Bronica ETRS lens, which are worth paying for the PE versions?

[L_E_Miller]

I recently picked up a Bronica and so far I'm really happy with the system for the price I paid.

As I'm looking into expanding my system though I'm having a hard time finding a lot of concrete opinions on PE vs MC (and E-II) on a lot of the focal lengths. The only one I seem to be finding strong opinions on is that the 50MM is potentially a stinker if you get the first gen.

Maybe that's an answer in of itself.

But appreciate any other thoughts on the matter. Thanks!

 

[abruzzi]

I have mostly PE lenses, with a few E or EII that I later replaced with PE lenses. I can say that both the 150 E and the 75 EII are close to or equal to the later PE versions. I haven't used any other E lenses.

 

[wiltw]

It was supposedly improvement in contrast at wide open apertures which was the primary improvement due to coatings in the PE series lenses. Having owned both E and later PE lenses during the 1990's, I cannot state that I noticed any difference in my shooting, but I never carried out any direct comparison of E vs PE in the identical shooting circumstances to actually capture any improvement.

 

[L_E_Miller]

I have mostly PE lenses, with a few E or EII that I later replaced with PE lenses. I can say that both the 150 E and the 75 EII are close to or equal to the later PE versions. I haven't used any other E lenses.

Can you speak to the quality of the 75mm PE vs the MC at all? I got the MC with my kit. So far it seems fine, though.

 

[abruzzi]

the PE lenses have a little more plastic in their build, but not so much that so that it feels cheap. Actually my 75 EII lens had a weird issue where te aperture ring was very loose. It still worked fine, and still took good pictures. My 150 E lens was in great condition, solidly built, and great images. I upgraded to PE just for the half-stop clicks.

As far as I understand, the "MC" lenses are just early versions of the "E" lenses before Bronica standardized on the naming. I remember reading some negative things about the original 75, but I've never used one. I do know it had an oddball filter size--something they did a good job mostly standardizing--62mm for most of the primes (the exceptions were the zooms, the shift lens, the 500, and I believe the macro lens--and the first 75.)

 

[Evergreen States]

I only own one lens (75mm ƒ/2.8 EII) for my ETRS but I’ve heard that where the improved coatings really make a difference is on the wide angle lenses.

 

[lxdude]

the PE lenses have a little more plastic in their build, but not so much that so that it feels cheap. Actually my 75 EII lens had a weird issue where te aperture ring was very loose. It still worked fine, and still took good pictures. My 150 E lens was in great condition, solidly built, and great images. I upgraded to PE just for the half-stop clicks.

As far as I understand, the "MC" lenses are just early versions of the "E" lenses before Bronica standardized on the naming. I remember reading some negative things about the original 75, but I've never used one. I do know it had an oddball filter size--something they did a good job mostly standardizing--62mm for most of the primes (the exceptions were the zooms, the shift lens, the 500, and I believe the macro lens--and the first 75.)

Yes, the 105mm F/4.5 macro PE has a 67mm filter size. The 100mm F/4 macros (E and PE) have the standard 62mm size.

 

[abruzzi]

Yes, the 105mm F/4.5 macro PE has a 67mm filter size. The 100mm F/4 macros (E and PE) have the standard 62mm size.

the 105 is the 1:1, right? Thats one of the few lenses I'm missing from the system. (plus the 500 and the shift lens.) But I mostly use the 60, 75, and 150, which are my favorites.

 

[Moose22]

There's an E 105 that's not macro. I know nothing about it. The 105PE f/4.5 Is a 1:1 macro

I think the 100mm macros are 1.4 based on this site: https://lens-db.com/system/bronica-etr/

 

[lxdude]

the 105 is the 1:1, right? Thats one of the few lenses I'm missing from the system. (plus the 500 and the shift lens.) But I mostly use the 60, 75, and 150, which are my favorites.

Yes the 105/4.5 macro is 1:1. The other macros are 1:4. I have the 105. It's big and heavy with floating rear elements. Excellent results. The F/4 macros are much lighter and more compact. I've thought about getting an F4 macro for walking around, when I want to get close but not 1:1 close., and maybe carry an extension tube in case I need a little more.

 

[lxdude]

There's an E 105 that's not macro. I know nothing about it.

It's an F/3.5. I don't know much about it, but I've heard nothing negative. There is an MC version, not just E. Of course, all MC lenses are E lenses, they just got the MC designation to indicate multicoating. I could be wrong, but I think the non-MC E lenses all had silver noses.

 

[Moose22]

I don't think you'll hear negatives about any of these lenses. They're absolute bang for the buck bargains, at least the few I've tried. The real question will be whether the PE of your desired length is better enough to be worth chasing.

I have a 75 and 150 right now, neither are PE. They are lovely in general, but I have no experience on whether the PE is better, or how much better. Going to follow this thread to see what the zeitgeist thinks as much as anything.

 

[moto-uno]

I have the PE 50mm lens that I've used pretty much exclusively when traveling abroad . And it's probably going
to stay that way ! High res scans show some almost shocking ( to me ) detail , yep , I like it a lot . Peter

 

[lxdude]

As far as I understand, the "MC" lenses are just early versions of the "E" lenses before Bronica standardized on the naming.

The "E" lenses were first. Then they got multicoating, and were marked "MC". They were still "E" lenses, but not marked as such. Then came the "E-II" 75 and 500.