Medium format lenses on 35mm SLR

[Graham_Martin]

I would like to have 500mm lenses for both my Mamiya 645 1000s as well as my Nikon F100 and FM2. Trouble is I can't justify the cost of two lenses. Would it make sense to buy a Mamiya 500mm f/5.6 and get a Fotodiox adapter? I understand that on the SLR I would have to concentrate the image more in the center of the lens for best results.

I've Googled the subject and found a couple of threads which pretty soon go off on tangents. For what I would be shooting manual focus is just fine. I would be interested in seeing any comparison images.

Thanks

 

[removed-user-1]

There's no reason this would not work. If I wanted a 500mm lens, and was shooting with Mamiya and Nikon, I'd do exactly what you are thinking. Especially since the Mamiya 500mm lens is very reasonably priced compared to a Nikkor 500mm f/4.0!

 

[Graham_Martin]

Yep, $800 versus $2,500. Of course the Mamiya is 5.6, but I can live with that.

 

[Ed Bray]

I used to use my Hasselblad lenses on my Canon DSLRs using a Mirex tilt/shift adapter. The results were fantastic even when just used without the tilt or shift.

When you mount the 500mm Mamiya lens on the Nikon it is still a 500mm lens and the items in the image will be exactly the same size as when the lens is mounted on the Mamiya but when mounted on your Nikon you will only be seeing the central portion of the full image so will give the apparent effect of changing the AOV and as you will have to enlarge the 35mm image more than the Mamiya image from the same lens to fit the same size bit of paper it will seem different.

The Mamiya lens will likely be bigger, have a smaller maximum aperture and you will be confined to stop down metering, if you can live with that for your Nikons then it might well be a good decision.

Image taken on a Hasselblad Carl Zeiss 80mm CB Planar on Canon 5DMk2 with Mirex adapter full opposite tilt to give limited DOF.

Image using Canon 1DsMk3 with Hasselblad Carl Zeiss 50mm CF Distagon with Mirex adapter

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Theoretically, using an MF lens on 35mm, there will be a resolution loss compared to the (very) best lenses calculated to cover 35mm.

In practice, I have several MF teles which are better on 35mm than many "native" 35mm lenses.
Your MF lens might not outperform a Leica Apo-Telyt or similar, but can probably bear a comparison to many more normal lenses.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For long teles like this it makes sense to adapt formats. I suspect that many long 35mm teles would cover medium format if they weren't masked for 35mm to reduce stray light, not to mention the optics of internal focus designs, but at one time it wasn't so unusual for long teles to be designed to be interchangeable in this way. For instance, some of the older Nikkor tele heads could be mounted on different helicals for 35mm Nikon or Bronica 6x6, and I think some of the older Leica Telyts were adaptable to larger formats.

For shorter focal lengths, medium format lenses are slower, bulkier, and slower to focus, so less practical on 35mm, even in cases where the optical quality is good enough for 35mm.

 

[Graham_Martin]

These replies are actually more encouraging than I thought they would be. I had also read that using a tilt/shift adapter works especially well with the MF lenses since there is more "image area" to work with.

 

[segedi]

I recently sold a Hasselblad kit, except a mint 150mm CF lens. And since I didn't want to take a drubbing by lowering the price, bought an EOS adapter for it. It even has the AF confirm. But as it hasn't arrived just yet, nothing to report. But am looking forward to using the focal length and shooting some slide film!

I expect the rendering to be a bit different from my standard Canon lenses, looking forward to this experiment. So, if you find you are happy with an adapter, I don't see much reason not to get a dual purpose lens.

 

[jjphoto]

These replies are actually more encouraging than I thought they would be. I had also read that using a tilt/shift adapter works especially well with the MF lenses since there is more "image area" to work with.

Yes, they do. I use a Mirex with M645 lens quite a lot (with Mamiya 35, 45, 55, 80, 110, 120 and 150mm).

Mamiya 35/3.5 on 5D2

Mamiya 80/2.8 on 5D2

Mamiya 110/2.8 on 5D2

Mamiya 120/4 A on 5D2

However, I'm not sure what benefit you'll get with tilt or shift on a 500mm lens. I would suggest just a normal (Fotodiox) adapter for that. I've read (no personal experience) that the Mamiya 500 is not very sharp (which is not a big problem with a 645 neg). If that's so then it might not be a great option for you but you probably need to do a bit more research, or try one yourself, to see if it suits you. There is not problem from a technical point of view, just get the right adapter and start shooting.

JJ

 

[Graham_Martin]

I agree that I wouldn't be using a T/S adapter with the 500mm. However I do have a 55mm lens which might be better suited. Why is lack of sharpness on the 500mm not an issue with a 645 negative? Is that due to the increased level of detail compared to 35mm?

 

[brucemuir]

Why is lack of sharpness on the 500mm not an issue with a 645 negative? Is that due to the increased level of detail compared to 35mm?

Basically because you dont need to enlarge as much for a given print size.

 

[Graham_Martin]

Thanks Bruce. Makes sense.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I use my Hassy lenses on my Contax SLR with an adapter. Then add one more adapter to use them on my Sony NEX-3 too. Work great.

 

[jjphoto]

I agree that I wouldn't be using a T/S adapter with the 500mm. However I do have a 55mm lens which might be better suited. ..

I don't think you can get a Mirex t/s adapter for Nikon/Mamiya anyway, it's only available in 'shift only' for Nikon/Mamiya, but check with the Mirex people anyway.

http://www.mirex-adapter.de/tilt_shift_adapter.htm

... Why is lack of sharpness on the 500mm not an issue with a 645 negative? Is that due to the increased level of detail compared to 35mm?

I didn't say it wasn't an issue, just not a big problem. A medium format neg doesn't get enlarged as much as a 35mm neg for the same print size, so a slight lack of sharpness on medium format isn't as noticeable as on a 35mm neg. If you enlarged the 645 neg the same amount as a 35mm neg then it is a problem!

JJ

 

[nathantw]

Mamiya 80/2.8 on 5D2

JJ

I need to ask. What type of animals are those?

 

[jjphoto]

I need to ask. What type of animals are those?

Foxes, I don't know why they're there but I'm told it's not unusual. In fact there are (relatively) fresh ones there now.

Here are a few more.

Mamiya 80/2.8

JJ

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Foxes, I don't know why they're there but I'm told it's not unusual. In fact there are (relatively) fresh ones there now.

JJ

There's an old Chinese saying: "Kill the rooster to frighten the monkey".....

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Those legs look too long to be foxes, I think they might be coyotes.

 

[BrianL]

Simple solution. Buy a Bronica ETR series and get both the 645 back and the 35mm normal and wide backs. No lens adaptors, full AE with the AEII and AEIII finders, etc. At today's prices for these, it makes sense to go that way. I've used the system for some decades as both my mf and 35mm slr system and have no regrets. A decent kit can be had for $200-300 and lenses are really sharp. The make a 250 and 500mm lens plus a 2x if you need/want more reach.

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

Those legs look too long to be foxes, I think they might be coyotes.

they don't have coyotes in Australia

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

they don't have coyotes in Australia

Dingos!

 

[brucemuir]

"The dango eight my baibee!"