Mamiya Press 100mm 2:8 lens, is it worth it?

D

DannyTreacy

Member
Local time
1:01 PM
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
22
Hi all,

I've recently purchased a Mamiya Universal body and 127mm lens. I'm going to get a 100mm lens too, I'm torn between getting the 3:5 version or the 2:8 version. The latter is three times the price, is it worth it though?

I have read mixed reports but I'd really like to hear the opinions if those who have had both and are there any users out there who have got images from the two different lenses that they could show as a comparison?

Out of interest does anyone know why Mamiya released the two lenses that were very similar in speed? I understand the lens designs were different but still it seems a little odd.

Thanks.


Danny.
 
Well, it is faster, and (being a Planar design) has higher resolution at full aperture - in low light settings, it might have an advantage of two or three stops at equal corner resolution. By f/8 there is no difference, and in medium format you generally want to stop down to at least that, to get enough depth of field. So it never had much of a market, and when the Universal faded out of press use, it dropped out of production, and never was sold in a multi-coated version.

It is proportionally more expensive nowadays than it was back then, for rarities' sake, and because it got hyped in the low depth-of-field (inappropriately called "bokeh") craze a few years ago. Back when I bought mine, it was cheap, but at current prices (exceeding those of a complete RZ67 with the quite considerably superior 110/2.8) I would not buy it any more, by f/5.6 the last revision multicoated f/3.5 is at least as sharp, and less prone to flare.
 
Informative already

Informative already

Thanks for asking this question. I started working with a MUP last year. While I don't have the 100 f2.8, I have the 3.5 and think it's an excellent lens. I'd like to try the 127mm, since it apparently doesn't vignette on the larger-than-6x9 Polaroid back.

In any case, I'll be watching this thread to hear from other experienced users like the one above. And, I hope to hear your decision and experiences as well.

Reed
Blog: DMC-365.blogspot.com
 
The 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens. Comments above are about right, the f/3.5 lens is good too, the 2.8 outstanding. The retracting 3.5 is a bit clumsy; my two copies wobble a bit. I would avoid the rare non-retracting 3.5 because it has the disadvantage that the helical is subject to galling; that one needs to be kept well lubed.

Here's a sample from the f/2.8, stopped down at f/16:

100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Scr.jpg


And, here's a larger resolution file (scanned on Epson V500, prep'd for print at 12x18).

Sorry, I don't have a "bokeh" sample. It's a great MF photography system.
 
Many thanks for the replies and info, particularly for the full sized scan, the file looks great.

rgeorge911, the 127mm does indeed cover instant film at 3 1/4" x 4 1/4", as does the 75mm lens.

I think I will go for the 2.8 version, I've looked online at lots of images produced by the two lenses and the 2.8 just seems to have a clarity and beauty wide open that the 3.5 doesn't, shame as I'd much rather save £200!
 
i had the MPU many years ago and i enjoyed the 127 very much. imho i dont think you add very much in versatility with either 100 and cordially suggest you think about a lens with a bit more breadth that would really complement your 127 in terms of different FOV. i forgot now if theres a 50 or a 60, but i had a two lens kit with the 127 and whichever the wider was and ended up using the wider much more because i found that particular camera/lens combo wonderful for scenic/landscape. all the MPU lenses are really outstanding.

having said that, as between the two, i personally wouldnt pay so much more for a half stop on any lens unless the rendering difference really demanded it, and i dont think thats the case here. you get a more shallow DOF on medium format vs 35mm anyway, so i really wouldnt sweat it.
tony
 
I got tired of hearing how bad the f3.5 was so I did my own tests. I've posted them before on RFF, but if you are interested PM me and I'll send you my informal tests. I think you will be surprised, even at f3.5 my lens does very well.
 
I don't think 2/3 stop is worth the price unless you really have a need for that small stop advantage. I have never had the f/2.8 so I can't give you a comparison, but you will not be unhappy with the f/3.5 for quality of photos. With the Universal body you don't need the retracting ability of the f/3.5, but if you ever get a Super Press 23, you would be able to use the bellows back. You would not need a retracting 100mm otherwise, but you do save a lot of money on the 3.5 over the 2.8.

rbelyell mentioned a 50mm or 60mm. I never heard of a 60mm. They did make a 50mm and it is a really nice lens. Considering the 100mm as a standard, the 50mm is the 35mm film equivalent of a 24mm lens. Nice to use if you like wide. There was a 65mm lens, which was more like a 35mm in 6x7 as I recall.

