How Bad Are Mamiya Press Lenses?

[Carter john]

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Here is your answer, can you live with this? Mamiya Sekor 100mm at f 3.5, scanned V500, I think Arista EDU ultra 400.

 

[Monday317]

I used a 100mm f3.5 for years... searched in vain for the elusive f2.8 but never found one... and never found anything to complain about! I had also read/heard the tales of what a dog the 100 f3.5 was but maybe I was just fortunate. After shooting for more years than I can recall with a Mamiya Super Press, C330 and RB67 I can't say that I ever found any Mamiya medium format lens that was less than excellent!
Joel

Hear, hear!!

 

[Monday317]

I have a 100 3.5 for past 30 or so years, never let me down, sharp, 3.5 to F16, at F22 seems little soft in the corners. My 65 and 55 are really sharp, the 150 is not bad, all have decent coatings, well made, most camera techs can Clean Lube and adjust the shutters. My only quibble is other than the 100 3.5 and 2.8 all the other lens take odd size filters. For that matter I don't know what filter Mamiya made for the 65 and 55. I use a Series V filter with thin tape on the edge and just press in, seems to work but of course can fall out if using handheld. For the 150 I use a Series V press on filter adaptor. Don't have the 250 so don't what size filter it takes. As with BradS I think Mamiya ever made a bad lens.

Most of the lenses take a 72mm filter. The 127 & 150mm lenses use 40.5mm (Series VII could be used with an adapter), and the 250mm f/5 uses a 105mm. If you didn’t use that particular lens, you could buy all 72s, and use a step-down ring for the 150mm.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

It was worse after taking a loupe to it. The rear lens was infested with fungus on the edges. The one you see above is inside the lens--different piece of glass and was one of two spots. Seller refunded me most of my money and I ended up tossing the lens. I've never scene anything like that and don't want my other lenses infected.

In case you didn't really toss the lens, I suggest to re-invest what the seller refunded in an inspection by a professional technician. If it really is a mold growth between lenses, it can be cleaned. If it's something inside a doublet, then it is not mold, it's a lens separation.

 

[wjlapier]

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Here is your answer, can you live with this? Mamiya Sekor 100mm at f 3.5, scanned V500, I think Arista EDU ultra 400.

When I looked into the Mamiya Universal camera your photo above came up in a thread about the lenses--I think. Looks great to me!

 

[wjlapier]

In case you didn't really toss the lens, I suggest to re-invest what the seller refunded in an inspection by a professional technician. If it really is a mold growth between lenses, it can be cleaned. If it's something inside a doublet, then it is not mold, it's a lens separation.

It was a mess with a lot of fungus I've never seen ever only in photos online. It was on the edges of the glass and two bigger spots in the middle of a different glass of the lens. I did figure out how to disassemble the lens to gain access to the glass and did make an attempt to clean the glass but it was too etched into the glass. I didn't want the infected lens around my other lenses and cameras so it was tossed.

 

[wjlapier]

Finally---found a 100mm lens and yes it's a very good one. I'm happy with it.

But, I'm curious about something--maybe this should be in the film development section. Anyway, since this relates to the Universal I have I thought to bring this up here. Is this a light leak or something with the developing? Semi-stand with Rodinal. Expired ( frozen ) Kodak 125PX. Graflex RH8 back on the camera. Seals look good.





But maybe not here:

 

[Monday317]

Have you seen this on rolls after this one? Light leaks usually appear in the same place frame after frame; this one seems to be traveling. It could be manufacturing or storage artifact after the film was spooled. So as the film is used on the spool, a bad area would move with it as the film moved down, causing the artifact to travel. See if it recurs with another role and let us know?

 

[wjlapier]

The photos are out of order. The last photo on the roll would be the apartment buildings on the right and Whitman Hotel in the distance. Second to last photo was an accidental shutter release and it shows the lighter streak in the developed area. The third from last would be the top photo. So, I'm thinking it's not a light leak but maybe something along the idea you mentioned. This is the first roll through the camera. I'll put another through it today--something with a more fresh vintage.

Funny thing though. I bought the camera with the Graflex RH8 back on it. Seller said it was a 6x9 back and me not knowing much about the Graflex backs believed him. Scanning the negatives Vuescan showed the 6x9 was too big. 6x7 too small. And 6x8 just right. I'm reading everything I can immediately and realize the seller was wrong or mistaken. Anyway, I thought I had a more compact 6x9 back to shoot giant slides. Now they will be slightly less giant slides.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Graflex never made 6x9 roll holders. They made nominal 2.25" x 3.25" roll holders with 56 mm x 82 mm (early) and 56 x 78 (late with pinrollers) gates. Thee is no standard but nominal 6x9 roll holders' gates' lengths range from 78 mm to 84 mm. 6x9 a poor metric approximation to 2.25x3.25.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I had the same concerns about the 150mm. I just recently purchased a received (a couple of days ago) a blue-dot version of the 150mm, which are supposed to be excellent optics for the Mamiya TLR. Seems like the same should be true for the press cameras. I've not yet tried this lens.

Will sell my previous versions with an extra press body that I have.

 

[wjlapier]

The 100mm f/3.5 lens is a keeper for sure. I took the Universal out with the 70mm RB back and shot some expired Kodak Portra 400BW the other day. No issues at all with the setup and images turned out nice and sharp.

This was at f/5.6:



f/8

 

[David Purton]

Along with many others, the heading of this post disappoints in it's assumed bias. I have been pro 34 years. The cameras I have used include Mamiya (of course), Rolleiflex 2.8TLR, Rollei 6000, Hasselblad 500cm's, Linhof 6x9, Cambo 6x9 (with Schneider optics), Mamiya RB67, Universal, Press and C220 and 330's, so I think I have some legitimacy when it comes to accessing results from various models!

I have just returned to film to re-visit this medium and give me new inspiration as all my commercial work is of course digital. Bit like going back to vinyl after cd's!!

I have collected where possible as near mint examples of both a complete TLR kit with all 7 optics and a Mamiya Super Press and Universal with 50mm f6.3, 75mm f5.6, 100mm f3.5, 100mm f2.8, 150mm f5.6 and the awesome 250mm f5.

Backs include the "S" shaped 6x9 and 6x7..and a "G" adapter for the Universal.

Its not just about lenses of course and the fact that the Mamiya Press backs are renowned for their film flatness is an encouraging start.

I shoot both B&W, usually XP2 and Fuji Colour Neg material. They are processed and scanned by a UK company called AG labs who produce 100+mb scans for silly cheap money (£15 per roll inc. processing and writing to disc), scanning on a Noritsu commercial scanner, so not even a Flextight!

I continue to be blown away by the results. The Mamiya Press lenses are right up there with their German counterparts which comes as no surprise when you consider the 50mm is a Biogon/Biotar design, the 75mm is a Super Angulon, the "lowly" 100mm f3.5 is a Tessar, the 100mm 2.8 is a Planar, the 150mm I believe is also a Tessar and the 250mm F5 is an Ernostar, forerunner of the Sonnar. May be I have a good version of the 100mm F3.5 (which also collapses to allow focus with the Super 23 bellows back) because the results from the last shoot were superb. Needs stopping down like virtually all lenses but is not just pin sharp but has even coverage corner to corner.

In fact, when I compare these optics with FF digital counterparts what comes across is the very low distortion (flat field) and the lack of vignetting on even the 6x9 format. The 75mm will cover the Polaroid image area so has no problem with 6x9.

Multicoating..well ok, they don't (apart from some very late versions I think?) but I am not missing it. The colours are vibrant and saturated. And may be it adds to the "vintage look" a little? I doubt my Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar or Linhof optics from the 60's had MC either...

As for the 55mm/65mm/80mm/105DS/135mm/180Super and 250mm for the TLR's, bit of a mixed bag but at worst they are all excellent in terms of image quality and some stand out as being absolutely superb. And then compare them with the price of the Rolleiflex Wide and Telephoto and frankly there is no comparison in value. The 105DS and 180Super are superb, period, the 65mm and 55mm are more than competant for MF wide angles, the 80mm f2.8 is fast and kept many brides happy in the past. The 250mm is well, a monster. It is sharp but don't try and hand hold it under a 250th second, and focus is critical due to very limited DOF. Tripod preferably and many of the criticisms will vanish. The 135mm? Well it doesn't measure too well at the edges (but actually enough) but is "lovely" in the centre. A popular choice for portrait photographers.

Lenses tell a story. But to get the best from them check the rest of your kit for film flatness, rangefinder adjustment or focusing screen set up. Lens contrast is important, but they do not all have to be judged just on lppm either? Enjoy their differences and what they offer.

Get them serviced (CLA'd) because they are 40/50 years old..and enjoy them. The Press/Universal offer brilliant lens performance from their line up of superb optics (50/75/100 f2.8/250 f5 particularly) only really nudged by the much later Mamiya 7 optics considered by some to be the best lenses ever made from any manufacturer.

