Mamiya TLR 55 or 65?
Joe B.
which to get. I'll be using it for landscapes, interiors and environmental
portraits, often handheld and in low light. At the moment I am more drawn to
the 65 because it will have a less obvious wideangle look. But what I would
like to know is how they compare optically- if one is better than the other
at wider apertures that could be important, also flare susceptibility, since
I do a lot of shots into the light or with light sources in or near the
frame. Weight is also a consideration- I believe the 65 is lighter. This will
probably be my only lens for this camera for a while. TIA for any advice.
Joe B. [remove composer for email]
Vincent Becker
"Joe B." <jo...@mozartclara.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
01HW.B809BF520...@news.homechoice.co.uk...
Hello,
I own the 55mm so I can write about it though I can't compare with the
65mm.
Optically, I find the 55mm just superb, even at full aperture. It has
little flare when used with its lens hood. As for the wheight
consideration, I think the weight differnce between the 55mm and 65mm
wil be negligible when compared with the weight of the C330 itself ;-).
> I'm going to get a 55 or 65mm lens to use on a Mamiya 330F and I am
wondering
> which to get. I'll be using it for landscapes, interiors and
environmental
> portraits, often handheld and in low light. At the moment I am more
drawn to
> the 65 because it will have a less obvious wideangle look.
On that part I think the 55mm will be a little too wide-angle as you
suggest, specially for the environemental portraits. People will look
tiny on the picture. For low-light use, the maximum aperture of the 55mm
is f/4.5 as the 65mm is f/3.5. Again I can't compare their optical
quality at those apertures.
I hope this helps,
--
Regards,
From France,
Vincent
Photography and old cameras (in french) :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/vincent.becker/sitephoto/galerie/index.htm
(remove NO SPAM to answer by e-mail)
David Grabowski
I owned the 65 and came up with mixed reviews of my own work. It's a
sharp lens and a useful focal length for sure but I had problems with
inconsitant transfer of contrast, in this regard I think the 55 is a
better lens, least from my limited experience. The 55 is like the wide
angle Crowned Jewel of Mamiya TLR users everywhere and demands the
little bit more premium price as well for this reason.
I think the 55 would be a tad wide for environmental portraits of
individuals, the 65 is great in this regard, just use a good shade.
And, actually I like to use as long a lens as I can get away with
personally. For instance, a pair of sitting girls ( little girls, ie
children) shot at a location of say an outdoor scenic or historical
location, where you might want some of the background in there or all
of the scene in there for that matter, might actually go better with
the 135 from further back, or the 105 not quite so far back. To get
the girls in nicely with wide angle , they may distort a bit and would
certainly be of great size compared to the scene. If you move the
girls back, they become very small relative to the scene and you get
all the trash arond the site that you didn't expect in the shot that
needs retouching out.
On the other hand , stand the girls and shoot full length , be careful
of angle, it might go well. Or in the case of smaller homes obviously
you have little choice but 65 is great at this IMO.
The 55 is a great scenics lens, the 65 a great small groups lens or
table shot lens.
David Grabowski
>
>
>
Joe Martin Cantrell
observation, the twin lens Mamiya 65, 80 and 105 lenses are about as good as
things get.
I suspect the 55 would indeed give you some unpleasant surprises. Learning
to use wide angles without each image screaming WIDE ANGLE at the viewer,
takes some practice.
HTH,
Joe
"Vincent Becker" <NObecker.v...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:9s34pc$fgs$1...@wanadoo.fr...
Vincent Becker
"Joe Martin Cantrell" <ag...@cnnw.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
KRmF7.659167$Lw3.42...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...
> I use them both. The 65 is a delight, very contrasty and sharp. In
my
> observation, the twin lens Mamiya 65, 80 and 105 lenses are about as
good as
> things get.
>
Well, I read often that the 80 is great, but mine is quite blurry at the
edges. Has anyone encountered a similar problem? What could be wrong?
Major Major Major Major
> edges. Has anyone encountered a similar problem? What could be wrong?
> --
> Regards,
> From France,
> Vincent
My 80 was sharp- but the most common complaint of sharpness is that
someone cleaned an element by removing it, and put it in backwards.
Try switching the taking lens with the viewing lens to see if there is
a difference. If not, there still might be a problem with lens
orientation but someone might have made the mistake twice...
JD
Roland
news:0Bw14htCQtrR-p...@sdn-ar-003ohclevP016.dialsprint.net...
Here is an online manual for the C330.
http://www.photonet.demon.nl/mamiya/c330s/
There is a section on the lenses that shows the current construction of the
lenses and their elements here
http://www.photonet.demon.nl/mamiya/c330s/page_31.html
On the basis of that you will hopefully be able to ensure those lens
elements are correctly aligned.
Roland (the other one)
Vincent Becker
"Roland" <roland.rash...@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: X0EF7.23010$Cl3.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Major Major Major Major <Spamm...@spammer.spam.com> wrote in
message
>
news:0Bw14htCQtrR-p...@sdn-ar-003ohclevP016.dialsprint.net..
.
>
> There is a section on the lenses that shows the current construction
of the
> lenses and their elements here
> http://www.photonet.demon.nl/mamiya/c330s/page_31.html
>
> On the basis of that you will hopefully be able to ensure those lens
> elements are correctly aligned.
>
Thank you. I'll try to switch the viewing and taking elements, but if it
doesn't work I'm not sure I'll take them apart: I prefer a blurry 80mm
rather than a collection of highly-priced magnifying lenses ;-)
--
Regards,
From France,
Vincent
Ladagency
the top/viewing lens with the bottom/taking lens and vica versa.
Roland
>
> "Roland" <roland.rash...@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news: X0EF7.23010$Cl3.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Major Major Major Major <Spamm...@spammer.spam.com> wrote in
> message
> >
> news:0Bw14htCQtrR-p...@sdn-ar-003ohclevP016.dialsprint.net..
> .
>
> >
> > There is a section on the lenses that shows the current construction
> of the
> > lenses and their elements here
> > http://www.photonet.demon.nl/mamiya/c330s/page_31.html
> >
> > On the basis of that you will hopefully be able to ensure those lens
> > elements are correctly aligned.
> >
>
>
> Thank you. I'll try to switch the viewing and taking elements, but if it
> doesn't work I'm not sure I'll take them apart: I prefer a blurry 80mm
> rather than a collection of highly-priced magnifying lenses ;-)
If your front element bulges out the front (i.e. is convex) and your rear
element bulges out the rear of your 80mm lens then chances are it is fine.
Just check that and nothing else. Also check the lens is screwed in
properly. Does the taking lens come to the same level both front and back as
the viewing lens?
Are the edges unsharp on the photos you take or merely in the viewing screen
when you frame your shots? You've only got a problem if it is blurry on the
photos themselves. Have you got dirt or cloudiness in the lens? Perhaps you
could check that as well.
Are your photos taken with the lens at its widest aperture? If so, that
would explain in part the softness of the edges since medium format lenses
do not usually have sharp edges at full aperture. Also, when you say the
edges are not sharp, is this because the objects at the edges are at a
different distance to the subject in the centre of the picture? If so then
this is normal, since the depth of field is limited.
Roland
Joe Pucillo
> Well, I read often that the 80 is great, but mine is quite blurry
> at the edges. Has anyone encountered a similar problem?
> What could be wrong?
Remove the lens from the body and clean the surfaces of both components
where they touch.
I had a similar problem with an 80mm TLR lens, but it was blurry on one
side. I found that a piece of dirt had gotten between the body and the
lens, and was knocking the focus off slightly. On a bellows-focused
system, it doesn't take much!
--
Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA
To reply by email, please remove the .xx from the address.
Vincent Becker
> Are your photos taken with the lens at its widest aperture? If so,
that
> would explain in part the softness of the edges since medium format
lenses
> do not usually have sharp edges at full aperture.
Well, it is indeed at the lense's widest aperture. I think it's weird to
make a f/2.8 lens if it is blurry at this aperture.
Vincent Becker
"Vincent Becker" <NObecker.v...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le
message de news: 9s6jre$he0$1...@wanadoo.fr...
>
>
> Well, I read often that the 80 is great, but mine is quite blurry at
the
> edges. Has anyone encountered a similar problem? What could be wrong?
Thank you all for your advices. I'll try them all and test, test, test.
I'll came back if I have further trouble with my lens ;-)