Bronica ETRS 200mm F4.5 MC opinions?

stradibarrius · Dec 3, 2010

Do you have any experience with this ETRS lens? 200mm f/4.5 MC.
I know many people say the MC lenses suck but the three I have do a really good job.

Steve Smith · Dec 3, 2010

stradibarrius said:
I know many people say the MC lenses suck but the three I have do a really good job.

One person's 'suck' is another person's 'possibly not quite as good as the later version but I doubt if you would notice any difference'.

I don't have the 200mm but my 75mm and 50mm MC lenses are fine. They suck much less than I do when using them!

Steve.

stradibarrius · Dec 3, 2010

Steve I understand completely...if I could take photos as good as the camera could produce you would be paying me money for my photos! I am certainly the limiting factor.

In mthe Mamiya RB and 645 line there are no dogs in the lens line up to my knowledge.
Nikon does have some lenses that are....less capable????
I do not know enough about the Bronica line up to know it the 200mm is a good lens or not.
I have a Mamiya M645 1000s and a Bronica ETRS complete kit and there are several things about the Bronica system that I like better than the Mamiya 645 system. If only my metered prism would work on the Bronica!

lxdude · Dec 3, 2010

The MC lenses aren't the latest Zeiss, but they don't suck. Some of the PE lenses, like the 150mm, are the MC lens with newer coatings. I think the 200 is the same. My 250 sure seems to be the same. Others were redone, like the 40mm, and might be better, though I don't know.
The 180 PE is a newer design and might be superior to the 200 optically. It definitely focuses closer.
I have heard that the 75mm MC was nothing special, that the E-II and PE (which supposedly are the same design) are superior optically.

jime11 · Dec 3, 2010

stradibarrius
sent you a pm

stradibarrius · Dec 4, 2010

lxdude said:
The MC lenses aren't the latest Zeiss, but they don't suck. Some of the PE lenses, like the 150mm, are the MC lens with newer coatings. I think the 200 is the same. My 250 sure seems to be the same. Others were redone, like the 40mm, and might be better, though I don't know.
The 180 PE is a newer design and might be superior to the 200 optically. It definitely focuses closer.
I have heard that the 75mm MC was nothing special, that the E-II and PE (which supposedly are the same design) are superior optically.

Do you like the 250mm??? Do you use it very much?

lxdude · Dec 4, 2010

I use it quite a bit-it's equivalent to a 150mm in 135, which is a focal length I like. I get great results from it. I like it best with the crank on the body and waist level finder, as it makes a setup that is really well balanced and easy to hold, though it's still good with the prism. I use a tripod whenever I can, but that's not always practical, and the combination of balance, mass, and leaf shutter make it possible for me to hand hold easily at a 125th. I have the 150, so I went with the 250 as the next step up. My main criticism is that its 3-meter focusing distance is limiting at times. Though an extension tube does take care of that.

haplo602 · Dec 6, 2010

I don't have personal experience with the lens, but from the net responses I get, the most difference in MC vs PE is in the wide angles (mostly 40 and 50). The longer focal lengths are basicaly the same with better coatings (and half stop apperture detents).

revdocjim · Dec 6, 2010

I recently picked up that lens for about $25... not the greatest condition but no glaring faults. I also have the 40, the 80, the 105, and the 150. I still haven't actually used the 200 yet but hope to do so soon. I have been quite happy with the other lenses.

lxdude · Dec 6, 2010

revdodjim-

You mentioned the 80-do you mean the 75 or are you talking about the SQ lens?

wiltw · Dec 6, 2010

lxdude said:
The MC lenses aren't the latest Zeiss, but they don't suck. Some of the PE lenses, like the 150mm, are the MC lens with newer coatings. I think the 200 is the same. My 250 sure seems to be the same. Others were redone, like the 40mm, and might be better, though I don't know.
The 180 PE is a newer design and might be superior to the 200 optically. It definitely focuses closer.
I have heard that the 75mm MC was nothing special, that the E-II and PE (which supposedly are the same design) are superior optically.

