Any insight on the 150mm 2.8 lens for Mamiya 645?

[stephsleeps]

I was just gifted a near mint Mamiya 1000s and im pretty eager to start shooting !
Hobby wise, I shoot street night scenes and I plan on making this my "hobby" camera

As per usual, Im having a hard time choosing a lens
I'm between the 45mm, 150mm 3.5, and 80mm 2.8.

All night photo examples I've seen for those lenses seem great.
I found the 45 and 150mm 3.5 most attractive and sharpest but the 45
seems to produce these hard starbursts around light sources which im not fond of
I can work with any of those focal lengths really, as my main concern is quality and
Im looking for a lens that will ultimately retain detail all around when zoomed in
I have read on a thread they are all equally sharp, but im very nitpicky and I can't agree.
I also don't want to mention the 80mm1.9 as I've already spent 1k on a lens this year.....

So back to the question, I've seen and read a lot of good things about the 150mm 3.5
However, I've never read any review on the 150mm 2.8 ???? It seems like it would be nice to have an extra stop.
So my question, finally, is: Does anyone have experience with this lens ??
If it is as good as the 3.5 that will be my decision..
If it isn't, what would be your recommendation?

 

[R.Gould]

What about the 80 1.9,? I have recently bought a mamiya m645 1000s outfit, and it came with the 1.9 lens, and I was trying some still life and used it wide open with good results

 

[Dennis-B]

While I haven't used the 150mm f/2.8, I remember it from my film days, and it had a great reputation for being sharp and rendering great color. For my purposes, I always used the 150mm f/3.5 because I didn't shoot a lot of low light, and could stop down to f/11 with no problem. If the f/2.8 floats your boat, by all means get it.

As to the 80mm, I have both the f/2.8 and the f/1.9. I prefer the f/2.8 over the f/1.9, but that's mostly a personal preference I do use the f/1.9 wide open and it's nice and sharp, although at f/8, it's not quite as sharp as the f/2.8, especially around the edges. I compared both using T-Max, but it's mostly how I interpreted the negs and scans.

The following web site has several lens reviews, but note that none of them are current. However, I would guess that most of the reviews came about before the "switch".

http://www.photographyreview.com/brand/lenses/mamiya.html

 

[jjphoto]

Although I've owned an m6451000s for many years it's been even longer since I've used one. I have many m645 lenses but I only shoot them on full frame digital bodies, even in the last week for that matter, so I can't comment on edge or corner performance on the 645 film.

The m645 lenses seem to fall into a couple of broad groups in terms of performance. The apo teles, 110n, 2.8/80n, 120a and 2.8/150a are a notch above the rest. These hold their own on an a7riv body. I hear people say the same of the 55n but that's not my experience.

I have the 35n, 45n, 55n, 1.9/80n, 2.8/80n, 110n, 120a and 150a. Optically the last 4 listed are superior to the rest.

The 45n is nothing special in my experience, similar to the 55n which seems sharper stopped down. Of the two i prefer the 55n.

The 1.9/80 is a stunning portrait lens with fine almost pastel colours but slightly low contrast. Its bokeh is beautiful at close range but can be quite harsh, which I think is a good thing. It has purple fringing wide open so is problematic with contrast, no good for architecture for example, but not a problem when stopped down. The 2.8/80 is a sharper lens but less interesting and useful imho so i hardly ever use it.

The 110n is a stunning lens. Just super sharp, even on the Sony. Bokeh is funky/harsh which is good. Certainly one of the best lenses in the system and one I'd highly recommend it the focal length suits you, for me the focal length feels odd so I don't use it often despite its performance. It's great for general photography although I sometimes use it for people.

The 120a is an apo lens at macro and sharpness is superb. It's a nice lens overall.

The 150a is already razor sharp wide open but tbh i don't use it often and when I do its mainly at distance/landscape. I can't really comment on bokeh. I've no experience with the f3.5 version but I suspect they are not similar. If you can then definitely consider the 150a.

 

[MattKing]

The 150 f/3.5 has the advantage of being smaller and lighter and sharing the same filter size as the 55 f/2.8 and 80 f/2.8.
I owned one for a while and was happy with it.
I prefer the 55mm, 110mm, 210mm trio that I've ended up with, plus the 45mm and 80mm macro to round out the family.

 

[Nige]

An interesting way everyone uses this lens lineup... all different!

I have 80/1.9 & 80/2.8 (x2), 150/4, 150/3.5 & 150/2.8. My 150/4 has slow aperture blades so I purchased the 3.5 as a replacement. I also have 45/2.8 & 55/2.8. My bag contains the 45, 55, 80/2.8, 150/3.5 and a close up ring. They are in there as the 55, 80 & 150/3.5 all take the same filter size as Matt mentions. I carry the 45 but have rarely used it. I use the 80/1.9 & 150/2.8 around the house (usually headshots of my sons) but have never compared to their not so fabled cousins so can't offer anything on that argument. I've also never used them at night, so can't add anything useful in that regard either... basically I got nothing for 'ya

 

[Pieter12]

It seems like it would be nice to have an extra stop.

