85mm f1.8 for bronica s, s2, s2a, ec ?

[el wacho]

hi,

just curious if anyone can confirm the existence of such a lens. it is mentioned Dead Link Removed in the bronica S manual in the lens spec section close to the bottom. so, anyone heard of it? thanks.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm fairly sure that's a typo.

 

[el wacho]

not to be contentious but there is coherent data to go with it ( 50 degree angle of view, filter type, distance focus) and Tony Hilton mentions it in his exhaustive list of bronica lens ( along with the ultra rare 30mm nikkor fisheye ) ? what do you reckon?

 

[BobD]

It also says there's a 180/2.5

I've never seen that one

 

[Trond]

It also says there's a 180/2.5

I've never seen that one

That one is for real at least: http://www.cameraquest.com/bron180.htm

Trond

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Tony Hilton showed up a year or two ago on the Bronica Yahoo!Group selling his Bronica collection. You might look at the list of items and see if it was in there, since he had some of the real rarities, but I don't recall that one. You might also find his contact info and ask if he knows whether the lens really existed.

I think it's a doubtful, because there is no 85/1.8 for any other 6x6 system. It would have to be a fairly large, heavy lens. To be sharp enough wide open, it would likely be a Planar type in that era, and Planars for 6x6 and larger formats don't tend to be faster than 2.8, and performance is already getting questionable at the widest aperture, so an 85/1.8 Planar for 6x6 from the late 1960s would probably have some serious field curvature.

 

[BobD]

I think it's a doubtful, because there is no 85/1.8 for any other 6x6 system. It would have to be a fairly large, heavy lens. To be sharp enough wide open, it would likely be a Planar type in that era, and Planars for 6x6 and larger formats don't tend to be faster than 2.8, and performance is already getting questionable at the widest aperture, so an 85/1.8 Planar for 6x6 from the late 1960s would probably have some serious field curvature.

There's an 80/1.9 for the Mamiya 645 which would have to have the same coverage as a 6x6 lens.
There is also an 80/2 lens for the Norita 6x6.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

There was the Ermanox camera of the mid 1920s that used the 85mm f1.8 lens to cover a 6x4.5cm plate.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The image circle for 645 is about 74mm in diameter. 6x6 is about 82mm. This is not an insignificant difference when considering corner sharpness of a fast lens in terms of what Nikon would have considered acceptable in the late 1960s, and getting an extra half stop of speed over an f:2.0 lens while maintaining acceptable corner sharpness over a larger image circle than 645 is an even greater challenge.

 

[2F/2F]

The image circle for 645 is about 74mm in diameter. 6x6 is about 82mm. This is not an insignificant difference when considering corner sharpness of a fast lens in terms of what Nikon would have considered acceptable in the late 1960s, and getting an extra half stop of speed over an f:2.0 lens while maintaining acceptable corner sharpness over a larger image circle than 645 is an even greater challenge.

ditto

FWIW, the Mamiya 1.9 lens is excellent IME. I shot many live performances with this lens wide open onto Ektachrome 160T pushed up to three stops by the lab, and I always loved the results.

I'll bet the lens would make a gorgeous picture on 6x6 format with soft, dark edges on a mostly sharp picture, but would not have the technical soundness around the edges that it has on 6x4.5.