Lens Quality: Koni/Rapid Omega vs Mamiya Press

[S R Massey]

Sometimes I see a piece of camera equipment that looks 'too old'

Not in the sense that it looks bad, just dated. In my mind, this dated appearance suggested lower quality. I know old Leica stuff from the same era (late 60's/early 70s) is considered great, but the mass-produced & somewhat more mundane (and much cheaper) Omega and Mamiya Press just always looked like they were probably not equipped with great lenses, and both probably a pain to operate.

I may be right about the ease of operation, but according to http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html, the Koni-Omega RF system actually seems to be gifted with some very sharp lenses indeed.

Having both a Kiev-60 (with Arsat-C 80 & CZJ 180) and RB67 (With Sekor-C 90 & K/L 65mm), I've come to appreciate a sharp lens. Even though a lens doesn't necessarily have to be super-sharp to produce nice results (centering and flare resistance are much more important to me than raw sharpness), I can certainly appreciate that extra level of detail that e.g. the K/L 65 draws, compared to e.g. the Arsat-C 80.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask about how the lenses for the Mamiya Press system stack up against the Omegon/Hexanons.

At the prices they're currently going for in Camera Hell, the Rapid Omegas seem like the best deal in MF film photography right now. I'm sure this is tempered somewhat by the age of the bodies, and I'd be surprised if there weren't some issues with the Omega gear being offered at such cut-rate prices. They also seem like kind of a pain to operate, and prone to breaking. And the lenses, while capable of biting sharpness, have a reputation for relatively bad sample variation. But the prices are right.

Still, with the Omega system, you could theoretically get a camera with a very nice, sharp lens.

How about the Mamiya Press? There's no listing for any of its lenses on the above website. Were they generally as sharp as the Omegas? What scans I've seen from them online seem fine, but folks on other message boards seem to give the Omega lenses the nod more often when the system is compared to the Mamiya Press. That said, I'd rather have a camera that can do 6x9, and includes a lens wider than 60mm in its system.

But I've already got a 6x7 and a 6x9 camera, so I'm not totally set on doubling up on 6x9 instead of 6x7. I mostly just want a rangefinder camera that's portable and has, at minimum, a really good wide lens in its system.

My ideal layout would be three lenses in the range of 50/60mm, 90/100mm, and 150/180mm. Quality of the wide would be the most important of the three.

Are the Mamiya Press lenses really not as sharp as the Omega lenses, in your opinion? Or maybe you've actually done some tests? I'd be interesting in hearing what you think!

 

[charjohncarter]

"Are the Mamiya Press lenses really not as sharp as the Omega lenses, in your opinion? Or maybe you've actually done some tests? I'd be interesting in hearing what you think!"

You guys that obsess about lens quality with a 6x9 camera make me laugh. Maybe some are better than others but I'll bet you would be very hard pressed to see a difference.

Here is a shot that would be hard to do with many modern cameras: Bounce flash at 250 shutter, set so the ambient light outside was 'normal' although I messed that up a bit. Blow this up to any stupid size you want and it will hold up: because in a word; tripod. This is taken with the maligned 100mm f.3.5.

Arista EDU ultra 400 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

By the way I did some tests on this lens, very informal, but if your obsession is such I'll post on request.

 

[oftheherd]

I never owned an Omega so I can't give any comparisons. I do know that the Hexanon lenses on 35mm cameras were very well regarded by professional photographers in the far east.

I do own a Mamiya Super Press 23. It has held up well over the over 25 years I have owned it. I haven't been using it the last 3-4 years. The shots I had taken were very good. I started out with the 100mm f/3.5, then acquired a 65mm lens as well. Both gave very impressive negatives. The other lenses I have acquired I haven't used as a back problem made the Super Press less fun to carry around. But I seldom have read of problems with any of the lenses.

Again, I don't know about Koni-Omega, but Mamiya Press has lenses at 50mm, 65mm, 100mm, 150mm, and 250mm. There are some others in the 90mm to 127mm, but I don't know anything much about them. I think the 90mm was the original 'normal' lens,, and those up to 127 were for polaroid. There were two 250 lenses as well; a f/8 which did not link to the RF, and the beast, 250mm f/5. There are frames in the viewfinder for the 100, 150, and 250 lenses, and they are parallax controlled.

Don't know if any of that helps you.

 

[sevo]

In 6x9, film flatness will often limit sharpness at wide apertures to a greater degree than lens design and quality. By f/11, all lenses are pretty much equal...

