Medium format system with the best lenses?

[RobC]

Not Hasselblad since they don't make formats larger than 6x6. What if you want a larger format like 6x7 or 6x9???

You get one of these and then you have all bases covered. You may waste some film but then you have to buy a 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 camera and that ain't so cheap.

http://linhof.com/technorama-617s/?lang=en

 

[Denverdad]

I just finished up a roll of ISO 100 on a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, and I would say it's lens rivals any other lens in the Brownie line, with one exception; that being the Twin 20 lens, which is simply amazing . . . for a Brownie. 6x6 all the way.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Why am I not astounded that this question generated 6 pages of answers simply overnight
My opinion: It is hard to point to A single system with THE best lenses. Take Hasselblad for example: Their system comprises lenses like the 100/3,5, 38/4,5, 110/2 or several Superachromats, the latter being without a doubt the apex of what can be had in MF. However they also offer lenses like the 80/2,8, 160/4,8, (old) 50/4 which are not bad by any means, but do not stand out in the mass either. Then there is the question what constitutes a "best" lens? Sure, the Hasselblad 180/4 is superbly sharp and offers high contrast and good straylight suppression. However the Jena Sonnar 180/2,8 is one stop faster and has this extremely beautiful bokeh, which the Hasselblad lens cannot quite match.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Excellent article pertaining to magic bullets!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

This is one of the most sensible essays on photography I´ve read in months!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Why am I not astounded that this question generated 6 pages of answers simply overnight
.

I think it's quite sad.

 

[bdial]

The question is much too subjective unless your favorite subject is resolution test charts, or your goal is not picture making, but studying MTF curves.
The answer is, "it doesn't matter".

There are way more ways to make poor images with great lenses than there are to make great images with poor (or any) lenses. For every amazing photo you can make with your Mamiyahasselbladrolleifujizeisssnikonblahblahblah lens there equally amazing images made with Holgas and dime store Brownies.

All of the usual suspect makers have great optics, it's a necessity to be competitive. Individual examples will be better or worse than some other in some nuanced way, but when combined with all the other factors that go into a great image any optical difference is insignificant.

The only lens that matters is the one in your eyeball, take good care of it.

 

[film_man]

My opinion on stuff I owned/own:

Hasselblad V: superb
Hasselblad H: amazing
Mamiya RB67 (latest KL lenses): fantastic
Mamiya 6: simply excellent
Bronica SQ: great
Bronica ETRS: very very nice

Ooops and I forgot to include this:

Rollei 6003: what the Hasselblad V system should be

 

[jovo]

The only suggestion I will make is to recommend a 6x7 format that's not too heavy. You can crop to square (I often do) which uses the same area of the film that a square format camera would, or choose the best rectangle for the subject.

Other than that, I completely agree with Barry (bdial). Any of the camera systems listed here will suffice to make excellent pictures when you learn to make excellent pictures...far, far more important than the machine.

 

[macfred]

Any of the camera systems listed here will suffice to make excellent pictures when you learn to make excellent pictures...far, far more important than the machine.

+ 1
--
Let's stick it to the top of the thread !

 

[rowghani]

I think it's quite sad.

To be honest I think these types of aggressive comments are "sadder". The question was a pretty straight forward one and the purpose of a forum should be to help inform and help others, not to make ourselves look smarter by ridiculing other peoples questions or opinions. I think three types of answers are appropriate in this type of thread:

1) Dear so and so, I personally like the following lens......
2) To be honest I can't tell a difference between any of them.....
3) Don't post at all because you have nothing new to contribute.

There are lots of great photographers who swear by a certain brand and lots of great photographers that feels theres absolutely no difference between any of them, but theres also not so great photographers that swear by a certain brand and not so great photographers that feel theres absolutely no difference between any of them. We should never think we know what's "right".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I know, subjective question, but what is the mf system with the best lenses in your opinion?

I own and rate in the following order:
Mamiya6, followed by Hasselblad V(Carl Zeiss).both are excellent and will not let you down or dissappoint

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Here we go… there will be a zillion pages before long!

Choose a system based on ergonomics, format, reliability, availability, affordability, general desire.

You probably can't go wrong with Mamiya RB/RZ, Hasselblad, Fugi GX, Pentax 67 - the issue is more which specific lenses in a given lineup are stellar and which are so-so, and issues like mirror slap (Pentax) if you're hand holding. I doubt you'd be able to pick the best system from a 20x24 print from each format's better lenses.

These sort of threads end often up being a giant waste of opinionated server space...

mirror slap? maybe that's why the the Mamiya 6 is so good(no mirror) but hand-held should not be a problem;the dampening of the hands should help(in case of the Hasselblad);I never experienced a n issue with mirror slap with mine.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

To be honest I think these types of aggressive comments are "sadder". The question was a pretty straight forward one and the purpose of a forum should be to help inform and help others, not to make ourselves look smarter by ridiculing other peoples questions or opinions. I think three types of answers are appropriate in this type of thread:

1) Dear so and so, I personally like the following lens......
2) To be honest I can't tell a difference between any of them.....
3) Don't post at all because you have nothing new to contribute.

There are lots of great photographers who swear by a certain brand and lots of great photographers that feels theres absolutely no difference between any of them, but theres also not so great photographers that swear by a certain brand and not so great photographers that feel theres absolutely no difference between any of them. We should never think we know what's "right".