(2.8 is only 1/2 stop faster than 3.5)

 

[stephsleeps]

(2.8 is only 1/2 stop faster than 3.5)

thanks for pointing that out... really now i wonder if it makes a difference

 

[stephsleeps]

I have the 35n, 45n, 55n, 1.9/80n, 2.8/80n, 110n, 120a and 150a. Optically the last 4 listed are superior to the rest.

The 45n is nothing special in my experience, similar to the 55n which seems sharper stopped down. Of the two i prefer the 55n.

The 150a is already razor sharp wide open but tbh i don't use it often and when I do its mainly at distance/landscape. I can't really comment on bokeh. I've no experience with the f3.5 version but I suspect they are not similar. If you can then definitely consider the 150a.

Very useful insight. I have taken all of this into consideration, and I think the 150a fits my needs. Thank you.

 

[Henning Serger]

However, I've never read any review on the 150mm 2.8 ????
So my question, finally, is: Does anyone have experience with this lens ??

I am using the 2.8/150 A for several years now. It belongs to the best lenses available for the Mamiya 645 series:
- fully usable already at open aperture f2.8
- very high contrast from f2.8 on over the whole aperture range
- very good sharpness, also from f2.8 on
- nice, slightly warm colour transmission
- only very little pincushion distortion, not critical.
I can highly recommend it.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

am using the 2.8/150 A for several years now. It belongs to the best lenses available for the Mamiya 645 series:

I've sometimes been tempted by a 645 SLR but have 35mm gear and a 6x6 set-up so not sure where it would fit in. The Pentax and Mamiya 645 both look like good options, and I guess can also be used with a digital body if required. Lens availability and pricing also seem good for 645.

 

[Henning Serger]

I've sometimes been tempted by a 645 SLR but have 35mm gear and a 6x6 set-up so not sure where it would fit in.

Tom, from a technical quality point of view 4.5x6 and 6x6 are identical in almost all situations, because the final quality depends on the enlargement factor. And that enlargement factor is determined by the long - 6cm - side for 4.5x6, and therefore identical to 6x6:
For example if you take a landscape shot, you will use the horizontal, landscape orientation of the camera. Using the 6cm side as the basis for the composition.
And if you shoot in vertical, portrait orientation for a portrait, you will again be using the 6cm side as the basis for the composition.
If you make a 60cm wide print from your landscape shot, you have a 60x45cm print. And you would have a 60x60cm print if you would have used a 6x6 camera in that situation. In both cases an enlargement factor of 10x and exactly the same technical quality.
The same situation with the portrait example, just that the final print would be in vertical orientation.

6x6 would only have a very little advantage if you crop.
I am using both 6x6 and 4.5x6, but 4.5x6 in about 95% of the situations, because my preferred subjects for my medium format photography are mostly 'rectangular' subject, and not 'square' subjects.
6x6 is used for the minority of my 'square' subjects, when the whole film area can be used as the subjects fit the film format.

The Pentax and Mamiya 645 both look like good options, and I guess can also be used with a digital body if required. Lens availability and pricing also seem good for 645.

The Pentax 645 series cameras have all fixed film magazines, no changing backs. The first Mamiya 645 models (645, 645 1000S, 645J) had also only fixed backs. The Mamiya 645 Super, 645 Pro, 645 Pro TL, 645 AFD, 645 AFD II and 645 AFD III all have had changing backs. All the 645 D models can also be used with digital backs.
I am using two 645 Pro TL bodies with six lenses. Bought all that at the right time when it was extremely cheap. One main reason why I have choosen the Mamiya has been its excellent selection of very good to excellent lenses, and the changing backs. The Mamiya 645 series has the biggest lens selection of all MF cameras. And lots of them are very good to excellent. From the six lenses I have I rate five of them as very good or excellent, and only one lens at "only good".

A friend of mine is using the Pentax 645N. And excellent camera, very well built. And with a very fine selection of lenses, too.
Both systems offer a lot for the money. And fortunately both systems can still be bought at very attractive prices.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[jjphoto]

Tom, from a technical quality point of view 4.5x6 and 6x6 are identical in almost all situations, because the final quality depends on the enlargement factor. And that enlargement factor is determined by the long - 6cm - side for 4.5x6, and therefore identical to 6x6:
For example if you take a landscape shot, you will use the horizontal, landscape orientation of the camera. Using the 6cm side as the basis for the composition.
And if you shoot in vertical, portrait orientation for a portrait, you will again be using the 6cm side as the basis for the composition.
If you make a 60cm wide print from your landscape shot, you have a 60x45cm print. And you would have a 60x60cm print if you would have used a 6x6 camera in that situation. In both cases an enlargement factor of 10x and exactly the same technical quality.
The same situation with the portrait example, just that the final print would be in vertical orientation.

6x6 would only have a very little advantage if you crop.
I am using both 6x6 and 4.5x6, but 4.5x6 in about 95% of the situations, because my preferred subjects for my medium format photography are mostly 'rectangular' subject, and not 'square' subjects.
6x6 is used for the minority of my 'square' subjects, when the whole film area can be used as the subjects fit the film format.



The Pentax 645 series cameras have all fixed film magazines, no changing backs. The first Mamiya 645 models (645, 645 1000S, 645J) had also only fixed backs. The Mamiya 645 Super, 645 Pro, 645 Pro TL, 645 AFD, 645 AFD II and 645 AFD III all have had changing backs. All the 645 D models can also be used with digital backs.
I am using two 645 Pro TL bodies with six lenses. Bought all that at the right time when it was extremely cheap. One main reason why I have choosen the Mamiya has been its excellent selection of very good to excellent lenses, and the changing backs. The Mamiya 645 series has the biggest lens selection of all MF cameras. And lots of them are very good to excellent. From the six lenses I have I rate five of them as very good or excellent, and only one lens at "only good".

A friend of mine is using the Pentax 645N. And excellent camera, very well built. And with a very fine selection of lenses, too.
Both systems offer a lot for the money. And fortunately both systems can still be bought at very attractive prices.

Best regards,
Henning

I'll keep it short because it's off-topic but a significant difference between some 6x6 and 6x4.5 cameras is the shutter. Many 6x6 are TLRs so have a leaf shutter which is extremely quite, great for shooting people, and has advantages with flash.

 

[wiltw]

I'll keep it short because it's off-topic but a significant difference between some 6x6 and 6x4.5 cameras is the shutter. Many 6x6 are TLRs so have a leaf shutter which is extremely quite, great for shooting people, and has advantages with flash.

But both the M645 and the Pentax 645 use primarily shutterless lenses, and the body uses the focal plane shutter in this case, with rather limited speed selection when used with electronic flash. While both Mamiya and Pentax offer a few shuttered lenses for their 645 body which incorporate leaf shutters for better operability with electronic flash, there are usually operational limitations in other areas (like no link to AE meters) when the shuttered lenses are used. Another personal peeve for the Pentax is the grip's position on the body...all the way at the REAR so the entire weight of body and lens puts torque on the handle. Mamiya and Bronica grips put some of the body weight to counterbalance somewhat.

Bronica has an approach like Hasselblad...leaf shutter in each lens offering electronic flash sync up to 1/500, and full operational capability for AE TTL meters while used with electronic flash. In Bronica's case the lens uses an electronically timed Seiko shutter, so one does not have to contend with a mechanical shutter being 'slow' in one lens.
So this is like using the Mamizy RZ67 with electronically controlled shuttered lenses.

 

[jjphoto]

But both the M645 and the Pentax 645 use primarily shutterless lenses, and the body uses the focal plane shutter in this case, with rather limited speed selection when used with electronic flash. While both Mamiya and Pentax offer a few shuttered lenses for their 645 body which incorporate leaf shutters for better operability with electronic flash, there are usually operational limitations in other areas (like no link to AE meters) when the shuttered lenses are used. Another personal peeve for the Pentax is the grip's position on the body...all the way at the REAR so the entire weight of body and lens puts torque on the handle. Mamiya and Bronica grips put some of the body weight to counterbalance somewhat.

Bronica has an approach like Hasselblad...leaf shutter in each lens offering electronic flash sync up to 1/500, and full operational capability for AE TTL meters while used with electronic flash. In Bronica's case the lens uses an electronically timed Seiko shutter, so one does not have to contend with a mechanical shutter being 'slow' in one lens.
So this is like using the Mamizy RZ67 with electronically controlled shuttered lenses.

For clarification, and I should have mentioned this before, it's not just the shutter but the TLR with its fixed mirror (non reflex viewfinder) that contribute to the camera being so quiet in use and this is the main reason these cameras are so useful for shooting people, street photography etc where you don't want to be noticed. Having owned Mamiya TLR, M645 and RZII bodies for many years the difference is substantial. Cameras like the RZII sound like a bomb going off when the shutter fires due to the mirror as the lenses have leaf shutters. The M645 is not so noisy but still significant. Your previous point about film surface area is very valid and I found a significant difference between 6x7 and 6x4.5 in terms of sharpness, tonal gradation (grain) due to needing to enlarge a neg significantly less. The TLR with its 6x6 is effectively like an 645 neg in terms of image quality but not in terms of functionality for the reasons I've mentioned.