Mamiya TLR - Best "normal" lens?

[markjwyatt]

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.

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

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.

My understanding is the Elmarit is really a Tessar derivative, so I think in that sense it is consistent.

Tessar Lens Design - Optics for Hire

An overview of Tessar lens design including glass selection and lens element shape

www.opticsforhire.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Wrong again. The Golden Ratio was a concept developed by the Greeks, it despite your comment is not divine.

 

[Alan Gales]

I prefer the 105 DS. I have found it a bit too long to use sometimes inside someone's home so I also own the 80mm. You can't go wrong with either lens.

 

[grat]

6x6 images contain Golden Ratio images, and you do not need to rotate the camera to get them.

All you need to do is waste film.

 

[McDiesel]

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"

I always thought that Xenotar and Planar are exactly the same thing, at least in the context of Roleliflexes, no?

 

[MattKing]

Wrong again. The Golden Ratio was a concept developed by the Greeks, it despite your comment is not divine.

The Golden Ratio was already there. The Greeks just figured it out.
Later, Fibonacci had some fun with it.

 

[flavio81]

I always thought that Xenotar and Planar are exactly the same thing, at least in the context of Roleliflexes, no?

In the context of my post i am referring to a lens type. "Xenotar" refers to an optical designs that is completely different to the design often labeled as "Planar". Sadly Zeiss put the "Planar" to lenses with wildly different optical designs. Most of the "Planar" lenses are 6/4 Double Gauss designs. The Schneider equivalent for this scheme is the "Xenon", not Xenotar.

In fact my post was badly written, i should have written "Biotar" instead of "Planar" and it would have been more clear.

The Xenotar is a 5/4 lens:

The Xenon is a 6/4 lens, this is the "Biotar" design, as are many of the lens labeled as Planars

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are correct. I shall use a Hasselblad, as a penance for being blasphemous.

Thus allowing you to use the perfect format.

 

[McDiesel]

@flavio81 Thank you, that makes sense. But - in case you're familiar with Rolleiflex ecosystem - are Planar and Xenotar Rolleiflexes the same? The 1st diagram in your post looks very similar to this page.

 

[reddesert]

The Mamiya 80//2.8 lens design is an elaboration of the Tessar design, with an extra element added to the second group. "Tessar" is a Zeiss trademark and Xenar is the Schneider equivalent usually. The trademark name is still proprietary long after the lens patent expired. Of course Zeiss can now paste the "Tessar" name on lenses that aren't a Tessar design, witness the "Vario-Tessar" zooms and so on.

The original double Gauss lens is 4 elements and symmetrical. Xenon and Xenotar are Schneider trademarks while Planar and Biometar are Zeiss trademarks. These four are derivations of the double Gauss design, typically with 6 or 5 elements respectively, but there's no absolute rule about a name implying a specific design. Typically, the fancy Rolleiflexes had either a Planar or Xenotar, while the less fancy or earlier ones had a Tessar or Xenar. They are made by different companies and aren't the "same lens," although I don't know if there is any difference in practical use.

Nearly all "fast normal" 35mm SLR lenses (f/2 or faster), and modern normal MF SLR lenses, are some descendant of a double Gauss design.

 

[reddesert]

Here are some lens diagrams for different Rolleiflex lenses, I think this was from a Modern Photography article. I got it from a Photrio post: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/any-opinion-on-this-rolleiflex-lens.179737/post-2348331
Note that, for example, here the Planar has five elements in the two speeds.

 

[flavio81]

@flavio81 Thank you, that makes sense. But - in case you're familiar with Rolleiflex ecosystem - are Planar and Xenotar Rolleiflexes the same? The 1st diagram in your post looks very similar to this page.

As i've mentioned, Zeiss labeled "Planar" lenses with very different designs.

The diagram you show is indeed a Planar for the Hasselblad and the design is not exactly the same as a Xenotar. You can readily see how the first lens is formed by a group of two lenses, instead of a single positive element.

I've read somewhere that later on the Rolleiflex, Zeiss changed the optical design to the same biotar/xenon 6/4 scheme that is very common in the 35mm SLR world.

 

[markjwyatt]

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).

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

 

[grat]

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).

I find rotating backs on my GX680 and Graflex SLR to be trivial to use.

Never a problem when shooting with the perfect format ==> square

There is no perfect film, there is no perfect lens, and there is no perfect format. Yes, the square format saves you from having to think, but it's really designed to isolate a single subject. If you want foreground and background elements, it's more restrictive, in my personal opinion (worth the electrons it's printed on) than say 3:2. And capturing true "wide" images (I won't say panoramic, lest I offend the resident pedants) is much easier with 6x12 or even 6x17.

 

[Neil Grant]

...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.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

...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?

 

[markjwyatt]

Was the old 80 2.8 really a 4 element?

I think there is an 80mm f3.7 that sounds like a Tessar (4 elements three groups) according to Graham Patterson.

 

[benjiboy]

I had the 80mm f2.8 blue dot lenses for about 30 years until I sold my Mamiya T.L.R system, I found it to be a very good lens.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

For some reason Popular Photography and Modern Photography never found the Mamiya C series sexy enough to publish articles.

 

[markjwyatt]

Here is some data, which may be hard to trace:
(Notes- line pairs per mm; for line per mm, double it. To compare to MTF data, lp/mm @ MTF = 10% is a decent comparison point)
(It is said that 50% MTF is a better comparison point for real images, but that does not work here)
(Data Point: Canon in the 1970-1975 era targeted 100 lines per mm [50 lp/mm] central resolution minimum for their lenses; this is the F1 era)


rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: brownt@ase.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: Mamiya C-330/C-220 Lenses.
Date: Mon Jan 18 1999
Nelson Wu nelwu@clara.co.uk wrote:

> Does anyone has objective or subject comments on the Mamiya C series

> lenses. I have read a lot about the cameras but is there any link to
> the reviews of the lenses??? How is the quality of the lenses compare
> to other Medium Format Cameras???


My lens test results:


Conditions:
Film: Tech Pan
Developer: Microphen diluted 1+5, 14 min @ 75 deg. F
Illumination: Multi strobes, max duration 1/1000 sec.
Magnification: 1:36
Lenses: All black, 55, 80, 105D, 135, 180 Super, 250
Body: C330, tripod, cable release
Finder: Beattie Intenscreen w/ split prism, type 2 shade
Target: Stepped target, stripes similar to USAF 1951
Neg viewer: Zeiss microscope 100X

Edge limits legend:
T=blurred tangential lines
R=blurred radial lines
C=field curvature

F-stop, center lp/mm, edge lp/mm

55mm:
4.5--57---25TC
5.6--71---32TC
8----71---40T
11---71---40T
16---63---45T
22---57---40T

80mm:
2.8--50---28TC
4----57---36TC
5.6--63---32
8----90---40
11---90---50
16---71---40
22---57---36

105mm:
3.5--57---36R
5.6--71---40R
8----90---57
11---80---63
16---63---50
22---57---50

135mm:
4.5--45---32R
5.6--50---40
8----57---32
11---63---28
16---57---28
22---50---28

180mm:
4.5--71---40T
5.6--80---50T
8----80---45T
11---71---45
16---57---45
22---50---40

250mm:
6.3--63---45T
8----63---45T
11---71---45T