Anyone with first hand experience of Bronica SQ range of cameras with S and PS lenses ?

[neilt3]

I've been using Bronica gear for quite a few years with an ETRSi and ETRS with P and PE lenses from the 30mm Fisheye PE to 500mm E and a couple of zooms , plus other bits including Metz and Sunpak TTL flash .
Needless to say , I've been happy with it all .

I've just recently picked up a Bronica SQ-Ai for the square format over the 6x4.5 with an 80mm S lens and a 200mm PS lens .
I'm looking at a few more lenses such as either the 40mm or 50mm ( or maybe both ) and I'm looking for opinions of these lenses from people that have used both the S and PS lenses together .

From what I've found so far , the S lenses were very good anyway , and were improved on with better coatings on the PS lenses .
PS lenses were also designed with MTF in mind , so again an improvement .

From the comments I've read people are saying to get the PS lenses just because they've read it in the brochure or the internet but don't have any direct experience between using the the same focal length of lens side by side .

So my question is how do these lenses compare .
In particular the 50mm S and PS lens .

The 40mm S and PS lens . I know the S version have the silly built in hood that prevents you fixing ND grads to them or other slot in filters , but optically , how do they compare ?

I already have the 80mm S , would the 80mm PS lens be a real upgrade in actual use , not on test charts or pixel peeping on a scanned image ?

Usage wise , most of what I do is black and white along with some Rollei infrared .
I only do a small amount of colour negative film and no slide film .

So to those who have used both versions of the lenses , I would value you opinion , is there any real difference between them ?

Thanks .

 

[250swb]

I would say the S lenses are generally good, but as you go wider I think the PS lenses start to show more of an improvement than if you are trying to compare S/PS 80mm lenses. So for 50mm I'd go for the PS but wouldn't bother changing an 80mm S for a PS.

 

[halfaman]

General PS to S differences.

• PS models have all lens groups multicoated, while in S models not all were.
• PS lenses have half stop aperture increments while S lenes are full stop increments.
• PS lenses have a redesign mechanical transmission from the advance lever to the lens to avoid shutter cocking failures on some S lenses.
• PS solves risk of light leaks in some lenses.
• PS lenses have the front assembly redesigned to eliminate barrel side screws.

80 mm f/2.8 PS separated one of the cemented groups changing from 6 elements in 4 groups to 6 elements in 5 groups, it should allow for better correction but more difficult to assembly. 40mm PS and S are optically identical.

I only have PS lenses (40, 65, 80, 180 mm) and all I can say are good things about them regarding image quality.

 

[RJ-]

Halfaman makes a succinct whole of a summary of the technical differences between the S & PS lenses

I no longer use any of the S lenses; I started with the PS lenses from 35mm - 250mm and added the 80/2.8 S briefly when a red filter locked on the front thread of the PS lens. The 80/2.8 developed the characteristic Japanese late 1970s lens separation with rainbow colours - its lens cement is the same 1970s type which was never designed beyond 20 to 30 years of use. Compared to generations of non-coated earlier lenses or later generations of lens designs with superior lens cement between the elements, it's hard to recommend the S series over the PS lenses (None of the PS lenses which I use have decemented yet..)

Of the PS lenses, superior multicoating makes a vast magnitude of difference for ultrawide angle lenses much more than standard or tele lenses: for the Bronica 35/3.5, 40/4, 50/4 wide angle lenses, the extreme angle of incident light entails a host of internal reflections, ghosting flare, lowered contrast and aberrations. These flare types are inevitable with around 135 degrees field of view+, the inferior multi-coatings of the S era will not hold consistently for internal veiling and ghosting flare particularly with contre-jour lighting. Internal flare reflections S > PS coatings and the PS coatings themselves are not the last word in multicoating. The Zeiss T* and the Rolleiflex HFT multicoatings are superior to the Bronica 6x6cm SQ format PS or S lenses for avoiding these optical limitations of design. Consequently a photographer using theses PS or S lenses learns to live and love the limitations.

For your work, neccessitating a red 29 or IR filter >695nm, you'll find the extra two surfaces will multiply the internal flaring challenges of these wider angle lenses. The 50mm suffers less than the 40mm; the 35mm isn't possible to front mount red or IR filters.

 

[mshchem]

I had 5 SQAi bodies and a bunch of PS lenses at one point. Fabulous system, I had all PS lenses worked great.

 

[DWThomas]

I cobbled together an SQ-A system starting in 2006 via ePrey and KEH. I went with all PS, not for features, but based on the theory that the lenses contain the shutter and on average PS lenses are several years newer than S, so likely to be in better shape.

At this point in time it's a bit embarrassing, as for the past half dozen years I've hardly put a film through it. Almost all my recent film work including travel has been with a Yashica 124G for compactness and simplicity. (I plead old age!)

 

[neilt3]

Thanks' for the replies .
I've also picked up a Bronica PS 110mm f4.5 Macro Lens that goes to 1:1 rather than the usual 1:4 , so looking forward to receiving it .
Anyone here have any experience with the 50-100mm PS Zoom lens ?

General PS to S differences.

