Thoughts on Mamiya TLR 180mm Super f/4.5?

[marcmarc]

Hi Everyone,
So how is the 180mm "Super" for the Mamiya TLR's? I've heard they are a improved version of earlier models but how so? Different coatings? Different shutter mechanics? Sharper optics? Some of the ones I've seen available for sale online had dented filter rings which is odd. I've been on the fence for awhile about getting a good portrait lens for my C220 and am wondering if the extra money the Supers go for are worth it over the older versions or is there another length lens that you like better for portraits? Thanks.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have had a 180mm for a C330 possibly 30+ years ago and to be honest it was a damn good lens then. So what improvements they have made to be able to call their lens 'super' must only be marginal. As far as I can remember, this was one of the first all black lenses with no chrome at all. The performance optically was very good, even at full apperture but focussing had to be exact due to the small depth of field. Get it right and you are onto a winner.

 

[Luckless]

I've frequently read that the Black/Super Black versions were "Far superior" to the earlier chrome versions, but I've yet to see a real solid comparison showing off an objective improvement from an optical stand point.

Can anyone comment on serviceability of the models? [I have a pair of 180mm chromes that I need to dig into at some point to swap shutter blades around to get a single working lens. Have been debating if it is worth the effort compared to just finding a working 180 black]

Having used a chrome and a newer style lens, I will say that the models with both controls and their scales showing on the 'left side' of the lens to be far nicer to work with than the older model with the timing scale shown on the user's left and aperture on your right. - Simply saves tilting the camera back and forth to double check settings before taking a photo.

 

[grahamp]

The 180 Super should have an edge on the earlier black Seiko shutter 180mm. It is auto-cocking on the C33 and C330 bodies, which makes it more ergonomic than the 250mm. It is long enough for most needs, and reasonably fast for a lens set that is limited to 49mm fronts (the inter-lens axis spacing in the pair is 50mm). The later lenses do have better coatings, which improves edge contrast. The TLR lenses are a little more 'plastic' compared to current Mamiya offerings - the rangefinder lenses have very crisp edge rendition.

All the TLR lenses with 49mm filter threads are prone to dents. The metal is thin, and the mass of the camera is substantial. That's why they were supplied with those chrome keeper rings that generally vanish.

There are 4 sets of shutters. The really old Seikosha-MX with speeds to 1/400, the Seikosha-S - the most common 'chrome' type, and two versions of the black Seiko. Factory parts are essentially unavailable, though Mamiya agents might have late Seiko parts around. The Seikosha shutters are between 40 and 60 years old, which is a lot for equipment that was in professional hands.

 

[Dennis-B]

I used the 180mm "Super" for portraiture until I switched over to the RB67. The lens was great for head and shoulder portraits, with great color rendition, and no softness on the edges. Like others, I used the earlier chrome models, but I didn't notice any "raging improvements" over the earlier versions. I'd read in some of the photo rags about the improvements in the super, but never really saw a huge change.

A couple of years back, I bought a nice C330s kit from a retiring pro, and it came with a 180 Super. I like it for a distant landscape lens, and it has great sharpness, especially stopped down to around f/16.

 

[tessar]

I've used the 180mm Super for years and have been very happy with it. Great for head & shoulders portraits although perhaps a little too sharp to be flattering!

 

[Dennis-B]

I've used the 180mm Super for years and have been very happy with it. Great for head & shoulders portraits although perhaps a little too sharp to be flattering!

One reason why I kept and used a number of soft-focus filters, just to be on the safe side. I also rigged up a couple of 49mm filters, sans glass, and kept a piece of nylon hose stretched, for a soft-focus filter. Never wanted to go "dreamy", just to kill a few crow's feet and smile lines.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think that you will like the 250mm more than the 180. It moves you into the subject 3.125 :1 rather than 2.25 :1 compared to the 180. Unless you are more interested portraits than telephoto.

 

[Jojje]

I've frequently read that the Black/Super Black versions were "Far superior" to the earlier chrome versions, but I've yet to see a real solid comparison showing off an objective improvement from an optical stand point.

Can anyone comment on serviceability of the models? [I have a pair of 180mm chromes that I need to dig into at some point to swap shutter blades around to get a single working lens. Have been debating if it is worth the effort compared to just finding a working 180 black]

Having used a chrome and a newer style lens, I will say that the models with both controls and their scales showing on the 'left side' of the lens to be far nicer to work with than the older model with the timing scale shown on the user's left and aperture on your right. - Simply saves tilting the camera back and forth to double check settings before taking a photo.

Quite simple lenses to work on, do not be afraid of them.

 

[marcmarc]

Thanks for the replies folks. I suppose all things being equal it looks like the one big difference and advantage is that the "Super" is going to be a newer lens which in the used realm is worth considering. By the way, regarding the black vs chrome lenses I've read that some people find the older chrome lenses to be sharper then the newer black lenses. I have a chrome and a black Blue Dot 80mm lens and honestly I don't think I could tell the difference; I've used both but never really compared the two but if there was a glaring difference I would be able to tell which was which.

 

[grahamp]

Most of the TLR lenses have the same optical design. The exceptions are the 80mm 2.8 and the 3.7 which are different lenses, the 180 Super is 5 elements in 4 groups vs 4 elements in 3 groups in the earlier versions, and there was a change in the 105mm design that actually altered the back-focus - it went from 4 elements in 3 groups to 5 elements in 4 groups with the D and DS. So performance is not going to vary much between lenses in good shape. Using a decent lens shade goes a long way towards getting the best out of any older lens.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I personally rank the 180mm Super among the best lenses ever (all times, all makes, all formats). It is definitely the "signature" lens for the Mamiya TLR system and by far the first that comes to mind when one talks about the highlights of this system. Optically it was completely redesigned in order to get better performance and also a much shorter barrel, as can be seen in this comparison picture.

This of course doesn't necessarily mean that the "standard" 180mm is not a good lens, but I never heard anyone regretting having purchased a 180mm Super.

The reason why filter threads are often deteriorated is that in order to optically exploit even the smallest fraction of area avaliable for the front lenses, they were machined down to a small fraction of millimeter and are thus extremely fragile. The lens was sold with reinforcing protective chromed rings which were supposed to be left in place unless a filter had to be applied. Many dumb photographers lost the protective rings at a point in time, with the obvious results that you describe.

 

[rulnacco]

I can't add much over what others have posted here. But I owned a 180 Super for several years and it was an absolutely cracking good lens. And because of no mirror shake, you can usually shoot it (on a tripod at least) at slower shutter speeds and get just as shrap results. So yes, count this as another vote for the quality of that optic--and the prices are usually quite cheap for the outstanding results you can obtain with it..

 

[Mikhailc]

I personally rank the 180mm Super among the best lenses ever (all times, all makes, all formats). It is definitely the "signature" lens for the Mamiya TLR system and by far the first that comes to mind when one talks about the highlights of this system. Optically it was completely redesigned in order to get better performance and also a much shorter barrel, as can be seen in this comparison picture.

This of course doesn't necessarily mean that the "standard" 180mm is not a good lens, but I never heard anyone regretting having purchased a 180mm Super.

The reason why filter threads are often deteriorated is that in order to optically exploit even the smallest fraction of area avaliable for the front lenses, they were machined down to a small fraction of millimeter and are thus extremely fragile. The lens was sold with reinforcing protective chromed rings which were supposed to be left in place unless a filter had to be applied. Many dumb photographers lost the protective rings at a point in time, with the obvious results that you describe.

Interesting - is the perfect Mamiya RB (RZ) 180mm lens of the same design as Mamiya TLR 180 mm Super ?

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I'd say not at all, the only thing they all have in common is being triplet derivatives and being long focus lenses (that is not telelenses).

The "standard" C 180mm has a sort of reversed-Tessar design, with the cemented doublet facing the subject. This Tessar variant is quite peculiar and as far as I know very few other manufacturers used it, among them Taylor, Taylor and Hobson.

The C 180mm SUPER was radically redesigned to an extent that it's even hard to tell that it's still a triplet derivative; it may be recognised as such by considering that the expected front positive element is composed by two split positive groups of which the first is a cemented doublet closely followed by a positive singlet; this said, the central negative element and the rightmost positive element should be easily detected. This scheme is once again very peculiar, and it is worth noting that also Asahi used it in another highly regarded lens: the 135mm Takumar, with the bright f:2,5 variant being nearly identical to this one.

For their RB 180mm Mamiya went a more travelled path by choosing the super-classic Voigtländer signature optical scheme of the Heliar / Apo Lanthar lenses, but putting the shutter/diaphragm assembly on the back:

 

[Mikhailc]

I'd say not at all, the only thing they all have in common is being triplet derivatives and being long focus lenses (that is not telelenses).

The "standard" C 180mm has a sort of reversed-Tessar design, with the cemented doublet facing the subject. This Tessar variant is quite peculiar and as far as I know very few other manufacturers used it, among them Taylor, Taylor and Hobson.

The C 180mm SUPER was radically redesigned to an extent that it's even hard to tell that it's still a triplet derivative; it may be recognised as such by considering that the expected front positive element is composed by two split positive groups of which the first is a cemented doublet closely followed by a positive singlet; this said, the central negative element and the rightmost positive element should be easily detected. This scheme is once again very peculiar, and it is worth nothing that also Asahi used it in another highly regarded lens: the 135mm Takumar, with the bright f:2,5 variant being nearly identical to this one.

View attachment 223244

For their RB 180mm Mamiya went a more travelled path by choosing the super-classic Voigtländer signature optical scheme of the Heliar / Apo Lanthar lenses, but putting the shutter/diaphragm assembly on the back:

View attachment 223243

I used to have RB and 180 mm lens and I would consider it as one of the best portrait lenses ever made. Sharp just enough for portraits, not over-contrasty, pleasing bokeh, ecpecially good for black and white... It is better than Zeiss Sonnars 150 and 180 mm for Hasselbad ( the last one is great, but too sharp for portraits and 6x7 is better compare to 6x6 for sure)