Urban legend, resultant from jounalists. NONE of the MC lenses which I looked up in the list below are the same formulation as any of the PE lenses!

Optical design of each lens, in terms of elements and groups

40PE=9/8, 40MC=10/8
50PE=9/7, 50MC=9/8
75PE=6/5, 75MC=6/4
150PE=6/5, 150MC=5/5
250PE=6/6, 250MC=5/5

The other lenses have no direct PE equivalent...100 Macro MC, 200MC, 500MC

lxdude · Dec 6, 2010

wiltw said:
Urban legend, resultant from jounalists. NONE of the MC lenses which I looked up in the list below are the same formulation as any of the PE lenses!

Optical design of each lens, in terms of elements and groups

40PE=9/8, 40MC=10/8
50PE=9/7, 50MC=9/8
75PE=6/5, 75MC=6/4
150PE=6/5, 150MC=5/5
250PE=6/6, 250MC=5/5

Interesting. I accepted that the PE 150/3.5 and 250/5.6 were the same as the MC based on the close focusing distances being the same, while the all-new 135 and 180 PE's had much closer distances. That in itself is certainly not proof, but I never checked further. There was also a 150/4-are your specs for the 3.5?

The other lenses have no direct PE equivalent...100 Macro MC, 200MC, 500MC

That I have to disagree with. There were PE 100 macro's. KEH has some for sale right now. They also have a couple of E's. Tamron says the MC designation was dropped in favor of E, though I sure haven't seen many lenses marked "E".

www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/etr_guide.asp

I suspect but don't know that they are the same, as the 105mm 4.5 PE macro was coming down the pike.

There is definitely a PE 200. It also has a long close focus compared to the 180.
I have not heard of a 500MC, though they sold both the 500 f/8 PE and 500 f/8 EII, which are very different lenses, with the PE much larger and twice the weight, and much more complex optically.

www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/etrsi_lens.asp

lxdude · Dec 6, 2010

I decided to look into this further.

I dug out The Bronica Manual by William Cheung, copyright 1989. All ETR series lenses are referred to in it as "E" not "MC", though the 75 and 500 are elsewhere referred to as E-II. Tamron's ETR Guide states that "MC" was dropped because multicoating had become widespread by then.
(If "E" equals "MC", what if they were squared?)

Comparing the Tamron specs and the specs in Cheung's book corroborates what wiltw said-the PE are different designs.

Medium Format Cameras, Users Guide to Buying and Shooting, by Peter B. Williams, copyright 2001, says,
"The earliest series were designated MC, and for the most part are very good performers. Two lenses to avoid in the MC line are the 150mm f4 MC and the 75mm MC--the 150mm f4 because it is a poor performer and the 75mm because of mediocre performance and a 58mm filter thread (virtually every other ETR lens has a 62mm filter thread). The 150mm f3.5 MC, which replaced the f4 lens, is a true standout, with quality that matches the latest PE version. The MC and E or E-II lenses are optically the same, except for the 75mm f2.8 E-II which is a vast improvement over the MC version....
...All PE lenses are computer designed."

Thanks to wiltw for challenging my misconception.

So stradibarrius, as for the 200/4.5 MC, I'd not hesitate to get it, but if you want to be sure you're getting the latest design, go for the PE version.

revdocjim · Dec 7, 2010

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was trying to remember when writing the post, whether it was a 75 or 80 but was too lazy to dig it out of the closet to check. It is in fact the 75mm f/2.8 MC lens, as shown here: on my web site.

lxdude said:
revdodjim-

You mentioned the 80-do you mean the 75 or are you talking about the SQ lens?

Katie · Dec 10, 2010

I do the same thing .. confuse my 75 with my 80 (for the hassy - which is busted, by the way).

Bronica ETRS 200mm F4.5 MC opinions?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency