Mamiya TLRs can't make sharp 16 x 20s?

[chip j]

That is the opinion I get from a Bob Shell book on Mamiya equipment that I just got & research on the web. I have a C330s & 6 lenses which I haven't used much to date, but my all-black lenses are said to have been formulated to be "softer" to please wedding & portrait photographers! I do have a few 8 x 8" prints my friend made w/a Negatrans from tripod shots, and the sharpness is indeed underwhelming.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

It is hard to imagine you wouldn't be able to make nice 16x20's from Mamiya negs. Still, I always noticed the difference between these lenses and something like Hassleblad. I ended up buying a Softar when I switched to Hassy from Mamiya tlr. And I guess it is possible that they went for a particular look with these lenses. I remember being skeptical of the claims for the Mamiya 6 system lenses when they came out, and stunned when I actually tried them.

But it takes a pretty poor lens to be lacking in sharpness when stopped down. Are the earlier lenses claimed to be better, or worse. I always thought the later all black lenses were better at large aperture. My earlier versions seemed to need a bit more stopping down for real sharpness.

 

[railwayman3]

About 25 years ago an acquaintance of mine was employed as an official Police photographer. At that time his department used Mamiya C330 cameras and lenses for almost all general photographic work. Considering that his prints could be used as Court evidence for anything up to homicide cases, I don't think the lenses could have been that "soft" !

 

[snapguy]

olde days

I did weddings and portraits, among other things, back in the days when the Mamiya TLRs were new and I assure you the last thing I wanted was a soft lens. It is ridiculously easy to make an image look soft without buying a bum lens. I used those TLRs, along with the Hassey, Rolleiflexes and so on and the lenses were fine. You should think about the age of your camera and lenses and what might have happened to them all these years and not be dragged along by folks who tell tall tales.

 

[benjiboy]

I've been using a Mamiya C330F for about 25 years with the 55, 80, 135,and 180mm lens pairs and have had many 20"X 16" exhibition prints from it, that I have been very happy with, don't confuse resolution with contrast because apparent sharpness in many modern lenses is due to them being made high contrast to give the impression that they are sharper than they actually are in terms of actual resolving power.

 

[summicron1]

before declaring the lens the problem, run a roll with the camera on a tripod and the lens at various f-stops. A lot of lenses get a titch wonky wide-open but sharpen up nicely when stopped down a couple of stops. Even Leica lenses.

but I also smell urban myth -- the photography market is too broad to have your whole system aimed at only one narrow slice of it. As snapguy says, there's way too many ways to make an image soft without buying bad glass. Whack the enlarger halfway through an exposure, there you are.

 

[Athiril]

I'm sure your Mamiya lenses are better than my Yashica-Mat EM which is pretty average compared to my RB lenses, but still should make 16x16's to 20x20's just fine given the amount of detail I've scanned off of it (flextight not flatbed) using a sharp film.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

but I also smell urban myth -- the photography market is too broad to have your whole system aimed at only one narrow slice of it. As snapguy says, there's way too many ways to make an image soft without buying bad glass. Whack the enlarger halfway through an exposure, there you are.

Logically I have no choice but to agree with this.

I mean, by design it's already multiple-lens camera system, right? So why wouldn't they have simply designed an additional separate soft-focus lens, if the market needed one? Or an additional set of such lenses, if the market needed that?

I can't see them, or any camera system designer, intentionally compromising their entire range of lenses for only one type of pictures. That would be the exact opposite of the goal of selling more cameras.

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

Any lens that won't make a sharp 16x20 from a 6x6 negative (cropped to roughly 6x4.5 for a 16x20) would, in a word, suck. I seriously doubt the lenses suck. Yours in particular, well there could be something with the camera and focus point maybe if they all are "underwhelming."

Mamiya is certainly capable of making fine glass. The RB/RZ system is known for excellent lenses and I certainly have zero complaints about my 645 Pro ones.

 

[MattKing]

It's true.

But they can make sharp 20" x 20" prints.

Will that do?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I used a Mamiya C330F with the black 80mm lens for many years. The lens was INCREDIBLY sharp. Hasselblad's 80mm CF lens, which I also used for many years, was sharper in the corners than the Mamiya TLR 80, but in the center, I think my Mamiya was slightly sharper than the Zeiss lens!