Look after your kit (!), don't obsess about the measured comparative performance or the brand name on the front..not that Mamiya have much to fear in this department. Just check the stunning machining and finish on the Universals and Super 23's and the way the components lock together some 40/50 + years on and how the leather cloth is still firmly stuck on and looks like new. The back adapters are superbly engineered. The controls, knobs and locks are often still silky smooth and play free on models that have not been hacked or abused. Its probably not for nothing that Phase One chose Mamiya for their digital platform of fantastic digital backs?

And Oh, yes...just go out and enjoy taking pictures!

 

[europanorama]

I have a 100 3.5 for past 30 or so years, never let me down, sharp, 3.5 to F16, at F22 seems little soft in the corners. My 65 and 55 are really sharp, the 150 is not bad, all have decent coatings, well made, most camera techs can Clean Lube and adjust the shutters. My only quibble is other than the 100 3.5 and 2.8 all the other lens take odd size filters. For that matter I don't know what filter Mamiya made for the 65 and 55. I use a Series V filter with thin tape on the edge and just press in, seems to work but of course can fall out if using handheld. For the 150 I use a Series V press on filter adaptor. Don't have the 250 so don't what size filter it takes. As with BradS I think Mamiya ever made a bad lens.

1. 55 doesnt exist.
2. No odd filter sizes. 43mm(65mm), so what they are ultracheap.. 55mm and 72mm ,250/5.0 105mm easy and cheap to get from china.
see also link in next message

 

[europanorama]

Mamiya press lenses have different mount from Polaroid version, you can’t exchange them. 65mm filter thread is 43mm, you can use a 43-52 adapter ring but such a “big” filter will limit access to shutter’s levers. 50mm has 72 filter’s size. 100mm has 55 filter’s size.

100/3.5 55mm 100/2.8 72mm
yes older chrome ones my have 40.5mm also.
http://www.lensretro.com/2018/07/21/mamiya-press/

 

[europanorama]

Along with many others, the heading of this post disappoints in it's assumed bias. I have been pro 34 years. The cameras I have used include Mamiya (of course), Rolleiflex 2.8TLR, Rollei 6000, Hasselblad 500cm's, Linhof 6x9, Cambo 6x9 (with Schneider optics), Mamiya RB67, Universal, Press and C220 and 330's, so I think I have some legitimacy when it comes to accessing results from various models!

I have just returned to film to re-visit this medium and give me new inspiration as all my commercial work is of course digital. Bit like going back to vinyl after cd's!!

I have collected where possible as near mint examples of both a complete TLR kit with all 7 optics and a Mamiya Super Press and Universal with 50mm f6.3, 75mm f5.6, 100mm f3.5, 100mm f2.8, 150mm f5.6 and the awesome 250mm f5.

Backs include the "S" shaped 6x9 and 6x7..and a "G" adapter for the Universal.

Its not just about lenses of course and the fact that the Mamiya Press backs are renowned for their film flatness is an encouraging start.

I shoot both B&W, usually XP2 and Fuji Colour Neg material. They are processed and scanned by a UK company called AG labs who produce 100+mb scans for silly cheap money (£15 per roll inc. processing and writing to disc), scanning on a Noritsu commercial scanner, so not even a Flextight!

I continue to be blown away by the results. The Mamiya Press lenses are right up there with their German counterparts which comes as no surprise when you consider the 50mm is a Biogon/Biotar design, the 75mm is a Super Angulon, the "lowly" 100mm f3.5 is a Tessar, the 100mm 2.8 is a Planar, the 150mm I believe is also a Tessar and the 250mm F5 is an Ernostar, forerunner of the Sonnar. May be I have a good version of the 100mm F3.5 (which also collapses to allow focus with the Super 23 bellows back) because the results from the last shoot were superb. Needs stopping down like virtually all lenses but is not just pin sharp but has even coverage corner to corner.

In fact, when I compare these optics with FF digital counterparts what comes across is the very low distortion (flat field) and the lack of vignetting on even the 6x9 format. The 75mm will cover the Polaroid image area so has no problem with 6x9.

Multicoating..well ok, they don't (apart from some very late versions I think?) but I am not missing it. The colours are vibrant and saturated. And may be it adds to the "vintage look" a little? I doubt my Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar or Linhof optics from the 60's had MC either...

As for the 55mm/65mm/80mm/105DS/135mm/180Super and 250mm for the TLR's, bit of a mixed bag but at worst they are all excellent in terms of image quality and some stand out as being absolutely superb. And then compare them with the price of the Rolleiflex Wide and Telephoto and frankly there is no comparison in value. The 105DS and 180Super are superb, period, the 65mm and 55mm are more than competant for MF wide angles, the 80mm f2.8 is fast and kept many brides happy in the past. The 250mm is well, a monster. It is sharp but don't try and hand hold it under a 250th second, and focus is critical due to very limited DOF. Tripod preferably and many of the criticisms will vanish. The 135mm? Well it doesn't measure too well at the edges (but actually enough) but is "lovely" in the centre. A popular choice for portrait photographers.

Lenses tell a story. But to get the best from them check the rest of your kit for film flatness, rangefinder adjustment or focusing screen set up. Lens contrast is important, but they do not all have to be judged just on lppm either? Enjoy their differences and what they offer.

Get them serviced (CLA'd) because they are 40/50 years old..and enjoy them. The Press/Universal offer brilliant lens performance from their line up of superb optics (50/75/100 f2.8/250 f5 particularly) only really nudged by the much later Mamiya 7 optics considered by some to be the best lenses ever made from any manufacturer.

Look after your kit (!), don't obsess about the measured comparative performance or the brand name on the front..not that Mamiya have much to fear in this department. Just check the stunning machining and finish on the Universals and Super 23's and the way the components lock together some 40/50 + years on and how the leather cloth is still firmly stuck on and looks like new. The back adapters are superbly engineered. The controls, knobs and locks are often still silky smooth and play free on models that have not been hacked or abused. Its probably not for nothing that Phase One chose Mamiya for their digital platform of fantastic digital backs?

And Oh, yes...just go out and enjoy taking pictures!

"Just check the stunning machining and finish on the Universals and Super 23's"
But you are not referring to the left/right wobbling tilt-unit of Super 23 when extended to its max of 34mm?

 

[europanorama]

I tested both the 100mm black multicoated and E versions using adapters, and always found them a bit soft. Might be due to some testing error, but I could never get them quite sharp, even when stopped down. See this link (I tried the 127mm and remember it seemed sharper for some reason, so maybe it could be a good alternative). See this link https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146554

someone here said:
so did you mean the E-version?

The final version of the lens, the 100mm f/3.5E, is the only press lens that's multicoated,
150mm blue is terribly sharp even fully open.

 

[europanorama]

Most of the lenses take a 72mm filter. The 127 & 150mm lenses use 40.5mm (Series VII could be used with an adapter), and the 250mm f/5 uses a 105mm. If you didn’t use that particular lens, you could buy all 72s, and use a step-down ring for the 150mm.

older chrome ones may use 40.5mm.

 

[europanorama]

http://www.lensretro.com/2018/07/21/mamiya-press/
same link like i already posted lately.
Lens-Types: Biogon 50, Topogon 65, Super-Angulon 75,Tessar 90/100/3.5, 127/150, Planar(Biotar/Eastgerman name) 100/2.8, 250/5 Ernostar.
What is 250/8?
100/3.5 E the only multicoated one

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I tested both the 100mm black multicoated and E versions using adapters, and always found them a bit soft. Might be due to some testing error, but I could never get them quite sharp, even when stopped down. See this link (I tried the 127mm and remember it seemed sharper for some reason, so maybe it could be a good alternative). See this link https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146554

Don't know if it's related, but while I was adjusting the range finder on a camera, I noticed that a black lens was not sharp at infinity on one Mamiya press camera, but sharp on another. The adjustments were for the range finder; yet, I was checking focus on a ground glass. (The same ground glass for both cameras.) On the problematic camera was that, the lens had to be moved closer to the g.g. to make it sharp. But, the helical had reached it's limit.

So, I mated the lens with the press camera on which it was sharp.

 

[ruilourosa]

127 is a tessar...

i think 100 2.8 is really good...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

A thread that by own title convicts quality asking only how low does it go???

Mamiya has such a long and even reputation for making excellent optics ... well , this is your answer.

 

[ruilourosa]

one thing though....
lenses for mamiya press have depth of field scales that are too optimistic... test before use...

the rangefinder also goes out of alignment, but easy fix...

the camera is good, the lenses are good.. very good....

 

[Paul Howell]

1. 55 doesnt exist.
2. No odd filter sizes. 43mm(65mm), so what they are ultracheap.. 55mm and 72mm ,250/5.0 105mm easy and cheap to get from china.
see also link in next message

My mistake, typo it is a 50mm.

 

[europanorama]

one thing though....
lenses for mamiya press have depth of field scales that are too optimistic... test before use...

the rangefinder also goes out of alignment, but easy fix...

the camera is good, the lenses are good.. very good....

good is not supersharp and filmflatness may be a problem. have s23-g can use vacuum back then.

How to adjust viewfinder? there are different cameras.