 

[Roger Hicks]

All true, but everyone I know who has tried both will back Konica unreservedly. Some Mamiya Press lenses really were pretty mushy, especially the early ones. You could see the difference even on 6x9cm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[venchka]

Lens Quality: Koni/Rapid Omega vs Mamiya Press

I only owned a Rapid Omega and the 90mm lens back in the Dark Ages. In a word: Tank. The cable release on the grip was totally awesome. Huge bright viewfinder. Focusing was a dream. And the lens. Zero faults. None. That lens spoiled me forever. I own three 35mm rangefinder Konica lenses today.
Is there another camera on Earth with 3 accessory shoes?
Ps: My dad had a Konica 1 35 mm rangefinder and that was the first camera that I ever used. Later my medium format progression was Mamiya C-220, Rapid Omega, Pentax 6x7. I was spoiled early. I still have and use Dad's Konica. I'm biased.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dante_Stella]

The Koni-Omega lenses are in a dead heat with the Fujinon lenses for the G690 rangefinders. The secret of the former is super-flat film; that long plunging shutter release tensions the pressure plate. It is also hard to beat the loading speed of Koni-Omegas with interchangeable backs.

Dante

 

[S R Massey]

Here's how I see it:

Koni/Rapid

Sharper lenses (...???)
Smaller and more ergonomic

Mamiya Press Universal

Larger format makes up for lower resolution lenses, except when cropping
Wider 'wide' lens

Is that pretty much the score? I like the way the Koni/Rapid looks. I like the bolt action film advance. I like that its lenses are reportedly very sharp (provided the QA for the copy you have was good), at least according to some posters here, as well as the site I linked.

But all that only serves to put the Koni/Rapid system on even footing with the Mamiya Press, because the latter shoots larger frames and has more of a lens selection. However, I don't like the overall shape of the Mamiya Press as much as the Koni/Rapid.

Still, if the Mamiya Press has a wide angle, a normal, and a short telephoto that are all the equals of the Koni/Rapid system, I'd be sure to get the Mamiya.

By the way I did some tests on this lens, very informal, but if your obsession is such I'll post on request.

Yeah, that's the thing. I can't tell the difference between the two when looking at, say, Flickr.

If it was just down to looking at scans online, I would probably say that the Mamiya Press has the edge, because the shots I've seen suggest that its lenses have a bit better color rendition (again, if it's even possible to tell from looking at Flickr). Sharpness is not something that comes through very well with Flickr jpeg compression having its way with all the images posted over there. Everything seems about the same.

I was looking at my own scans of 6x7 negatives from the Mamiya 65mm K/L (a lens that rubs up against Carl Zeiss in the test results site I mentioned), and I can't say they surpassed my 6x9 scans from the Fujinon 100mm 3.5 for the GL690, and that's a lens that is widely reputed to be less sharp than the 90mm 3.5 that replaced it on the fix-lens Fuji RF's - a lens which itself is rated a good deal lower in LPMM than the Mamiya 65mm K/L, again according to the test site.

So why doesn't that settle my delimma of K-OR vs. MPU? Well, I already have two fairly ergonomic, easy to deploy and use cameras in 6x7 and 6x9 formats. (The 6x7 is actually a Bronica GS-1.. the RB67 I don't really use for anything but closeup work these days.. and I sold off the 65mm K/L). What I'm looking for now is a (relatively cheap) 'ringer' camera to use for especially detail-critical wide-angle applications. Doesn't have to be ergonomic or intuitive to use; just sharp. I could go either way with format. I prefer 6x7 for natural landscapes and 6x9 for urban scenes, and I regularly make use of both. Natural landscapes tend to be more demanding of resolution than urban scenes, so while I could cover both formats with the Mamiya Press, I don't think it'd be worth it to bring it out for 6x7 natural landscapes if the performance of it's wide-angle lens didn't at least surpass the performance of the Bronica's PG 50mm 4.5.

For urban scenes, it's a different situation. I only have the 100mm lens for my Fuji system, because the wides are vanishingly rare and most of those for sale are in kind of crap condition. And even if they were more widely available, based on current prices I'm pretty sure I could buy a Mamiya Press and a wide angle lens for less than the cost of a truly EX condition 65mm 5.6 or BGN 50mm 5.6. So it's very tempting.

Anyway, this is a very long-winded way of saying, yes, I would be interested in seeing your test results.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'll post my informal test of the 100mm f.3.5 Mamiya, you know the one the that Roger Hicks thinks is garbage. Sorry, I didn't read all of your post because I think this argument is moot.

So here is Mamiya 100mm f.3.5 at 3.5 first the full frame, then the extreme edge, and finally the center:

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

Mamiya Super 23 by John Carter, on Flickr

If Roger thinks that these are mushy maybe he ought to do his own tests, but for me ergonomics and ease of use is more important than nut case sharpness especially at 6x9.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'll post my informal test of the 100mm f.3.5 Mamiya, you know the one the that Roger Hicks thinks is garbage. . . .
.

Dear John,

How did you turn "Some Mamiya Press lenses really were pretty mushy, especially the early ones" into what you wrote above?

