which 150mm for a M645 would you prefer

[wayne naughton]

in two parts: 1) for those with an unlimited budget? and 2) for those with a fairly limited budget (that's me<G>) i've got to get this purchase correct, i'm planning quite a large project (large by my standards anyway) and i really want some consistency from start to finish. A lot of my work will be h/h so i guessa bit of speed wouldn't go astray.

many thanks,

Wayne

ps: my first post, sorry if i've missed something in the archives, but, gee, there's a lot of stuff on this site, it's gonna take years to get through it all <G>

 

[Nige]

Hi Wayne,

I haven't seen a 3.5 version but have a 2.8 and 4. The 2.8 is big and heavy but the view thru it is nice. The 4 uses similar filters to a 80/2.8. I usually take the 4 in the bag and use the 2.8 at home. I don't think the 4 loose out to the 2.8 in the sharpness stakes but haven't done any direct comparisons.

Cheers, Nige

 

[Drew B.]

hmm I'll have to watch this thread...as I'm in the market for a 150 for my super.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I had a 3.5N. I agree that the 2.8 is large, and it is nice to have the same 58mm filter ring as the 80mm. I found that the performance was excellent and I didn't personally miss the approx extra 2/3 stop from the f/2.8. The price difference in excellent grade on KEH right now is also considerable. The 3.5 is going for $109 and the 2.8 $245. For that difference I would gladly get the 3.5 since I think that it also has great optics and I haven't had the need for the additional speed. For me, even if I had an unlimited budget, I would only get the 2.8 if I really needed the speed, since you have to carry it, and it will be more awkward for handholding too, I think. As for the f/4, I am not sure I would bother as it is only a tiny bit cheaper than the 3.5. Unless the optics are better, and I have never tried it.

 

[Jon Shiu]

I have the 150mm f3.5N and it is light and easy to hand hold and have made fine images with it.

Jon

 

[Greg_E]

I have the 150/f4, it works fine but I always wondered if I would have wanted the f2.8. I really wish I could afford the 200 2.8 APO, I like the angle better, right now I have the 210/f4 which produces great results but the speed would be nice.

 

[wayne naughton]

thanks, everybody, is there a N C designation as well as the N and one more, would the 120 macro also work as a general/portrait lens?

wayne

 

[Jon Shiu]

Hi, the lens says Mamiya sekor C 150mm1:3.5 N.
So, it has both a C and a N.

The 120mm Macro is a fine lens that can focus to 1:1 (the 150mm/3.5 focuses to just under 5 ft), but of course more expensive and heavier (about 1 lb 11 oz vs 15 oz for the 150/3.5).

Jon

 

[wayne naughton]

thanks Jon....hey i like this site, my first post and if i follow the advice given, i should be a couple hundred dollars better off already! Join APUG and save! <G>

wayne

 

[wayne naughton]

well, i'm now the proud possessor of what looks like a next to mint condition 3.5 N..... i'll give it a good workout in the next couple of weeks, so i guess we'll see how we go.....

wayne