50mm f4.5 for Bronica GS-1

[John Wiegerink]

I just received my 50mm f4.5 PG lens for my Bronica GS-1. I can't try it out right away since my camera is at my cottage and the lens and I are at home. I'm headed to the cottage tomorrow and wondered if there are any special tips I should know or be aware of with the 50mm? Second question is I want just a three lens kit and will need a short tele lens to go with my 50mm and 110mm Macro lens. I'm thinking 150mm or the 200mm? Any help there? Many years ago I bought a Hasselblad 500C w/ 80mm then added the 50mm and 150mm I really loved that combination for all the weddings I shot. No more weddings, so the shooting I do is mostly scenic with a portrait thrown in from time to time. I'm leaning more toward the 200mm unless I'm missing something that would push me more toward the 150mm PG lens.

 

[reddesert]

I can't say exactly - it depends on your photography of course - I own the 200mm but have not used it much, and I don't own the 150mm (never picked one up when prices were lower). Just one practical remark, the 200mm is in another weight class. The 150mm/4 lens is only about as big as the 100/3.5, and a bit smaller than the 110mm macro. But the 200mm is about 50% larger than the 150mm and has min focus of 2 meters. If that matters to you, only you can say.

 

[itsdoable]

I have both the 150 and 200. I find I use the 150 more than the 200, mostly because the 200 is significantly bigger and heavier to travel with. The 150 seems to be a sweet spot for hand hold-able captures with a telephoto. Optically, the 200 is as good as the 150, you just have to be more accurate with your technique.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I just received my 50mm f4.5 PG lens for my Bronica GS-1. I can't try it out right away since my camera is at my cottage and the lens and I are at home. I'm headed to the cottage tomorrow and wondered if there are any special tips I should know or be aware of with the 50mm? Second question is I want just a three lens kit and will need a short tele lens to go with my 50mm and 110mm Macro lens. I'm thinking 150mm or the 200mm? Any help there? Many years ago I bought a Hasselblad 500C w/ 80mm then added the 50mm and 150mm I really loved that combination for all the weddings I shot. No more weddings, so the shooting I do is mostly scenic with a portrait thrown in from time to time. I'm leaning more toward the 200mm unless I'm missing something that would push me more toward the 150mm PG lens.

In the Hassy world, 50,80 and 150 are referred to as the holy trinity (a very flexible setup), but when I got the 180, I enjoyed the extra room it gave between the camera and the sitter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I can't say exactly - it depends on your photography of course - I own the 200mm but have not used it much, and I don't own the 150mm (never picked one up when prices were lower). Just one practical remark, the 200mm is in another weight class. The 150mm/4 lens is only about as big as the 100/3.5, and a bit smaller than the 110mm macro. But the 200mm is about 50% larger than the 150mm and has min focus of 2 meters. If that matters to you, only you can say.

Whoa, that's a pretty big difference in size and I would imagine weight! I did a little research while waiting for a reply here, and I see the 150mm focuses slightly closer than the 200mm. I read some people reviews and I can't find people saying much if anything bad about the 150mm. In fact most of the users say it's one of the sharpest lenses they have. I do like the idea of a smaller lens like the 110mm also. Maybe I'll just get the 150mm and if a 200mm falls in my lap for a price a fool couldn't refuse, I'll grab it.
Ralph,
I've read your glowing reports on your 180mm, and it's on my list to buy before summer.

 

[itsdoable]

 

[abruzzi]

the 150 is actually the smallest lens in the PG stable. When I pack my GS-1, I usually take 50/100/150.

 

[John Wiegerink]

the 150 is actually the smallest lens in the PG stable. When I pack my GS-1, I usually take 50/100/150.

I like that and the fact 150mm is pretty darn light also. Looking at the 110mm Macro and the 100mm f3.5 minimum focus difference on that lens tech sheet tells me there isn't much difference as far as close-up work goes. I got the 110mm macro cuz it cost me almost nothing, but would rather have the 100mm. I imagine image quality should be near identical since the lens element construction is nearly identical?

