Second sharpest after Mamiya 7?

[Alan Edward Klein]

How do the Mamiya RB67 lenses fit into this?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

In term of sharpness only, what system (or individual lens) comes after the Mamiya 7?
As far as personal experience goes, I will cite the Rollei Apo-Symmar 90mm Makro.

Mamiya6 then Hasselblad.

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, Mamiya 6

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I think we’re saying the same thing. Tripod and proper focus will result in sharp images with many lenses. There are certainly differences in lenses but alot of this is splitting hairs.

I disagree. You can get a significantly sharper image from a high quality lens and it’s particularly noticeable when making large prints.

 

[brian steinberger]

I disagree. You can get a significantly sharper image from a high quality lens and it’s particularly noticeable when making large prints.

I don’t disagree with that. But a good average lens stopped down on a tripod with mirror up can produce sharper results than a high quality lens hand held. Hand held is always at risk of camera shake.

That said I have no problem shooting my Mamiya 6 hand held at speeds 1/60 and faster. Sometimes I can get away with 1/30. MF SLRs are another animal as far as camera shake handheld.

 

[reddesert]

I don't have any personal experience with the Mamiya 7, or 6, or some other systems mentioned here. However. IMO, most medium format lenses are going to be at least pretty good to very good, especially modern lenses, especially if shot at moderate apertures (say 5.6-8). Medium format isn't as demanding on optics, lens-film alignment, grain, etc, as trying to shoot 35mm at f/2 and enlarge it by a large factor.

But, to get the most out of such lenses you need to have your technique dialed. That includes eliminating focus errors, controlling depth of field, using a tripod or being absolutely sure you can handhold at the selected speed (Not the 1/focal-length rule! That's for 35mm and may not be conservative enough even there), not shooting wide open if you can avoid it, and so on. So if one hasn't done all that, then fretting about which lens is the sharpest is superfluous.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I disagree. You can get a significantly sharper image from a high quality lens and it’s particularly noticeable when making large prints.

For many years, I underestimated the significance of proper focus!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use a Gitzo heavy duty tripod without extension for my landscape shots with my 6x7 medium format Mamiya RB67 SLR. I first set up the picture and release the mirror to lockup to eliminate mirror shake. Then I wait a couple of seconds and release the shutter inside the lens to take the picture. Hand holding is impossible since I use such slow film like Velvia 50. I would still use these procedures if I was shooting faster Tmax 400. The issue for me is finding the best focal point, and dealing with aperture selection, DOF and refraction.

 

[guangong]

It would seem that a high quality lens, say on a Mamiya 7, a Hasselblad, or a Rollei, in actual use as hand held cameras will not achieve results shown by lens test results. This would fit with HCB’s comment which I interpret as that for his style of photography other aspects are more important than a technical sharpness (such as capturing a spontaneous moment, etc). For fashion and landscape these cameras can achieve outstanding sharpness mounted on a tripod. Besides sharpness, other lens characteristics are equally important, such as contrast. For modern lenses much depends upon what characteristics the lens designer wants to emphasize. There is no overall best, only a best for each individual.

 

[Arthurwg]

Some camera and lens combinations are easier to hand hold than others. I do well with my Hasselblad and 60mm lens, as well as My Mamiya 6. The shutters on the Mamiya 6 & 7 are particularly free of vibration. I also think that Mamiya lenses have somewhat more contrast, which contributes to apparent sharpness.

 

[bags27]

Just eyeballing it, I've produced photos as sharp with my Rolleicord Vb(ii) as with my Mamiya 7--but not very often.

Over the course of many rolls the Mamiya 7 is sharper than any other of my MF cameras, not only because of the lenses, but because of its super quiet electronic shutter and the way it fits in my hand. Put any other camera on a tripod, and it's a much closer contest.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Mamiya 6 or -7 (and Leica M), isn't the calibration of the télé-meter almost as important as the lenses, and by extension, the focussing system of all camera's?
So, how/why to rate the lens before the system is rated?

 

[JPD]

I have eight lenses of the Rolleiflex 6008 system (not the 90, however) but I had my Rolleicord with it's Xenar and a tripod the other day to take this:

I have Rollei TLR's with the Planar, Tessar and Triotar, and if I know I'm going to stop down to a medium aperture, I'll just take the camera I feel like at the moment. They are all good. If I want to use the camera fully open, I actually prefer the Triotar for its character (slight swirl and abberations in the corners). The Planar fully open is just slightly unsharp and the "bokeh" is boring. The Planar would be sharpest at f:8 and the Tessar at f:11.

<-- Clinical - Planar/Xenotar, Tessar/Xenar, Triotar - --> Character

 

[Pieter12]

The Rollei Hy6 lenses seem to me at least to be a tad sharper, maybe because they were designed to work with digital backs. And I’m pretty pleased with the (fixed) Nikkor on the Plaubel Makina 67.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A truly skilled photographer I admire once got into a big argument with me how his M7 lenses were sharper than my Fuji 6X9 RF one. Well, even if ti can be conceded that there is a tiny bit of MTF difference, the fact my Fuji takes a larger neg is the bigger practical factor. And if even some of my humble P67 SLR lenses are sharp enough to be film-limited, rather than optically limited to optimal resolution, what difference does it makes. None of are going to equal LF results anyway. A friend of mine uses uber expensive Zeiss lenses on his 6X6 SLR, and yeah, by using Tech Pan film, it's remarkable how much detail he can get into a 16X20 print. But it's also remarkable just how miserable Tech Pan is at delivering decent highlight and shadow tonality. You're only as good as your weakest link.

I just didn't have the budget to try all the above. I already owned the P67 system, plus my large format gear. Then, right after I retired, I made someone a big teak countertop, and had enough profit afterwards to buy a few personal toys, besides needed shop accessories. I could have bought either a very clean M7 w/80 lens, or GF670 mint demo folder for about half the asking price as these days. OR I could buy a mint long-coveted P67 300, the Mercedes Benz of MF teles, PLUS a decent Fuji 6X9 RF. I went with the latter combination, and certainly don't regret it. And I doubt ANYBODY is going to see any difference in actual print sharpness between either of those and what an M7 can do.

But if the standard of comparison is handheld ... how many drinks did you have first? I will state that, at my age now, I can successfully handhold my Fuji 6X9 RF's at lower speeds than even my Nikon. With the P67, we don't talk about shutter speeds, but degree of the Richter scale, and how many miles away brick chimneys collapse when you trip the shutter. That's what mirror lock-up and a serious tripod are for. But at higher speeds, P67's have been prized as handheld aerial cameras.

 

[Arcadia4]

A truly skilled photographer I admire once got into a big argument with me how his M7 lenses were sharper than my Fuji 6X9 RF one. Well, even if

Dante Stella

 

[Light Capture]

I believe all or most of these lenses are more than sharp enough.
It seems that mostly shutter and mirror shake get compared in these comparisons.
Mamiya 7 and Rolleiflex always come on top with slightly higher numbers than others. Some look much worse but that could be due to the sample tested and other variations.

Outdoor tests are completely unpredictable if wind is over 10-15km/h. It will cause significant variations.

For me, the most important are the handling of the cameras. If it's complicated to use like for example mirror lock up on RB 67 it will certainly affect results.
If I need to focus quickly and have faster framing experience than rangefinder or TLR will be much better choice.

Speed does come with downsides. Quite few people I talked to have issue focusing rangefinders and TLR's accurately quickly since their 'gearing' is much faster. Small fractions of a turn will change focusing distance more significantly than a lenses with long throw like on Hasselblad and similar. It all has it's intended purpose. If system is used exclusively with flash that will change the results significantly since it will eliminate mirror and shutter shake for all cameras with higher vibrations.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks for the link, Arcadia. It's only 50% full of beans; better than most half-baked tests, I guess.

 

[bags27]

There's sharp and then there's "clinically" sharp. I find myself reaching for the HB 500 at least as much as my Mamiya 7, not only because it's a barrel of monkeys to use, but because somehow the photos often look a little more interesting.

But here's an entirely sacrilegious point. Topaz Sharpen AI has rapidly become astonishingly good, with few artifacts and really nailing the sweet spot. On my new Mac Book with an M1 something or other, it now flies. I figure I pick up a full f/stop or maybe more in equivalent sharpness. Yes, sacrilege, but so is my digitizing my negatives, so I'm already going to hell anyway.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Artificial "sharpening" actually sacrifices information. Why on earth are you talking about it here in relation to lens performance? By distinction, unsharp film masking in the darkroom can accentuate edge effect without losing any actual film detail. Please go tar and feather yourself over on the heretical digital half of the forum instead of here. Sacrilege indeed!

 

[bags27]

Artificial "sharpening" actually sacrifices information. Why on earth are you talking about it here in relation to lens performance? By distinction, unsharp film masking in the darkroom can accentuate edge effect without losing any actual film detail. Please go tar and feather yourself over on the heretical digital half of the forum instead of here. Sacrilege indeed!

In all seriousness, sometimes sacrificing information turns a photo that shows camera blur into a usable photograph. I don't shoot with Topaz in mind, but there are times it's been extremely helpful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... which again has nothing to do with lens performance....just DT's (delirium tremens = digital turmoil).

And exactly how is one supposed to print that in a darkroom? One more reason to adopt a Rat Terrier; they're supposedly really fast killing little pixels and other rodents running around.

 

[GLS]

I would put the best Hasselblad lenses (38mm and 60mm Biogons, 100mm Planar, 180mm Sonnar, the Superachromats) up against any of the M7 offerings.

But really, when you get to these rarefied levels of performance nit-picking minute differences is pretty silly.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I would put the best Hasselblad lenses (38mm and 60mm Biogons, 100mm Planar, 180mm Sonnar, the Superachromats) up against any of the M7 offerings.

But really, when you get to these rarefied levels of performance nit-picking minute differences is pretty silly.

Good luck finding and using a 60mm Biogon for a Hasselblad…

My experience is that the Hasselblad lenses are EXCELLENT - especially the 38mm biogon - but the Mamiya 7 are a tad sharper (especially 43/50/65/80). The 43mm “mamiyagon” can also be focused with the rangefinder whereas you really have to use the ground glass adapter on the SWC for precise focus. I have both systems and overall prefer the Hasselblad for use on a tripod - but I’ve never seen a set medium format lenses that are as good as the M7. They really are in a class of their own and probably why the camera has become such a legend.

 

[GLS]

but the Mamiya 7 are a tad sharper (especially 43/50/65/80)

The resolution of the 250mm Superachromat is diffraction limited from wide open. It's literally impossible that any of the M7 lenses can out-resolve it.

But as I said, nit-picking.