Choosing ONE lens for my Mamiya 7. Feeling kind of stuck.

[agphotography]

I really enjoy working with my Mamiya 7 and when I bought it, I got the 65mm lens with it, I made a followup purchase of the 43mm way too quickly and decided to go back to one lens. The 65mm.

I've been really happy with the quality of the lens and the results I get, and in small format terms I am really comfortable with the 35mm focal length (a close FOV to the 65mm). However, I often feel that while it's quite versatile it's sometimes a bit wider than I really want or need. I've been debating for a few months now about using the 80mm as my only lens.

I would love to hear some feedback / ideas on why you prefer one over the other, and it should be known I'm perfectly content with just keeping the 65 because it really is wonderful, especially for landscapes.

 

[snapguy]

nobody

Nobody can tell you which lens you prefer. Plus your tastes might change after a while. You might find a use for another focal length. When I was a young whipersnapper, before zooms, the camera mags and manufacturers used to tout 135mm lenses for 35mm cameras. I always thought the 135 was too short for a good telephoto and too long for a portrait lens. One August in 1970 I was covering pro tennis at Forest Hills, NY and found a spot that was perfect to shoot from with a 135 lens. My employer had a locker full of lenses so I gave the 135mm length a shot or two and it was great. You never know.

 

[Vaughn]

Having worked primarily with 75mm or 80mm with 6x6 (not a whole lot of choice with Rollie TLR's!), I find that I only occasionally feel the need for longer or shorter focal lengths. But then generally I am a normal focal length kind of guy. 4x5 - 150mm, 8x10 - 300mm.

I tend to want to make images that closely respond to what I am seeing -- just a personal preference, certainly not "the best" or 'the only' way to see.

 

[agphotography]

Yeah I shoot with my 80mm on my Hasselblad far more than the 50 or 150mm (though I'm glad to have those when I want to utilize them). I just know that because the 65 and 80mm are fairly close in their field of view it makes little sense to have both, but I was just having trouble deciding which one would be the one for me. I've heard compelling arguments for both sides.

 

[RattyMouse]

I believe that 65mm on a 6 x 7 is equal to a 28mm lens on a 135 camera, not 35mm as the OP states.

 

[Alan Gales]

If I owned a Mamiya 7 and only had one lens I would want the 80mm. If I owned two lenses I would want the 65mm and 150mm. Just owning the 65mm wouldn't be a bad thing though. My Fujifilm X100s only has one lens and it is like your 65 on 6x7. Sometimes I wish it was a little longer when shooting people.

 

[Alan Gales]

I believe that 65mm on a 6 x 7 is equal to a 28mm lens on a 135 camera, not 35mm as the OP states.

I was told to divide by 2 to get the 35mm equivalent. Of course that is an estimate. I wonder what the actual measurement is.

 

[BardParker]

I have the 80mm, the 65mm and the 43mm for my Mamiya 7. I use the 65mm lens the most. I need to start using the Mamiya more often.

[/url]26360001.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Kent

 

[agphotography]

I believe that 65mm on a 6 x 7 is equal to a 28mm lens on a 135 camera, not 35mm as the OP states.

From what I've always understood, with the 6x7 format one would divide the focal length by 2 to get an approximate equivalent to 135 format lenses. So 65/2=32.5mm.
That being said I've also heard from folks that the 65mm is like a "wide" 35mm and the 80mm is like a "narrow" 35mm with regard to how they frame. I thought about the 65/150 combo, but to be honest the thought of that tiny VF frame isn't very appealing when it's so easy to use the 150mm on my Hasselblad.

I fully realize that you guys can't decide for me but I like to have discussions like this to help figure out my own thought processes. Also more sample images would be great! It's just fun to talk about this stuff with you all.

I was told to divide by 2 to get the 35mm equivalent. Of course that is an estimate. I wonder what the actual measurement is.

Edit: Whoops, just saw your post!

 

[nwilkins]

I have an RB67 and find I use the 90 (c. 45mm equivalent on 35mm cameras) and 65 (c. 32 mm equiv) by far the most often, unless I am shooting portraits (often use a 180 for those, c. 90mm equiv). However the Mamiya 7 doesn't have a 90 for a short-normal lens option, it has 80. So I've often wondered what I would do if I had one. Would I still use both a 65 and 80 or are they a little too close to be both worth having? I might go with the 80 and the 50. In any event if you really only want one lens there isn't a way for any of us to tell you which one you like best. To me it might be the 80, to someone else it would be the 65. Why not get an 80, use it exclusively for a while and see whether you miss the 65? Then sell whichever one you don't want.