 

[craigclu]

I've got the lenses discussed and find that I use the 150 far more (mainly because it's more likely with me). The 200 and 250 share the same hood which saves a bit of volume when headed out fully equipped. The 150 is so compact that it makes things much more manageable and can be used handheld in many situations.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've got the lenses discussed and find that I use the 150 far more (mainly because it's more likely with me). The 200 and 250 share the same hood which saves a bit of volume when headed out fully equipped. The 150 is so compact that it makes things much more manageable and can be used handheld in many situations.

Yes, that's why my leaning went away from the 200mm for now and toward the 150mm. I have a 250mm for my Hasseldlad, but almost never use it. Why? Well, because it's bigger and heavier, plus most of the time I have no need for a focal length that long. The Bronica PG 150mm is now on my "to buy" list.

 

[abruzzi]

I like that and the fact 150mm is pretty darn light also. Looking at the 110mm Macro and the 100mm f3.5 minimum focus difference on that lens tech sheet tells me there isn't much difference as far as close-up work goes. I got the 110mm macro cuz it cost me almost nothing, but would rather have the 100mm. I imagine image quality should be near identical since the lens element construction is nearly identical?

My GS-1 came with the 110 macro when I first bought it, but the closest distance the 110 macro can focus is not much closer than what the 100 can focus. I presume the 110 was more optimized for close distance than the 100, but I’ve never really done that comparison.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My GS-1 came with the 110 macro when I first bought it, but the closest distance the 110 macro can focus is not much closer than what the 100 can focus. I presume the 110 was more optimized for close distance than the 100, but I’ve never really done that comparison.

That's what I was getting at. Looking at the cross-section in the picture above, I don't see much difference in the lenses element positions. I wonder if there really is much difference between the two, even for close-up work. I guess the only way to tell is to pick up a 100mm and test it again't the 100mm and see.

 

[abruzzi]

yeah, they both seem to be double gauss/planar variants so the devil is in the specific details, which goes over my head, but as you say, they are probably very similar in image quality.

 

[MattKing]

Does the macro version include a floating element to improve close focusing performance?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Does the macro version include a floating element to improve close focusing performance?

That's what I was wondering, too, Matt. Since the lens elements look almost identical, I think that might be what makes it get the label "Macro". I did a little reading on the 110mm Macro after I first got it and folks said it was really sharp at infinity, which make me believe it might have a floating element or two. Some said it was just as sharp as the 100mm at infinity, but that is what folks say and might not be 100% correct.

 

[reddesert]

One cannot tell the differences between lens designs by looking at a cutaway diagram (other than crude categorizations like "these are both double-Gauss designs"). Small changes in the curvatures of the elements or in the types of glass used could make a large difference to the lens design and corrections, without being easy to see in a lens diagram.

Typically, SLR macro lenses sacrifice a bit of speed and are designed to keep good correction and a fairly flat field down to a ratio of 1:1 or so. So a macro lens is more likely than a normal lens to yield good results when used with extension tubes. A macro lens should perform reasonably well when used closer than the minimum focus of the lens itself, but a normal lens may start to degrade performance or show a lot of curvature of field.

 

[itsdoable]

The 3.5/100 was optimized for far distances (~1:20 to infinity), where as the 4/110 macro was optimized for flat field at close distances. Both make a good general use lens, the 3.5/100 being brighter (a priority in the days of manual focus film SLRs) and smaller, while the 4/110 focuses closer.

Also, I would also not turn down the 5.6/250 if you see a good deal - the 250mm range makes great portraits (I've used a 5.6/250 on the Hasselblad with a proxar or extension tube to good effect). The main drawback is you need disciplined technique to make it shine. And a little more room. I got the 4.5/200 because I thought it would be a good compromise, but honestly I tend to use the 4/150 more.

 

[Tony-S]

That's what I was getting at. Looking at the cross-section in the picture above, I don't see much difference in the lenses element positions. I wonder if there really is much difference between the two, even for close-up work. I guess the only way to tell is to pick up a 100mm and test it again't the 100mm and see.

The 110, like all macros, is designed for flat field across the frame. Not so important on pictoral shots, but critically important on close-ups requiring a plane that is in focus across the frame.

 

[Maris]

My Bronica GS-1 set includes the 65mm, 100mm, and 200mm lenses and the G-18 and G-36 extension tubes so I have wide-ish, normal, telephoto, and macro covered.
Similarly my Mamiya RB67 set has 50mm, 127mm, and 360mm lenses with Mamiya's built in bellows taking care of macro.
Rather than buy more lenses I find foot-zooming is enough to cover the focal length gaps.

 

[Oldwino]

I also have the 200, and love it. Very sharp, nice compression effect, easy to focus. For me, the 150 would be too short, similar to a 75 on the popular small format cameras, which is just too close to 100mm.
I do not find the size to be an issue, and I usually shoot my GS-1 handheld.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I also have the 200, and love it. Very sharp, nice compression effect, easy to focus. For me, the 150 would be too short, similar to a 75 on the popular small format cameras, which is just too close to 100mm.
I do not find the size to be an issue, and I usually shoot my GS-1 handheld.

Shooting handheld is why I bought the GS-1 in the first place. I wanted to run a test between my Pentax 67 and the GS-1 for hand holding and see which works best for me. The Pent 67 is a great camera and the glass for it is second to none, but when I go to one of my lenses longer than the 105mm I don't always get good, sharp images handheld. When I get the 150mm for the GS-1 I'll compare that to the Pentax with my165mm.

 

[Dave Ludwig]

It will be interesting to see your comparison. I use my 150mm and 80mm (yeah I have one and its a great lens) exclusively now and usually on a tripod as I tend toward longer exposures. I hand hold the 150 (carefully) without ND/ filters at a 60th without problem. I have a 200 and use it couple times a year.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It will be interesting to see your comparison. I use my 150mm and 80mm (yeah I have one and its a great lens) exclusively now and usually on a tripod as I tend toward longer exposures. I hand hold the 150 (carefully) without ND/ filters at a 60th without problem. I have a 200 and use it couple times a year.

Well, I have to get the 150mm first, but I'm hoping it is better than the Pentax. I have no problem handholding the Hasselblad 150mm so I'm thinking the GS-1 with 150mm might be about the same. The Pentax 67 with my 165mm is hit and miss. I've tried with non-mirror lockup and locking the mirror a split second before I trip the shutter, but it's still a struggle sometimes to stop movement.

 

[halfaman]

My set of lenses is 50, 100 and 200 mm, because I am coming from a Pentax 67II were I used 55, 105 and 200 mm. The Pentax 165 mm didn't worked for me, so I skip Bronica 150 mm. 200 mm focal length matchs better what I do and want in handheld portraits and landscapes, even I must admit that I barely use it.

PS 200 mm is heavier than Pentax 67 counterpart and also the 165 mm but still manegable. More than enough sharpness and beautiful rendering like the rest of PS lenses I am in love with.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My set of lenses is 50, 100 and 200 mm, because I am coming from a Pentax 67II were I used 55, 105 and 200 mm. The Pentax 165 mm didn't worked for me, so I skip Bronica 150 mm. 200 mm focal length matchs better what I do and want in handheld portraits and landscapes, even I must admit that I barely use it.

PS 200 mm is heavier than Pentax 67 counterpart and also the 165 mm but still manegable. More than enough sharpness and beautiful rendering like the rest of PS lenses I am in love with.

I do very little portrait work anymore, but the 165mm Takumar seemed to work find for me. I have the 200mm Takumar also, but used the 165mm LS more for people pictures. The 15mm PG lens might be a tad on the short side, but if I find it is I can always add a shot extension tube. With the 150mm and short tube the perspective should still be just fine. I just got to my cottage where my GS-1 is so I can test the 50mm out to see if it is working properly. Later guys.