• PS models have all lens groups multicoated, while in S models not all were.
• PS lenses have half stop aperture increments while S lenes are full stop increments.
• PS lenses have a redesign mechanical transmission from the advance lever to the lens to avoid shutter cocking failures on some S lenses.
• PS solves risk of light leaks in some lenses.
• PS lenses have the front assembly redesigned to eliminate barrel side screws.

80 mm f/2.8 PS separated one of the cemented groups changing from 6 elements in 4 groups to 6 elements in 5 groups, it should allow for better correction but more difficult to assembly. 40mm PS and S are optically identical.

I only have PS lenses (40, 65, 80, 180 mm) and all I can say are good things about them regarding image quality.

I knew about the different coatings and half stops on the aperture , but not aware of some of the other points , thanks .
I had considered getting the 40mm S and if need be cut off the built in hood . But I'm still keeping an eye open for the PS version .
Quite a few of the PS lenses I see for sale as listed as having haze in them , but less so of the S lenses .
So this is a bit of a concern .

I cobbled together an SQ-A system starting in 2006 via ePrey and KEH. I went with all PS, not for features, but based on the theory that the lenses contain the shutter and on average PS lenses are several years newer than S, so likely to be in better shape.

At this point in time it's a bit embarrassing, as for the past half dozen years I've hardly put a film through it. Almost all my recent film work including travel has been with a Yashica 124G for compactness and simplicity. (I plead old age!)

My first medium format camera was the Yashica 124G , I got it about twenty years ago and it's still working well , though I've not used it for a while .

 

[Klaus_H]

Anyone here have any experience with the 50-100mm PS Zoom lens ?

Since 25 years I am using the Bronica SQ system (SQ/A, SQ/B and SQ/Ai PS lenses 40, 50, 65, 80, 110, 115, 180, 250 and the zoom lens 50-100 and S lenses 50, 105, 250, 500).
The PS lenses may be a little bit better than the S lenses, but I can see the difference only when I have prints (at least 20 x 20 inches) side by side to compare. The S lenses are an older design, but they too are sharp with pleasant contrast.
Please note, in the S range there are only 67mm and 95mm (S40 and S500) filter diameters, in the PS range 67mm, 77mm (PS50) , 95mm (PS40 and Zoom 50-100) and 122mm (PS 500).

The 50-100mm zoom is a heavy lens weighing about 1kg. The closest focusing distance is 1.5m.
The imaging performance of the lens is impeccable.
Since the speed changes when the focal length is adjusted (4.0 / 50mm - 5.6 / 100mm), the lens is suitable either in conjunction with the AE Prism, or you use it as I do. I use the focal lengths 50mm, 75mm and 100mm which are each 0.5 stops apart. These values can be set exactly.
The use of filters with this lens is expensive, 95 filters from renowned manufacturers (B&W or Heliopan) quickly lead to an empty wallet.

 

[neilt3]

Since 25 years I am using the Bronica SQ system (SQ/A, SQ/B and SQ/Ai PS lenses 40, 50, 65, 80, 110, 115, 180, 250 and the zoom lens 50-100 and S lenses 50, 105, 250, 500).
The PS lenses may be a little bit better than the S lenses, but I can see the difference only when I have prints (at least 20 x 20 inches) side by side to compare. The S lenses are an older design, but they too are sharp with pleasant contrast.
Please note, in the S range there are only 67mm and 95mm (S40 and S500) filter diameters, in the PS range 67mm, 77mm (PS50) , 95mm (PS40 and Zoom 50-100) and 122mm (PS 500).

The 50-100mm zoom is a heavy lens weighing about 1kg. The closest focusing distance is 1.5m.
The imaging performance of the lens is impeccable.
Since the speed changes when the focal length is adjusted (4.0 / 50mm - 5.6 / 100mm), the lens is suitable either in conjunction with the AE Prism, or you use it as I do. I use the focal lengths 50mm, 75mm and 100mm which are each 0.5 stops apart. These values can be set exactly.
The use of filters with this lens is expensive, 95 filters from renowned manufacturers (B&W or Heliopan) quickly lead to an empty wallet.

Thanks for replying .
It's working out that the lenses I'm getting are mostly PS lenses .
I've now got the 50mm PS lens on it's way as I ( hopefully) got lucky on ebay where the seller wouldn't spend £3 to buy a battery to check his camera .
So I bought a SQ-A with the 50mm PS lens along with another 120 back that I need , a speed grip that I needed and the AE finder that I wouldn't mind having .
Sold individually they seem to sell for around £900 , I've paid £300 with only two other people having a bid .
The lens I was looking at buying on it's own was close to £300 , so as long as this works fine , everything else is free !

I'm undecided about getting the 40mm PS , but I'll probably end up with one for occasional use .

I've got the 45-90mm PE lens for my ETRSi and I'm happy with the image quality though I usually go out with the lighter primes .
So that's why the 50-100mm is a tempting lens as a one lens solution for when I'm out hiking .
I have got a few 95mm filters , but I also have the Cokin Z-pro slot in filters including polarisers and infrared filter that will fit this and the 40mm lens .

But having got the 50mm PS , 80mm S , 110mm 1:1 macro PS and 200mm PS along with the 1.4x PS Teleconverter it's not really necessary , but as I've seen one available , it's tempting .
It's not a lens you see often .

Thanks again for everyone's input .