Yes, I think that the hood would have helped a lot.
The 55mm lenses are of variable quality Brad I had to try four new ones when they were current before I got a good one, and the dedicated Mamiya hood http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/2314...4543&item=231400405016&lgeo=1&vectorid=229508 is essential to deal with the flare problems it's prone to, the 135 is a wonderful portrait lens I love mine.
I had a hood on the C330, and it certainly helped. Along with selling my mint, early number, plain prism Nikon F, flogging the Mamiya outfit was one of my dumber photographic decisions.Yes, I think that the hood would have helped a lot.
I don't worry about "mythical lenses", I have always bought marque lenses from the major manufacturers and always found them better lenses than I'm a photographer, people should worry more about if their work has any meaning, or says anything about the human condition than the line pairs per millimetre, or M.T.F. of their lenses, nobody ever want's to know what brushes or what pallet Rembrandt used.
Just about every other lens in the past 60 years is technically excellent for still shots....Let's talk about the technically excellent (not necessarily superior) optics that are not generally thought of as having mythical properties...
Although I own some nice glass (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc), I really like the look of black and white photographs taken on my Yashica Minister D rangefinder, and Zeiss Ikon Nettar folder. They wouldn't win any category in optical test, but some lenses are more than the sum of the parts. I often use my single coated Yashica DSB lenses in preference to the "better" ML multi-coated versions for similar reasons.
Some lenses reproduce what the eye sees brilliantly, while others show the scene in the mind's eye. Technically, they're uncorrected aberrations, but pictures only show the results, not the theory.
The later lenses with the black bodies and the blue dot on the cocking lever I think are multi-coated and more flare free Brad, but all the Mamiya C lenses really benefit from using the correct dedicated hood.Yes, I think that the hood would have helped a lot.
The FD 50mm f1.4 is a completely different ball game to the FD 1.8 which is a good lens that I used for more than 20 years, but the 1.4 is a stunner. I agree entirely Nathan with your remarks about buying stuff, in my more than sixty years involvement in photography I learned by bitter experience that achieving photographic excellence couldn't be achieved by throwing money at the problem, and that buying a Stradivarius makes one a Stradivarius owner, not a concert violinistI regularly use Leica lenses, which some ascribe "mythical" qualities to. Certainly they are very high quality, well corrected optics; however, any small variance in exposure, processing, or printing makes a much larger difference in an image than any lens' "signature" does. I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a print made from a negative created with a Summilux and another with a Canon FD lens. Both lenses easily resolve more detail than Kodak T-Max is capable of recording. The latest aspherical lens design will never bridge the chasm between the quality of my photographs and those of Michael Kenna. I think people want to believe the opposite because buying something is easy; spending decades of your life on disciplined practice of a craft is difficult.
P.S. Yes, the FD 50mm 1.4 lens is amazing.
I had the FD 50/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2L, and I thought that the 1.4 was very accurate, but not terribly distinguished in any way, which is what it was supposed to be. My favorite 50mm lens for the 35mm format with regard to the "elusive je ne sais quoi" is the Voigtlander Ultron 50/2.0 that I had on the Vitessa-L, and it was also made for the Prominent, and some other models.
Interestingly, of the 3 FD 50mm lenses that I have, the 1.8 was unquestionably the sharpest when reversed for macro use.
-So for the Ultron what qualities do you like about it? Have any examples? (I'm trying to finish a roll on a Vitessa myself).
I had the FD 50/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2L, and I thought that the 1.4 was very accurate, but not terribly distinguished in any way, which is what it was supposed to be.
Canon 50/1.8
Nikon 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G, 50/1.4D
Olympus OM 50/1.8
Leica Summicron-R 50
Zeiss ZF2 50/1.4
Some dinky old M42 50/2 lens.
Of those they all had their own look. Least liked, the Nikon 50/1.8 (D and G) were really bland and low contrast, just about acceptably sharp wide open and basically a waste of money,
The FD 50mm f1.8 is more of an all-rounder and exhibits none of the 1.4's flaws. The 1.8 typically sells for under £20, which is a steal.
I would say if you get bad results from any nikkor or canon 50mm f1.8 lens - you are either doing something wrong, or your sample lens is bad.
I think the current Zeiss 85/1.4 has the look, despite or perhaps because of "technical issues." A little field curvature and some spherical abberation ...
I don't know but my Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI is extremely sharp and contrasty. I think it is well known as one of the best 50mm lenses by Nikon.
I put a Zuiko 17mm (35mm FOV equivalent) F2.8 pancake on my camera. This is a very poorly rated lens for a number of reasons; low overall resolution, high CA in the corners, and a significant distortion.
Don't know about the AI, I was talking about the AF versions, D and G when used wide open. The D in particular was junk. Maybe I had a dud but when I replaced it with a 50/1.4D it was like night and day with sub f/2.8 apertures. Once you got to f/4 or more stopped down it was pretty much the same.
Hmm.
Once I stopped mounting my lenses on digital cameras (and so stopped peering into the corners of my photographs at ludicrous magnifications) and starting putting them on film cameras and printing the results in the darkroom at ~10x8, I rapidly realised I could no longer tell the difference between my £800 Summicron and my £20 Jupiter ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?