I think it's sad because the vast majority of opinions are not based on anything that will help anyone get a better photograph. I wish in these forums we had such enthusiasm and opinions based more on actual results and photographs not vague answers on which lenses or system you think is "nice, excellent, quite good, very good" or ranked in some personal scale. How in the world does that help?

 

[k.hendrik]

To be honest I think these types of aggressive comments are "sadder". The question was a pretty straight forward one and the purpose of a forum should be to help inform and help others, We should never think we know what's "right".

Maybe you don't know what's right, but I do ! Buy a Rolleiflex sl66se and you're done with silly questions

 

[Provostnick]

I've just bought a Mamiya 7II so I was reading all I could find about the system. Everything I've read about the lenses say they are some of the best around. I have yet to experience them, but buying the 50mm soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alan Gales]

6x9 Linhof Technika. Just about any lens you want. 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics. Same thing.

Of course, if you want an SLR your choice of lenses will be much more limited.

I think that this is actually the reply that most accurately and technically answers the OP's question because of the sheer amount of different lenses available. There is something for everyone. With most medium format cameras you are stuck with one brand of lenses.

The OP did not state his/her definition of "best lenses". My favorite lens that I own for my 8x10 is my Cmmercial Ektar. It is not my sharpest lens but the one that renders the best to my eye. Some prefer a Dagor, Heliar, Cooke, etc. or one of the modern sharp and contrasty lenses.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Just some food for thought that came to my mind recently. Not long ago I bought an Agfa Isola II and I was quite impressed when the first slides came back from the lab. This camera cost me only 1 Euro. Some other cameras I have are a Rolleiflex T (150 Euro) and the SL66 with 80mm Planar (c. 650 Euro). I plan to make a detailed test on how the Isola compares to the other ones, but my feeling tells me that the Rolleiflex T won´t make pictures that are 150x better than the Isola´s (technical wise), nor will the SL66 deliver results that are 650x better.

 

[Ai Print]

Most lenses for medium format are plenty sharp.

If you plan to print huge or want better tonality then you need to move up to sheet film.

Don't fully agree. Overall tonality yes but I actually see far better large work from MF negs overall because the lenses can be sharper and lord knows the subject matter and resulting talent-in-image factor is MUCH better overall in MF images than 99% of the LF images I see made. The galleries on LFF are proof positive of this, some of the most lacking imagery I have ever seen.

I use 4x5 and like it a lot but in most cases, images I make with my Hasselblads and Mamiya 6 blow the socks clear off most large format images.

 

[TooManyShots]

Regardless of lens, if the viewing medium, prints or "scan," is horrible, it won't matter which lens you have and use.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Regardless of lens, if the viewing medium, prints or "scan," is horrible, it won't matter which lens you have and use.

What??? please elaborate your claim.What is horrible about a MF print:confused:

 

[RobC]

Regardless of lens, if the viewing medium, prints or "scan," is horrible, it won't matter which lens you have and use.

If you are referring to viewing online then I'm afraid that is no longer true. 4K and 5K and some tablets have resolution(ppi) suffcient to see the difference if image has been properly processed.

 

[Alan Gales]

Don't fully agree. Overall tonality yes but I actually see far better large work from MF negs overall because the lenses can be sharper and lord knows the subject matter and resulting talent-in-image factor is MUCH better overall in MF images than 99% of the LF images I see made. The galleries on LFF are proof positive of this, some of the most lacking imagery I have ever seen.

I use 4x5 and like it a lot but in most cases, images I make with my Hasselblads and Mamiya 6 blow the socks clear off most large format images.

I've read a lot where Mamiya 7 owners claim that their images are as sharp as 4x5 sheet film due to the excellent Mamiya lenses, the fact that film is held a little flatter in the camera than a sheet film holder, and you have no bellows to vibrate in the wind.

Most 4x5 shooters don't use the sharpest lenses like the latest computer designed and expensive Rodenstock Sironar S series. The sharper lenses make a difference with large prints. Also moving up to 5x7, 8x10 or larger makes a big difference too.

You do bring up a good point. Barry Thornton talked about this in his book, The Edge of Darkness. Mr. Thornton shot a Rollei SL66 which has bellows focussing and you can tilt the lenses. It would be interesting to see tests between a Mamiya 7, Hasselblad, etc. and a 4x5 using top lenses, the same film and under laboratory conditions.

 

[nwilkins]

If you are referring to viewing online then I'm afraid that is no longer true. 4K and 6K and some tablets have resolution(ppi) suffcient to see the difference if image has been properly processed.

haha I think TooManyShots's post was worded a bit awkwardly and caused some misunderstandings. What he or she is saying is that if the medium through which you are viewing the picture is horrible (ie if it is a BAD print, or a BAD scan) then it won't matter which lens was used (or even how good the negative is).

 

[nwilkins]

also I think people are looking at the original question and then seeing 8 pages of posts and assuming that this thread has devolved into a "this is better than that" thread, and are disparaging it. But if you actually read the posts I think almost all of them seem to be giving the same very reasonable answer that the difference in lens quality between the different systems is negligible, and that other factors are far more important in choosing a MF camera.

 

[Ai Print]

Most 4x5 shooters don't use the sharpest lenses like the latest computer designed and expensive Rodenstock Sironar S series.

I have and use both the 135mm 5.6 and 180mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S lenses, they are as sharp as any Hassy lens I own.