SOME, especially the early ones, were pretty mushy. At least in my experience, and the experience of several of my friends. This is not quite the same as calling your personal copy of the 100/3.5 "garbage".

Cheers,

R.

 

[oftheherd]

All true, but everyone I know who has tried both will back Konica unreservedly. Some Mamiya Press lenses really were pretty mushy, especially the early ones. You could see the difference even on 6x9cm.

Cheers,

R.

As I said before, I never had a Koni Omega in my hands. I only know that the son of a professional photographer in Korea mentioned a couple of times how his father, and many other professional photographers, thought the Hexanon lenses were the best.

That doesn't change my liking of my Super Press 23 and its Mamiya lenses. I got my Super Press about 1975. I don't know if that equates to early lenses or not. But it never failed to give me great photos.

 

[Dpingr1]

I had a Koni Omega 100, which I sold here last year. I never had an issue with lens sharpness or film flatness -- the IQ was always great. For the price, it is a terrific bargain. However, it is no camera for stealthiness -- racking the film advance sounds exactly like a pump-action shotgun, only louder.

 

[charjohncarter]

Dear John,

How did you turn "Some Mamiya Press lenses really were pretty mushy, especially the early ones" into what you wrote above?

SOME, especially the early ones, were pretty mushy. At least in my experience, and the experience of several of my friends. This is not quite the same as calling your personal copy of the 100/3.5 "garbage".

Cheers,

R.

I think my lens is an early one. Maybe you and your friends didn't take time or know how to to adjust the RF.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think my lens is an early one. Maybe you and your friends didn't take time or know how to to adjust the RF.

Dear John,

Of course it's possible that none of us -- including several professionals -- had your level of expertise but it is not outstandingly likely. Remember too that we were using these cameras when they were 30-40 years newer than they are today, and therefore tended to be in better condition.

Another possibility is that we were more critical. You've already admitted that sharpness doesn't matter all that much on 6x9, and of course you are right. But that doesn't mean that it is/was impossible to detect greater sharpness when it is there on the film.

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

Dear John,

Of course it's possible that none of us -- including several professionals -- had your level of expertise but it is not outstandingly likely. Remember too that we were using these cameras when they were 30-40 years newer than they are today, and therefore tended to be in better condition.

Another possibility is that we were more critical. You've already admitted that sharpness doesn't matter all that much on 6x9, and of course you are right. But that doesn't mean that it is/was impossible to detect greater sharpness when it is there on the film.

Cheers,

R.

That is true, I have no expertise but I did get the instructions off the internet which for once was a valid source of information and that would have been difficult 40 years ago. I did that informal test after I read a report I think from you about the lenses faults. I was satisfied with the lens even at 3.5, and you are also correct that sharpness isn't that big of a deal for me. I do feel that my lens is not as sharp as my 105mm f.2.4 Pentax for 6x7. But then again smaller format.

 

[johannielscom]

Regardless of the sharpness debate, that is some pretty far out wall paper, John. Waking up to that on a daily basis would sure be an attack on my composure... I like it!😀

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Obvious to me, from many interactions here, that both Roger and John know their stuff.

So, how 'bout the original question? I'm still curious where Mamiya Press lenses fit in the quality spectrum?

I have such a system and a few lenses. I understand the 100 f/2.8, the 75, and the 50 are the outstanding lenses in the system, and I've often seen good marks for others. I haven't tested, but the simple 100 f/3.5 gave me good results.

Here's one comment from a photographer I trust:

50/6.3 - Biogon type - stunning indeed
65/6.3 - Topogon type - has its adherents, can be excellent when well stopped down
75/5.6 - Super Angulon type - outstanding
90/3.5 - Tessar type - older standard lens, probably not as good as the newer 100/3.5
100/3.5 - Tessar type - one of the best Tessars ever made (but still "only" a Tessar)
100/2.8 - Planar type - outstanding and fast
127/4.7 - Tessar type - another of the best Tessars ever made, excellent on Polaroid
150/5.6 - Tessar type - doesn't focus close enough to do portraits any better than the 127/4.7

I'll add: the 75 and the 127 have wider coverage, they were designed for use with Polaroids.

 

[charjohncarter]

Regardless of the sharpness debate, that is some pretty far out wall paper, John. Waking up to that on a daily basis would sure be an attack on my composure... I like it!😀

My son wanted it. He is out of the house so now I use it for a lens test.

Colonel, I have the 65mm and I really like this lens I don't think I've ever used it wide open. It isn't as user friendly as the 105mm. When the sun comes out around here I'll shoot it wide open, or maybe I'll take a photo of the Owl Wall.