These were shot with the Mamiya C330F and 80mm black lens. They look incredible at any size.

 

[chip j]

Thanks All. My problem might be that I shot @ the smallest aperture for max DOF. Maybe diffraction is the problem.

 

[snapguy]

luck

Good luck!

 

[elekm]

Thanks All. My problem might be that I shot @ the smallest aperture for max DOF. Maybe diffraction is the problem.

I agree with you about your assessment. Open up that aperture to f/8 or f/11, and I think that you should see improvement.

 

[Roger Cole]

You shouldn't see a problem with diffraction either from the minimal enlargement you'll do on a 6x6 negative to 8x8, though. On a big enlargement, yes, but that's less than 4x, 3.55x (ok, based on nominal size, I know the actual frame size is a bit smaller.) Think 3.5x5 prints from 35mm - tiny enlargements, in other words. Would you see it at 16x20, which would effectively be cropped from a 20x20? That's much more likely, though you'd also tend to view those prints from at least a bit farther away. That's an 8.8x enlargement, a bit more than 35mm enlarged and cropped to 8x10 so I might expect to see a difference between fully stopped down and optimum aperture. But still seeing a difference doesn't necessarily make the less sharp one unacceptable.

 

[ajmiller]

I agree with you here as I've recently found the same myself. I'll be sticking to f8/ f11 in future with my C330s.

Thanks All. My problem might be that I shot @ the smallest aperture for max DOF. Maybe diffraction is the problem.

 

[bernard_L]

That is the opinion I get from (...) research on the web.

Here we go again.
You have the camera, the lenses. Buy some film and find out for yourself. Make sure your enlarger is aligned, has good quality lens stopped down to optimum aperture, that film is held flat in the negative carrier, etc. Every step counts.
[30-year owner and user of C220 + 55, 80, 135]

 

[Xmas]

you will get best results at f/8-f11 or you need your lens and camera serviced by pro.
a blad or Rolli worse off on cold day from film curl/memory

 

[Rick A]

I have both a C-220 and C-330 and 55, 65, 80, 135, and 180 lenses. A couple of these lenses are chrome bezel, and I still get crisp images even bolwn up to 30x30 inches. I suspect you should check your methods, are you shooting from a solid tripod, and is your enlarger up to the task. When you have the enlarger head raised to higher positions, vibrations are amplified and photos start to appear soft from them, I think "diffraction" is mostly a myth and a catchall for other issues.

 

[Fixcinater]

... I think "diffraction" is mostly a myth and a catchall for other issues.

It might well be a catch-all for other issues, but it surely is no myth.

 

[TooManyShots]

There are so many ways why you aren't getting the sharpness. Is your system focus properly calibrated? Haze and dust in the lens elements? How did you get it printed? Optically or digitally? This was shot few years ago when I had my Mamiya c330 with the 65mm lens. Shot in Kodak Tmax400 and developed in Rodinal and digitally scanned with my 16mp dslr...can't afford a Nikon Coolscan though.

lake-dslr scan by vracing, on Flickr

 

[chip j]

Love the shot, but I need to look at a silver print from an inch away to be sure.

 

[dynachrome]

That looks like the mill on the Bronx River at the Botanical Gardens in The Bronx. Even if all the lenses we are talking about are sharp, a 16X20 will look better (minimal cropping in each case) from a 6X7 negative than from a 6X6 negative cropped to approx 6X4.5. The difference in quality might be caused more by the grain of the film than by the sharpness of the lenses. We don't always know what size enlargement we will want to make from a piece of film but if I know ahead of time that I will need a 16X20 I would choose a 6X7 camera over a 6X4.5.

 

[flavio81]

A very common problem on the C330 is that the foam that is on the (interchangeable) focusing screen rots, and thus the ground glass does not sit correctly; and thus, the focus point is not calibrated anymore. This leads to focus problems and loss of sharpness.

 

[Gunfleet]

Bingo. I had this issue on a Bronica. I would say checking the focus would be my second step with a lens of this age. The first would be checking there was no dirt/thumb print or what have you on the lens.