 

[agphotography]

That's a fair idea. Probably the smartest one, but that does mean shelling out for the lens (if only temporarily).

 

[nwilkins]

That's a fair idea. Probably the smartest one, but that does mean shelling out for the lens (if only temporarily).

true. if you really are committed to using just one lens you could also sell the Mamiya 7, buy a Fuji GW670 / GW690 and then have lots of cash in the bank, and be getting essentially the same results as with your Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 may have slightly better image quality (though likely not noticeable in most applications), but its primary advantage is really lens interchangeability, which you're not interested in.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

My backpack normally contains the 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm. I'd guess I use the 80mm ~90% of the time, the 150 ~9% of the time, and the 50 the other 1%. But that's me, for the places I go and the way I look at things.

I have a 43mm and 65mm as well, and am debating leaving the 50 at home and taking the 65 instead on my next trip. I say debating because 65mm seems mighty close to 80mm.

I've used the 43mm exactly once in all the years since I got it. I just don't tend to see wide, or shoot in confined spaces where the 43 or 50 would shine.

If I had only the 80mm my life would be much simpler and I'd probably be pretty happy.

On the topic of "equivalents", I look at it this way. When printing 35mm onto 8x10 (a not-uncommon thing to do) you pretty much always have to crop off some of the long dimension, so I don't worry about that. Instead I think about the short dimension only. The ratio of the short dimension of 35mm to 120 is 3/7 in round numbers. 3/7 * 80mm is ~34mm, so to me the 80mm lens equates to a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. Similarly 65mm <-> 28mm. It works for me and doesn't require any complicated math.

 

[ROL]

The 65 might be my one lens, if had only one. But the outfitting began with the 43 and 80, followed by an almost never used, free 150 – so no real need given the ranges. Most of my shooting was with the 43, but if I were to have only one now, I think I would just go with the 80, somewhat wider than "normal", lightest and sharpest of the lenses, and least expensive if I remember correctly. It seems to do OK with landscape/nature.

Afternoon, Thousand Island Lake
(M7II, 80mm, yellow filter, AGFA APX - Rodinal)

New Snow, Oak Branch
(M7II, 80mm, Tech Pan – Technidol)

​

 

[agphotography]

true. if you really are committed to using just one lens you could also sell the Mamiya 7, buy a Fuji GW670 / GW690 and then have lots of cash in the bank, and be getting essentially the same results as with your Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 may have slightly better image quality (though likely not noticeable in most applications), but its primary advantage is really lens interchangeability, which you're not interested in.

Been there with one of those, never really got along with it. I just prefer the Mamiya in just about every single way. I'm only going with a single lens for now, I intent to get either the 43 or 50mm in the future when the time comes. (I really, really liked that 43mm, what a lens!) I may just look into tracking down an 80mm and spend time with it as suggested.

ROL: Those are some fantastic landscape images my friend, definitely what I like to see!

 

[film_man]

Trying to approximate focal lengths across formats doesn't work. You could say a 60mm on a Hasselblad is like 35mm on 135 but in reality it is like 35mm on the horizontal, probably 28mm on the diagonal and 24mm on the vertical.

For example, on 135 I like 40mm best (love my Voigtlander 40/2), followed by 50mm. On 6x6 (Hasselblad) 80mm is 99% of my shots. I tried wider and can't get it work even when I see that I need a wider lens, square wide is just weird to me (still have a 60CB which I'm debating whether I should sell or not...).

Then on to my RB67. I tried 65, 90, 127 and 250. 90mm is the one I use most. 65mm also feels very natural. 127mm is for when I need something longer. The 250 I got rid of. I'd say that I probably wouldn't like to have a 80mm as it would make it a bit too wide and I shoot close-ish range portraits with the RB and the 90 a lot.

Then again, you don't shoot close-up portraits with a Mamiya 7...

I'd be tempted to stay with the 65 as at least you get full use of the VF. You can always crop it a bit to 80mm too but you can't make the 80mm wider.

 

[agphotography]

All great advice you guys and very true.

Like you my main lens on the Hasselblad is the 80mm for sure, it just feels right. I do agree that I like that the 65mm utilizes the whole viewfinder and it does feel pretty natural on the Mamiya 7 as well. It should be known I'm in no hurry to abandon this lens, I often forget I can just crop images (I'm always a full-frame kind of guy).

 

[ROL]

(I'm always a full-frame kind of guy).

Cropping a Negative

 

[agphotography]

A fair assessment indeed! I am not afraid of cropping (especially with today's digital cameras), but with film, I don't have the greatest scanners so I often don't crop my negatives because I want to maximize my limited resolution. I miss working in the darkroom