The 150mm is like a 75mm lens in 35mm photography, nice for portraits, although I never used it for that. There were two 250mm lenses for the Mamiya Press cameras. The 250mm f/8 did not RF couple, but would have been a lot lighter. The 250mm f/5.5 does RF couple and in normal use only requires two men and a boy to carry. If you have two male children, the sale price of one can pay for the lens, while the other can be pressed into service to help carry the 250mm once purchased.

But it does give great photos assuming you have an armored vehicle to weld your tripod to.

:D :D :D
 
oftheherd said:
rbelyell mentioned a 50mm or 60mm. I never heard of a 60mm.
Click to expand...

Not 60, 65mm. I have both the 65mm and the 50mm - the 50mm is a Biogon design, the 65mm a Topogon type. Tiny and unassuming, but it is a pretty serious lens nonetheless. The original accessory finder is a ugly affair though, huge and optically inferior to the finders for the 50 and 75mm - I use a 28mm Voigtländer finder with it.
 
sevo said:
Not 60, 65mm. I have both the 65mm and the 50mm - the 50mm is a Biogon design, the 65mm a Topogon type. Tiny and unassuming, but it is a pretty serious lens nonetheless. The original accessory finder is a ugly affair though, huge and optically inferior to the finders for the 50 and 75mm - I use a 28mm Voigtländer finder with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I briefly mentioned the 65mm above, but very briefly. It is surprisingly compact.

Does a 28mm finder give accurate depiction of the coverage of the lens, and with 6x7 or 6x9 (or both)? When it was all I had I was glad to have the 65mm, but it was not as wide as I would have liked to have. I had to wait years to find a 50mm, and later a 250mm at a price I could afford. Unfortunately the 50mm didn't have a finder with it, one of the reasons I could afford it I guess. I found with a 6x7 back, and using the 65mm finder, going out to the 6x9 view was close enough to use. Still, I wish I had a 50mm finder. They usually seem to sell well over $100.00 when you can find them.
 
oftheherd said:
Yes, I briefly mentioned the 65mm above, but very briefly. It is surprisingly compact.

Does a 28mm finder give accurate depiction of the coverage of the lens, and with 6x7 or 6x9 (or both)?
Click to expand...

Given a 2:3 edge ratio for both 24x36 and 6x9, we can calculate the 6x9 equivalent as (f/56)*24, which gives 28.17mm. Pretty close... 50mm is 21.4mm equivalent, by the way.
 
Hmm, it's a tricky one, guess I could bypass the 100mm and go for the 75mm as it produces lovely results.

Really wish I was able to handle them before purchasing, that's the problem when buying things off the big auction site!

Thanks again for all of the feedback.

Danny.
 
the 35mm equivalent fl depends on the back youre using. at 6x9 its under half, so the 127 is like 50-60mm, but at 6x7 i believe its more like 70-75mm or so. theres a formula out there somewhere i had wriiten down in a now forgotten place, i'm sure you can easily find it via google. my ROT was always 6x9 under 1/2, 6x7 over 1/2 and 6x6 a little less than 1/3. hope i'm not too off, but they were just personal approximations i used years ago...

i still think with a two lens kit one wants a nice FL difference.
 
Use the 100mm 3.5 and get to know the camera.
Meanwhile set your radar for the 2.8, if patient, you can get one for a reasonable price.
 
rbelyell said:
theres a formula out there somewhere
Click to expand...

The generic formula is (f/a)*b, where f is the known focal length, a one edge (or diagonal) of the source format and b the same edge on the destination. A really useful comparison gets difficult if the formats do not have the same ratio. Most sources use the diagonal for comparison, but given the psychology of human vision the results are a bit off (indeed sometimes quite unexpected) unless we use the horizontal - of which all non square formats have two different ones. So 6x7 would have two 24x36 equivalent focal lengths.
 
i was kinda counting on you for a formula when i saw you were part of this thread! i actually had another equation in mind, one my tiny mind actually understood. it wasnt exact, but was close enough for my purposes...
 
Have the 3.5 and while it's nice, I'm looking to get the 2.8 for the minor speed boost but also for the better glass, based on everything I've read about the lens. ymmv
 
I'm on the lookout for a good quality 6x9 back for the MUP if anyone has one for sale, also interested in other bits for it.

Thanks!

Regards,
Danny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom