from anything resembling a city and you're there for a two or three spell...well, I have personally found it a very good thing to bring along a spare body at minimum...and if you've got a spare body, why not add a lens and make it useful? And so, when I am on a road trip, away from home for a couple of weeks, even if I'm not out in the remote village in central Peru, I find comfort and convenience in having two bodies that can share any of two or three lenses.
Paid to travel to remote village? You are daydreaming theoretic here. LOL.
I work in broadcast, production since nineties. I don't mix APUG which is full of total amateurs and my profession. I'm amateur photog as well. Phone is the real backup, BTW.
Well that particular job was travel expenses (transportation, food and lodging) and a very small per diem allowance so you’re right in a sense, I didn’t really get paid. I ended up donating my time and all photography related costs. The client was a group of missionaries who went to help clean up and rebuild after the big earthquake in 2007. They used my photos in their slide presentation when they got back home...and I heard that they used them again a few years later to get funding for a new trip.
The cell phones back then weren’t gonna cut it as back up.
Last edited:
28 because it doesn’t look like “look at me I’m WIIIDE” like 24 or 20 (love both of those as well though), yet still has many of the benefits of wide.
IE near focus plus lots of background. Good geometry distortion X,Y and Z etc.
50 because it’s a slight tele and was popular as a kit lens for a reason. It’s easy to make fast and light. Can be reversed or extended easily for macro.
135 because it’s the best for portraiture, is surprisingly long “almost a 200” feeling, so also very useful as a light, longish and fast tele, yet not too long to be used indoors for headshots. It also pleasingly and noticeably compresses space, but not in a big way like already a 200 will.
Lenses I don’t get are:
35, it’s neither here nor there. Too close to a 50 or 28 to really make it stand out. Always a bit too wide or tele I feel. That said I’ve used my 35 f2 Ai quite a bit because I haven’t found a cheap and good enough 28 f2. ;-)
100. I’d much rather have a 85 or 135. It’s not a substantial tele, yet is often annoyingly close for stuff a 85 would be perfect for. Also they tend to be on the slower side compared to 85, and the same speed as an equally priced 135.
IE near focus plus lots of background. Good geometry distortion X,Y and Z etc.
50 because it’s a slight tele and was popular as a kit lens for a reason. It’s easy to make fast and light. Can be reversed or extended easily for macro.
135 because it’s the best for portraiture, is surprisingly long “almost a 200” feeling, so also very useful as a light, longish and fast tele, yet not too long to be used indoors for headshots. It also pleasingly and noticeably compresses space, but not in a big way like already a 200 will.
Lenses I don’t get are:
35, it’s neither here nor there. Too close to a 50 or 28 to really make it stand out. Always a bit too wide or tele I feel. That said I’ve used my 35 f2 Ai quite a bit because I haven’t found a cheap and good enough 28 f2. ;-)
100. I’d much rather have a 85 or 135. It’s not a substantial tele, yet is often annoyingly close for stuff a 85 would be perfect for. Also they tend to be on the slower side compared to 85, and the same speed as an equally priced 135.
If I'm gonna be restricted to three lenses, I'm gonna choose something mildly esoteric: 24mm f/2, 85mm f/1.2, 200mm f/2.8.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |