Using MF lenses on a 35mm body???

[stradibarrius]

Are there any advantages to using 645 lenses on a 35mm body? I have an adapter to use my Mamiya M645 lenses on my nikon film bodies.

I was curious if there are any real advantages to doing this???

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you happen to have a MF lens of a focal length you don't have for your 35mm system, that's the main reason for doing it with a fixed adapter.

There are also tilt-shift adapters made by companies like Zoerk, Hartblei, and if I'm not mistaken Novoflex that take advantage of the extra coverage of MF lenses for use on 35mm cameras.

 

[Pinholemaster]

I was curious if there are any real advantages to doing this???

No

 

[PhotoJim]

Medium format lenses generally don't resolve as well as 35mm ones (they don't need to on 120 film) so there are no real advantages except as above.

A Nikkor 85/1.8 will far outperform a Bronica Zenzanon 80/2.8 on 35mm, e.g.

Jim

 

[stradibarrius]

Thanks for those answers.

 

[Q.G.]

Medium format lenses generally don't resolve as well as 35mm ones (they don't need to on 120 film) so there are no real advantages except as above.

Often heard. But not true.


I used to (only sometimes though) carry a 35 mm body (Olympus OM, so a small one) and lens adapter in my MF kit. A small addition, compared to the MF kit.
But i never used it.

I wouldn't do it the other way round, carry MF lenses in a 35 mm kit. 35 mm format lenses are small, cheap (relatively - for the price of one MF lens i could assemble a rather complete 35 mm lens kit) and good enough, given the too small 30 mm format.


See, Jim, that's the origin of that myth.
35 mm format lenses have to be better than MF lenses to be able to keep up, given the small frame of 35 mm format.
That demand for extra performance was, and all too often still is, mistaken, the "should" turned round into an "is". But it's just not true that way round.
Yes, some very good 35 mm format lenses are better than some not so good MF lenses. Some very good MF lenses are better than some not so good 35 mm format lenses. There is no general either one is better than the other situation.
What remains though is that the 35 mm format frame being so small, you're better off using MF.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Some prefer MF Russian Ukranian East German lenses on their smaller format cameras for special color , bokeh or degrade rendition.
If you have a special MF lens and dont want to spend on 120 , than go for it.
Its all depends on your decision not others. 80 mm Pentax MF lens have very special characteristics and I prefer it on my SLR. You must spend good time at flickr and there is every kind of lens , film , camera comparison. If you like one , just go for it. I advise you Leitz lenses. Not new ones , least 30 years old and older the better. Or you can try bigger format lenses on your MF , like Aero Ektar.
All depends on your eye contact.

Umut

 

[PhotoJim]

What remains though is that the 35 mm format frame being so small, you're better off using MF.

Ahh, but this is the point. The original poster wants to use medium format lenses on 35mm film. At this, a medium format lens is not as good as a native 35mm lens (ceteris parabis).

Shooting with an 80mm lens on 6x6 versus using a 50mm lens on 35mm film, the former will blow the latter away. But shooting that 80mm on a 35mm camera to replace an 85mm will result in inferior performance.

Medium format lenses resolve fewer line pairs per mm. They need to cover a larger image circle and the image needs to be enlarged less to result in the same size of image.

35mm format lenses can resolve 70-80 line pairs per mm and even more, but medium format lenses often resolve only half that. That still means double the quality, net, but only if you use them on 120/220 film.

 

[Q.G.]

Ahh, but this is the point. The original poster wants to use medium format lenses on 35mm film. At this, a medium format lens is not as good as a native 35mm lens (ceteris parabis).[...]

No, no, no.

Read it again.
It's a false assumption, originating in the fact that 35 mm lenses have to be better to allow 35 mm format to keep up (which it still doesn't). Have to be by no means automatically equates to are. And it doesn't.
What you write about resolutions etc. is simply not right. Still an elaboration of the false assumption. Fact is very different.
For instance the last retrofocus (!) lens Zeiss made for Hasselblad resolves 200 lp/mm. Even mediocre MF lenses have no problem at all keeping up with run of the mill 35 mm format lenses.

In short: there is no such better-lens advantage 35 mm format would have.

What there however really is, is the too-small format disadvantage.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I agree with Q.G.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Maybe this is just my ignorance, but it seems to me that a lens which is designed to work with a specific camera/system would naturally perform better than using an adapter to connect it to a different system. Especially going from one format to another.

Then again I guess if you're going for a specific look that a particular lens provides that may be an advantage.

 

[flatulent1]

The best way to answer the question would be to go out, shoot, and compare. I have the Nikon bodies, I have the Mamiya lenses, I even have the adapter. Sadly I don't have any Nikkor primes to compare with. If anybody wanted to donate some...

For what it's worth, I agree with QG. Optical engineering is optical engineering, no matter the format. The only real advantage to using MF lenses on 35mm cameras is if you have a focal length in MF that you need on 35mm.

 

[2F/2F]

Depending on the specific medium format lenses that you have, and depending on your desires for the image/s at hand, an advantage may well be less resolution (if that is, in fact, what your particular medium format lenses offer; some do, and some do not). Though I have not used medium format lenses on small format, I definitely and decidedly use certain lenses that I know will "gloss over" detail more than an alternative, if that is what I want.

In any case, the whole body/adapter/lens thing is a tool that you have. Find out what it can do. Then once you know what it can do, you can decide whether or not it would be a good tool to use in any given situation. Only you can say whether or not the lenses will perform well for you on the 35mm camera. But you have the tool in your hand as we speak. It would be silly not to simply do what is required to find out if it would be of any use to you. You have everything you need to find out, so have at it.

 

[MattKing]

The best way to answer the question would be to go out, shoot, and compare. I have the Nikon bodies, I have the Mamiya lenses, I even have the adapter. Sadly I don't have any Nikkor primes to compare with. If anybody wanted to donate some...

For what it's worth, I agree with QG. Optical engineering is optical engineering, no matter the format. The only real advantage to using MF lenses on 35mm cameras is if you have a focal length in MF that you need on 35mm.

Well optical engineering may be optical engineering, it is also true that the design of lenses involves some choices.

There are very few lenses that behave exactly the same at the edge of their coverage as at the centre. And all lenses distort at least slightly, even if that distortion is miniscule.

If the MF lens used was designed to give spectacular performance at the centre, at the expense of the far edges of the field, it may indeed perform better when asked to cover just the 35mm format than an MF lens that is designed to give uniformly good results over the entire MF field.

So I guess I'm saying (like Q.G.) that it depends on the lens.

 

[Diapositivo]

If you mount a MF lens to a 35mm body, the comparison should be made with the equivalent focal length: If you put an 80mm lens on a 35 there is a "crop factor" and you obtain an image which is equivalent to what you would have obtained with a longer focal length on SF.

This also means that the MF lens on a 35mm body is going to be used only in its central part, which is the best performing one, the quality of the image of any lens tending to degrade at the edges.

So I would say that if the lenses are produced to the same quality standards:

the disadvantage is that you carry with you a bigger weight and that you lose automatisms;
the advantage is that you use only the better part of the image circle of the MF lens.

I have no experience of MF lenses but considering that MF lenses are so much more expensive that 35mm lenses I would infer that they are produced to the same "absolute" optical standard (lp/mm, MTF etc.) within the same firm or quality class.

If MF lenses were designed in factory with less stringent parameters - on the ground that the image is going to be formed on a larger negative anyway - then I don't think that MF lenses would be so much more expensive than 35mm.

Fabrizio

 

[bblhed]

The advantage to this is that a given lens may do something with light and shadow that you want to capture on 35mm film for whatever reason, like you can't get a particular film stock in 120. there is also the filling a gap in your focal length thing, but that is probably less of a draw for me.

Are MF lenses optically inferior to 35mm lenses? Why not just hack out a 36 x 22 piece of a medium format negative from the center and print it, that will tell the story.

As for better or worse, any lens that produces the photo that you want on the media you want is clearly the better lens, even if it is a cracked plastic single element that is all scratched and has no coating. If a lens like that gives you the photo you wanted and people like the photo and would be willing to pay money for it, that is the better lens hands down.

Remember you are trying to impart your vision, not not taking crime scene photos.

 

[Q.G.]

If you mount a MF lens to a 35mm body, the comparison should be made with the equivalent focal length: If you put an 80mm lens on a 35 there is a "crop factor" and you obtain an image which is equivalent to what you would have obtained with a longer focal length on SF.

Yes.
It would be equivalent to an image that would have been produced by a 80 mm lens on 35 mm format.

 

[Pumalite]

I don't find these kind of exercises necessary. At the end what counts is the results; which is subjective. I have never found that I need an MF lens instead of the ones I have for 35mm.

 

[Diapositivo]

Yes.
It would be equivalent to an image that would have been produced by a 80 mm lens on 35 mm format.

Yes, of course. I should sleep more at night and write less nonsense on the internet

And the greater cost of MF lenses, with the same focal length, in respect to 35mm lenses, is due to the fact that MF lenses have a greater image circle I suppose.

Fabrizio

 

[Q.G.]

Yes, of course. I should sleep more at night and write less nonsense on the internet

No need to be so hard on yourself.
It only takes a change of one letter (an M for an S).

 

[fschifano]

And the greater cost of MF lenses, with the same focal length, in respect to 35mm lenses, is due to the fact that MF lenses have a greater image circle I suppose.

Well, I'm pretty sure economies of scale have a lot to do with the higher price of medium format lenses. Lenses for small format cameras sell in far greater numbers than lenses for medium format, so the R&D and production overhead costs have to be spread out over a smaller number of units. The difference in the costs of the raw materials is but a very small fraction of the total cost.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Barry;

One obvious advantage in using a Medium Format Lens on a 35mm Camera Body is the larger Image Circle of the Medium Format Lens, when you use it with any of the Tilt/Shift Adapters readily available for many 35mm Camera Bodies. If you want to play with Perspective Control on a 35mm camera body, it may very well be cheaper to use a medium format lens and a tilt/shift adapter for your 35mm camera, than to buy one of the camera manufacturer's dedicated perspective control lenses for their camera bodies. And, if their perspective control lenses do not have the focal length you would like to use, one of the tilt/shift adapters gives you much greater flexibility in choosing the lens you want to use from medium format lenses available.

Others have commented on other lens qualities, such as lens resolution.

If you have ever played with a view camera, and you have seen what can be done with a camera that has a full range of movements, you will appreciate what a tilt/shift adapter and a medium format lens with its larger image circle allows you do do with your 35mm camera.

 

[stradibarrius]

Good morning, Barry;

One obvious advantage in using a Medium Format Lens on a 35mm Camera Body is the larger Image Circle of the Medium Format Lens, when you use it with any of the Tilt/Shift Adapters readily available for many 35mm Camera Bodies. If you want to play with Perspective Control on a 35mm camera body, it may very well be cheaper to use a medium format lens and a tilt/shift adapter for your 35mm camera, than to buy one of the camera manufacturer's dedicated perspective control lenses for their camera bodies. And, if their perspective control lenses do not have the focal length you would like to use, one of the tilt/shift adapters gives you much greater flexibility in choosing the lens you want to use from medium format lenses available.

Others have commented on other lens qualities, such as lens resolution.

If you have ever played with a view camera, and you have seen what can be done with a camera that has a full range of movements, you will appreciate what a tilt/shift adapter and a medium format lens with its larger image circle allows you do do with your 35mm camera.

Thanks Ralph! I have been thinking of trying a "lensbaby" to see if I could create some of the effects that the view camera guys get.

One thing about some of the answers posted...I asked early on if there was a "conversion" between focal length of a MF lens and a 35mm. The answers were if the focal length is XXmm the it is the same in both formats?

 

[frank]

Hasselblad Planar 80mm f/2.8 that Modern Photography tested in June 1977 peaked at the center at 68 line pairs/mm. (Only the central part of the image circle is used when adapted to the smaller 135 format.)

Can anyone find the resolution numbers (center and edge because all of the frame will be used) for a 135 native format 85mm lens?

 

[mrred]

Medium format lenses generally don't resolve as well as 35mm ones (they don't need to on 120 film) so there are no real advantages except as above.

A Nikkor 85/1.8 will far outperform a Bronica Zenzanon 80/2.8 on 35mm, e.g.

Not entirely true. During my early days if *igital I used an adapter to use the lens from my real camera and was pleased to find that it used the center of the lens and not the edge; the most perfect part of the lens.

And that was 35 format lenses. When you use MF lenses, I would expect a significant increase of usable quality for the same reasons.