 

[charjohncarter]

We are really comparing apples and oranges here; IF you are using 6x9 with the Super 23. K-O is 6x7 so less difficult lens to build. But the Super 23 has a reputation for having the RF go out of adjustment. I adjusted mine when I bought it 8-9 years ago and I have never had a problem, but this write up is what I used to adjust mine. It seems long but there are many screws so this writer explains exactly which ones to adjust. The process is very simple when understand the three screws that are to be turned:

Roger Krueger , Feb 06, 2002; 01:15 p.m.


It's really not too tough (The description looks long, but it's simple in actual practice), although getting (and keeping!) several lenses all synced to the same camera can be challenging. The ideal way to do it is with a ground glass back, but comparing a tape measure to the distance markings will be sufficient unless you're planning to shoot a 100/2.8 or 250/5 wide open. Remember, the lens markings are from the film plane, not the end of the lens.

(Note to others: these instructions work for the bright-frame finders on the Universal and the Super 23. They do not work for the Standard 23 or Deluxe, which have a totally different top end. The basic procedure is the same for the old bodies, but there are four screws, not two, and they're located somewhere else entirely. I only use my Standard to scale-focus my 50, so I've never bothered to adjust the rangefinder)

First, be wary of adhesives on all adjustment screws. Many heavy users wanted to avoid things vibrating out of adjustment. The bright ones used nail polish (which I'd recommend to you also), which does the job, but breaks right off when turned with a screwdriver. The jerk who previously owned my 100/2.8, however, used very permanent epoxy. If the screw won't turn, investigate why before you ruin it, they're expensive to have remade 🙁

If you have multiple lenses you have to pick one lens to adjust the body to, then adjust the other lenses to match the body. I believe neither the 90/3.5 or 100/3.5 have provision for lens adjustment; they're the ones to start with if you have one of them. The 50 and the 65 are a pain to adjust - you have to add or subtract shims - but generally are sufficiently slow and wide that they don't need to be dead on. The 100/2.8, 127/4.7, 150/5.6 and 250/5 have an adjusting screw inside the lens mount; sometimes there's a hole in the "mask" plate at the back of the lens to give you access, sometimes you have to take the mask off - just remove the obvious screws and set it aside.

First remove the rangefinder cover - one screw on each side, plus you remove the knob which selects the 100, 150 or 250 bright frame. The cover then slides straight up. While you have the cover off, resist the temptation to clean any mirrored surface with anything wet - they're very easy to de-silver. A dry Q-tip used VERY lightly could be used to take off egregious dust, but don't sue me if you screw up.

Towards the rear of the assembly, somewhat left of center, you'll see a screw at a 45-degree angle; that's your close focus adjuster. To the left of it is a similar screw that goes straight in; that's the main focus adjuster.

To adjust the main focus, either find an object at infinity (like, a half mile away) or at the last marked distance on the lens. Focus on it with the ground glass if you have it, otherwise measure the distance. Note where this is on the focusing scale - use the DOF scale to help you if need - i.e. you can write down "the 1 of the 10m mark at left f/11" if that gives you the most precise description - then focus with the range finder (You may need to shield the mechanism with your other hand to keep out stray light). Note where it focuses the same way. Turn the main focusing screw about an eighth turn. I always forget which way is which, you'll find out in your first two tries 🙂 Now go back to the range finder. Take it clearly out of focus and then bring it back into focus. Note where you are on the focusing scale again - are you getting better or worse? By how much? Keep going until the rangefinder focus as read off the lens is exactly the same as the ground glass or tape measure reading. (If you have any tendency towards dyslexia you'll probably need to stop halfway through for an aspirin or a scotch.) At the end you'll be making adjustments to the screw that barely qualify as nudges. Now repeat this procudure using an object at a close focusing distance. I use the next-to-the-closest-possible distance on the lens, but that's not gospel. Anything under 10 feet should be fine. Remember to use the angled close focus adjusting screw, not the main adjusting screw.

Put the cover back on - you're done with the body! If you have additional lenses use the same procedure on them, but using the adjuster on the lens, and only at one distance, I use 12-15 feet, but it really shouldn't matter. If you have the 250/5 or 100/2.8 you may want to sync them to the body at 20+ feet, then use them to reset close focus on the body - their shorter DOF makes them need more precision at close distances. Also, for these two you really want to use a ground glass, not a tape measure. I know, the 2.8 is only 1/2 stop faster than the 3.5's, but it's actually usable wide open, the 3.5's really aren't. Don't set close focus on the 250 using a distance closer than about 13 feet - closer than that its rangefinder tracking is very different than the other lenses. You just have to live with the fact that this lens can't really be focused with the rangefinder closer than 12-13 feet.

Thank You Roger K. wherever you are.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I did this test:
- Pick a high-contrast subject, measure the film to subject distance
- Focus on the ground glass
- Focus with the rangefinder

You are looking for alignment of all three: Rangefinder, ground glass (focus at image plane), and marked distance on the lens.

I was lucky, didn't have to adjust anything.