wide angle for Mamiya 645

[photophil]

Hello,

I want to add a wide angle lens to my Mamiya 645 setup. First I thought about a 45mm to be added to my 80/150/300mm lineup but now I got a very good chance to go for a nearly new and still cheap 55N. What would you think? Is the 55 worth to go for? With the Mamiya I'm mainly doing nature (landscapes) and a little bit of reportage (street). Maybe I could add a wider 45 or even 35 later...

Do you have experience about the optical qualities of these lenses at the wide end od the 645 lineup?

Thanks a lot

PHILIP

 

[trapd]

I found the 55mm To be an excellent performer and comparable in quality to the 80mm but it isn't very wide. The 35mm is extremely wide but I was always disappointed in the sharpness which affected the whole image. Don't get me wrong, it was a good lens but somehow lacked that bite the other lenses delivered.
The 45mm was a good compromise, decent field of view and good sharpness (but still behind the 55mm).

All my lenses were the latest models and I know people have said the earlier wide angles could be a bit poorer in some respects. Much as I loved the 55mm I'd go for the 45/80/150 more often than not.

Steve

 

[Thingy]

I have a 55mm lens which I suppose is the 35mm equivalent of a 35mm lens. The 35mm is VERY wide and you might find less use for it than the 45mm and 55mm lenses.

 

[jacarape]

I had a M645 Pro that was stolen along with 5 lenses. By far my most used lens and most versatile was the 50/4.0 PC (perspective control) lens. For landscape, ruins and general WA uses, I don't think it has a peer.

Maybe F4.0 is slow, but my camera was usually on a tripod so it didn't matter.

 

[kdharrison]

I have a 45mm permanently on my M645 for my Landscape work and am happy with the quality I get. I too had the opportunity to go for a 55mm when I started looking for an additional lens and I was steered towards the 45mm rather than the 55mm from my local camera club guys, for the additional field and image quality.

Good Luck

 

[photophil]

so if I understand you right: The 55N is a very good lens (compact and very sharp) but maybe too long? I think I will try. If it is too long I can get a 45 or 35 an either keep the 55 if financially possible or sell it without loosing money as I can get it for a good price right now (80€ in best condition still with warranty).

PHILIP

 

[tkamiya]

I opted for a 55mm. I have 55mm, 80mm and 150mm. For my own work, I stopped going wider and wider. Seems 55 is a sweet spot for me. (35mm equivalent on 35mm camera)

 

[Alan Johnson]

How important is the weight?
My 80mm (~250g) plus 45mm CS (~510g) add up to about 760g
If trekking they may be replaced by just the 55mm , about 330g
The 645 Super body +AE prism +strap is about 1250g.

 

[AdrianW]

I have 35, 45, 50 PC and 55 lenses in my Mamiya kit. Although the 55 is my least used lens, it is excellent for photographing groups of people and is a good nature photography lens when you don't need something wider. The 45 is a great general use wide angle. I use the 35 for shooting interiors and wide panoramic landscapes (in which I crop the top and bottom of the negatives) but requires some care in making sure that everything is lined up correctly.

By far my most used wide angle is the 50mm PC. I have to agree with jacarape that this is one of the gems of the 645 system. For me it is a tripod-only lens that is a little tricky to use in that you need to manually stop it down before making an exposure, but it is fantastic for architectural shots.

 

[23mjm]

FWIW the 45mm is my most used lens. Very nice lens sharp edge to edge f/2.8 is fast enough since I shoot stopped down all the time. I have owned 2 of them one that takes 77mm filters and now the one that takes 67mm filters. The one that takes 67mm filters seems to be a little sharper in the far corners, but a push in the center. This is not to say the lens that takes 77mm filters is bad because it's not. But in the end it is what do you like.

 

[Pumalite]

45mm f/2.8

 

[MattKing]

I have both a 55mm and a 45mm lens, and I am glad of it.

Both are N series lenses and perform very well. The size and filter size of the 55mm makes it ideal for situations that require quick use (weddings?).

 

[flatulent1]

I have the 35, 45, and 55. The 55 sits permanently on my 'street shooter' with WL finder, the 45 is my normal WA lens, and the 35 is used for special applications. Fact is, they're all pretty cheap lately, no reason you can't have all three if that's your desire.

If I had the spare cash I would have the PC lens in a heartbeat.

 

[Rolleijoe]

Recently, I just acquired the 35mm and couldn't be happier. At the moment I'm shooting my entire guitar/bass collection for publication, and have used majorily it or the 80mmN for closeups. Plan on taking it out for some exterior shots later at a park. Even just here around the house, now I can get just about the entire rooms w/out missing out on something.

Previously all I had for "wide" angle was the 55mm, and there is no comparison. So for now I've got the 35mm, 55mmN, 80mmN, and 150mm for portraits. Will be shopping around later this year to see what comes up. Biggest thing now is 77° filter for the 35mm!

 

[ContaxRTSFundus]

As a good, basic wide-angle the 45mm is an excellent choice. However, a word of caution on which 45mm to buy.

The 45 N version is the best for overall sharpness and good contrast but the C version has come in for a lot of criticism (check the web for issues on its softness wide-open) and quite a few people swear by the original version of the lens which of course does not have the sophisticated multi-coatings introduced with the C series and continued with the recent A and N series lenses.

A few chums have bought the C and are really pleased with their results but they've usually been shooting outdoors in bright light with the aperture partly closed. Both the C and N versions have good reputations for handling tricky light conditions without risking flare.

 

[NJS]

50/4 Zeiss Flektogon with P6>M645 adapter. Superb lens. Even the MTF junkies have no complaints.

 

[photophil]

As a good, basic wide-angle the 45mm is an excellent choice. However, a word of caution on which 45mm to buy.

I didn't get the 55N. So now I think I will go for a 45mm. I'll see that I get a 45N or 45S which have the new calculation compared to the C45. Let's see what I can get my hands on.

PHILIP

 

[imokruok]

+1 for the 35mm 645 lens. According to an old chart I have, it's a 22mm equivalent for 35mm film. It takes standard filters, can focus to same distance as the 45mm and 55mm (.45 meters), and exhibits pretty good distortion characteristics at close distances as well. (This photo was taken with it at maybe .7 or .8 meters?? http://www.flickr.com/photos/alflauren/5287540590/ )

Bottom line is that as nice as the 45mm and 55mm are - I used to have the 45mm and loved the f/2.8 instead of f/3.5 - when I want a wide angle, I really want a wide angle.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 45mm is an ideal WA, I have the C version and mine's superb, very sharp, remarkably flare free, I've used the N version as welland it's not noticeably better.

Personally I think the 35mm lens would be too wide much of the time, and I do like my wide angles but the difference is too great between a standard lens and the 35mm, and I find the same with the equivalents in other formats.

Ian

 

[mabman]

I recently picked up a 55 S from KEH. Before doing so I asked myself the same question. I browsed Flickr quite a bit for shots taken with the 35, 45 and 55.

It really depends on how you shoot, but from what I saw the 35 was too wide for me generally speaking (although it would be nice for some prairie landscapes I keep wanting to take). Also, while barrel distortion is minimal relative to other WA lenses for other systems, in the examples I was looking at it was a bit too obvious in the 35 and 45, so I went for the 55 (but I was specifically looking for it in the shots I found).

YMMV, of course.

 

[photophil]

*very big grin on my face*

I just bought a 45N on ebay

I'm happy I got this one

PHILIP