6x6 images contain Golden Ratio images, and you do not need to rotate the camera to get them.
No.
God created the Golden Ratio, approximately 1.61803.
The only format that complies with the golden ratio is 6x9 ... 89mm/ 55mm = 1,618
All else is just blasphemy.
There are two "normal" lenses available for the C series, f/2.8 and f/3.7; 5 vs 4 element optical design. I have the f/2.8 version, and can say it's a very good lens.
View attachment 308230
I never ever understood why Mamiya used that lens formula.
The leica lens on the right isn't comparable because it has a much narrower field of view. It's a long-focus length, while the Mamiya lens is a normal lens with a much wider field of view. That the design works well for a long-focus/"portrait" lens, doesn't mean at all it will work as well as a normal lens.
Mamiya is the only one to use such a lens design for a 6x6 normal lens. They also used the exact same design for the 127/3.8 lens on the Mamiya RB67 cameras, all versions.
I never understood why. The 80/2.8 is usually done using the tessar design (early rolleiflexes, early hasselblads, folder cameras, soviet industar-29), xenotar (soviet vega-12, rolleiflexes, bronica 75/2.8 nikkor-P, bronica 75/2.8 zenzanon), or double gauss aka "planar" (more modern rolleiflexes, bronica 75/2.8 nikkor-H, modern hasselblads, soviet volna-3, etc etc etc ETC).
The only, only manufacturer I've found so far to use this design on the picture, was Mamiya.
No.
God created the Golden Ratio, approximately 1.61803.
The only format that complies with the golden ratio is 6x9 ... 89mm/ 55mm = 1,618
All else is just blasphemy.
6x6 images contain Golden Ratio images, and you do not need to rotate the camera to get them.
The 80/2.8 is usually done using the tessar design (early rolleiflexes, early hasselblads, folder cameras, soviet industar-29), xenotar (soviet vega-12, rolleiflexes, bronica 75/2.8 nikkor-P, bronica 75/2.8 zenzanon), or double gauss aka "planar"
Wrong again. The Golden Ratio was a concept developed by the Greeks, it despite your comment is not divine.
I always thought that Xenotar and Planar are exactly the same thing, at least in the context of Roleliflexes, no?
Wrong again. The Golden Ratio was a concept developed by the Greeks, it despite your comment is not divine.
You are correct. I shall use a Hasselblad, as a penance for being blasphemous.
All you need to do is waste film.
Film [is] used to be cheap. Either way, not much, and trying to rotate a TLR or an RB67 or Hasselblad for every portrait shot is wasting effort (rotating backs can help).
Film [is] used to be cheap. Either way, not much, and trying to rotate a TLR or an RB67 or Hasselblad for every portrait shot is wasting effort (rotating backs can help).
Never a problem when shooting with the perfect format ==> square
...why not a Tessar design for Mamiya C 80mm or 105mm? Rumoured to be too sharp. Both lenses were updated fairly early on from 4e 3G to 5e 3G construction - either Heliar or Elmarit type. An important characteristic of the lenses are good sharpness but not excessively so. A flattering rendition for portraiture? I thought this was well known. The 80mm S lens was the only C lens with multi coating throughout. Maybe the 180 Super had MC on it's, almost flat, rear element). The rest are all SC - and a bit flarey compared to more modern lenses.
Was the old 80 2.8 really a 4 element?
As cheap as the Mamiya 80 f2.8s are I'm surprised nobody seems to have done a good comparison. I've heard the stories about the early lenses being sharper, but have never seen an evidence. I had the impression Neil Grant was saying above that the early 80 2.8 was a 4 element lens, then recalculated to be less sharp. That would be very unusual, and even more so that nobody knows after all these years.
I have the last S version now and it doesn't seem to lag much from my Rollei 2.8 Planar. Yet I also remember that when I switched from Mamiya to Hasselblad years ago that there seemed to be quite a noticeable difference. That would have been a mix of an earlier 135 and black 80 on the Mamiya, and chrome lenses on the Hassy.
If I stumble across an old chrome Mamiya 80 I'll do a comparison, but I only know one person who has Mamiya TLR and his old chrome 80 is non-working and trashed. Not many film users around where I live.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?