Hi,
The 180 f/4.5 is my most-often-used lens on my Mamiya TLRs. I have a silver shutter version that is named "18 cm," as opposed to "180 mm." This means that it is probably an early '60's or late '50's lens. Unfortunately, it will not mount on my C33, but it fits my C220. Seems odd that it fits the newer camera even though it is an older lens. The Mamiyaflex C and/or C2 and C3 must have had a slightly larger opening in the body for the taking lens, because the rear of the lens just plain will not go into the hole on the C33.
It is very sharp in the areas that are focused, and very beautiful in the areas that are not. Like all of the Mamiya lenses of that period that I have used, it manages to be sharp as a tack without being heavy-handedly bold over all. I would call it a sort of delicate sharpness, as opposed to an in-your-face biting sharpness. A highly subjective statement to be sure, but I notice enough difference to use the 80mm over my Rollei with the Xenotar just for this reason.
Drawbacks are major parallax error starting when focusing closer than about 10 or 12 feet (which is where this lens' focal length works best for what I tend to shoot with it). Unfortunately for me, this makes using the C220 a pain, as parallax compensation is tougher on it than on the C33 (no moving parallax indicator in the viewfinder on the 200-series C cameras, not to mention no auto shutter cocking). I have become used to using the bars etched into the viewfinder automatically when working at certain distances, however.
On a tripod with the Paramender, the problem is much more easily, quickly, and accurately remedied. But I shoot with it hand held probably 75 percent of the time. I put it on a tripod mostly for landscapes, not for people.
I also use it with the 3.5x/6x chimney finder all of the time. It makes my focusing precision much better than with the stock WLF.
It also has some easily visible barrel distortion, so it is not the best for precisely-aligned geometrical compositions, i.e. making straight lines near the edges of the frame look straight.
I don't find the size or weight to be an issue when hand holding, though the 250 looks like a bit more of a honker, and it is slower by a stop or so.
Hand held I can shoot it at '125 pretty reliably if I am super careful, but not at '60. '250 is sharp without any major effort, but I always try to use '500 if I can.
In short, great optically, but slow to use in the way that will give you the beautiful shallow-DOF results; also, try to get a newer version that will mount on a C33 or C330 body, so you can take advantage of the parallax indicator bar and auto shutter cocking (not to mention that the later black lenses are easier to set the aperture on, easier to have serviced, and less likely to need service IME).
P.S. I almost always use a lens hood with it.
P.P.S. It is more than good wide open and at f/5.6, if the subject is not right in the corners.
