Upgrade my 80mm S to a 80mm PS - Bronica SQ-A

cherryrig · Oct 16, 2008

I've been thinking for a while that I'll get a 80mm PS lens just because of what loads of people have said about them. Sharper, better, well built etc etc

Just been looking around and found this - http://www.buonaluce.com/S2PS.pdf

Very intresting reading and stuff, but want I really want to know is that should I really do it. To be fair I think the PS lens look a lot better than the S as they got rid of that orange ring on the lens, which is why I'm looking to replace it as well cos it just looks a little cheap

I was wondering if anyone had taken the same photo with both a 80mm S lens as well a 80mm PS (or any focal length) to see which is actually sharper and the better lens to prove this

Cheers and look forward to your feedback

cherryrig · Oct 16, 2008

Anyone?

DWThomas · Oct 16, 2008

Hmmm, I acquired the PS 80mm as my first lens, based on what I'd read, and I'm happy with it but have no S version for comparison. My vague understanding at the time was that the optical differences were pretty modest in the mid-range focal lengths. Assuming that's correct, I'd probably opt to buy another focal length lens first. But I'm horribly practical and something of a minimalist.

I suppose another argument favoring the PS is they are not as old and might be in better shape, but if what you have is working ...

DaveT

cherryrig · Oct 16, 2008

I just got a 150mm PS and the PS just look better on the camera. Like am I going by looks or for the quailty of the lens?? So I guess it's just up to me, but looking at your camera in on your pbase, it looks sooo nice

http://www.pbase.com/dw_thomas/image/74376514

Claire Senft · Oct 16, 2008

Unfortunately my only experience was with an S series lens. I have no PS series experience. I would imagine that by f8 or smaller the differences would not be pronounced. The S series the real clunks were the tele lenses. I did have opportunity to compare the S lens with 80mm Planars and the S series 80mm was noticeiably lower in contrast.

DWThomas · Oct 17, 2008

cherryrig said:
I just got a 150mm PS and the PS just look better on the camera. Like am I going by looks or for the quailty of the lens?? So I guess it's just up to me, but looking at your camera in on your pbase, it looks sooo nice

Well now if we're really honest here, what the camera sees is way more important than what the camera looks like!

That particular lens was an ePrey good fortune where I got a claimed new-in-box unit that looked as though it was never on a camera for about a KEH "BGN" price. I'm happy with it.

I have a less mint 65mm and am still vascillating between the 110 mm f4 1:4 macro and the f4.5 1:1 macro. After that, I may well stop and concentrate on taking pictures with the stuff.

DaveT

cherryrig · Oct 17, 2008

True true, but if your more happy with your camera you'll take more photos haha

Sorry but I'm one of those people who like stuff for how it looks, not really how it works. Just that it's newer, a bit better and stuff. I'm a hard person to please

PhotoJim · Oct 18, 2008

If you like how the PS lens looks, and don't care how it shoots, buy it then.

Optically the 80s aren't that different between the versions. As mentioned earlier, the telephotos have more significant differences.

My 50 is a PS but my 80 and 150 are S lenses and I don't feel like I'm disadvantaged. One day I'll have to try a 150 PS but my S is not awful by any stretch.

Function over form for me. My winter tires may not be as pretty as my all-seasons, but they give me way better traction in the winter.

jordanstarr · Oct 31, 2008

I've had a few Bronica lenses in my time. Some were PS lenses, some were not. To tell you the truth I didn't notice the difference at all and I was blowing up my photos to 16x16 and 20x20. The difference, from what I understand, is in the coating. Apparently the PS has better coating for more contrast, but don't mistake this with sharpness, 'cause it's not the same thing at all. Contrast is good at giving the illusion that something is sharper.

I think the only difference you'll get when you get a PS lens is something that is newer and less likely to break and in the darkroom you won't have to use such strong contrast filters. Those are about the only benefits I think you'll find.

If sharp images is what you're after, consider perfecting your focusing, use your tripod and master your lighting and darkroom techniques. But that being said, the Bronica lenses are so cheap now that you can pick up the entire spectrum for under $1000 and have every lens Bronica makes. So, if you have the money, go for it.

hope this helps somewhat...
Jordan.

JonPorter · Nov 1, 2008

PS lenses have a different coating which may be noticeable with color shots, they have a plastic stop-down tab instead of metal, and they have a more convenient lift-lock for the time exposure lever instead of a screw. Also, the aperture rings are different and there are half-stop settings on PS lenses. I have the 80mm S, 65mm PS and 110mm PS and don't see any difference between them in photos; all are extremely sharp. But I just shoot B&W, so colors may record differently between the two series.

DWThomas · Nov 5, 2008

Eat your heart out -- after many moons, somebody listed a 110mm 1:1 macro lens on ePrey at a decent buy iy now price ...

Just got it Monday, been too busy to put film through, but all functions appear good. Rig as shown weighs 1966 grams (4 lb 5 1/4 oz), a really satisfying feel -- metal and glass -- YAY!

The lens alone is 923 grams -- almost as heavy as my Canon EF 24-70 f2.8L -- another satisfying handful!

DaveT (happier than usual)

psvensson · Nov 5, 2008

The S to PS comparison is can make is in the 50mm length. The S model here was quite poor, not really acheiving edge sharpness even at f11. The PS model, obviously a very different design with a different maximum aperture and filter size, is much better. On the other hand, I had a 65mm PS that was really bad....

hughitb · Nov 6, 2008

DWThomas said:
Eat your heart out -- after many moons, somebody listed a 110mm 1:1 macro lens on ePrey at a decent buy iy now price ...

Do you mind me asking how much it was? I see there is one there at the moment for 239 dollars. That seems like a good price to me ....

I have the S version of this lens and I really like the results I get from it but it's 1:4 rather than 1:1. I'm tempted to upgrade as I'm enjoyed experimenting with macro stuff and that seems like a huge difference to me in terms of the scale of things you can photograph ...

hughitb · Nov 6, 2008

Actually now I'm confused. The seller says it's 1:1 PS 110mm but it's got a 67mm filter size and I notice that all the ones on Keh have a 72mm filter size. It's clearly not the same lens. It also says 1:4 somewhere on it ... hmmnnn

It's definitely a PS lens though. Is there a 110mm PS version that is 1:4 rather than 1:1? i.e.

110mm S 1:4 67mm filter size
110mm PS 1:4 67mm filter size
110mm PS 1:1 72mm filter size

???

Sanjay Sen · Nov 6, 2008

hughitb said:
<snip> Is there a 110mm PS version that is 1:4 rather than 1:1? <snip>

Yes, there is a PS version of the 110mm 1:4 macro lens - I have one. The max aperture on this lens is 4, and it takes 67mm filters.

I should add that I (personally) do not find the 1:4 macro lens very useful for my needs - I would have much preferred the 1:1 version, but I've decided to use 35mm & LF for macro work, so the 110mm 1:4 does not get used at all.

DWThomas · Nov 6, 2008

Yes, I paid $295 -- but that 1:1 verison usually runs about twice as much as the 1:4 version. I originally planned to buy the 1:4 because it's less money and would work with filters I already have. Luckily, after more thinking about it, I decided why spend a fair amount, and maybe still be unhappy with the 1:4. Sanjay's comment feels like validation of that decision.

I was going to cover the filters by buying a step-up ring to use 77mm, as I already have a $$$ polarizer for a Canon L series, but the other night I nailed a whole pile of 72mm filters at a ridiculous price (like $20 including shipping). Haven't received them yet, maybe that's all they're worth, but we shall see.

I'm not sure I will do much truly "macro" work, but the regular PS lenses really don't focus in very tight at all. I do have an inexpensive set of close-up lenses, but they can be dubious optically. There are extension tubes, which I seldom see for sale, and when I do they go for a fair chunk of change. Plus all those solutions are pretty fiddly compared with just cranking out a nice smooth helix a bit.

Thus endeth today's philosophical blather.

DaveT

hughitb · Nov 6, 2008

That explains it all right. I reckon the one for sale for 239 on ebay is the 1:4 PS version but the seller thinks it's the 1:1. I'm obviously giving them the benefit of the doubt here as surely no-one on ebay would try and pull the wool over a buyers eyes would they?

Sanjay Sen · Nov 6, 2008

hughitb said:
That explains it all right. I reckon the one for sale for 239 on ebay is the 1:4 PS version but the seller thinks it's the 1:1. I'm obviously giving them the benefit of the doubt here as surely no-one on ebay would try and pull the wool over a buyers eyes would they?

If we are talking about the same lens (BIN for $239.95), then yes, that's the 1:4 macro although the seller claims it's 1:1. That's how I ended up with my lens - didn't do enough research.

The 110mm PS 1:1 macro lens has a max aperture of 4.5 and takes 72mm filters (versus a max aperture of 4 and 67mm filters for the 1:4 macro version). You can check KEH's Dead Link Removed to get an idea.

Upgrade my 80mm S to a 80mm PS - Bronica SQ-A

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency