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

[DannyTreacy]

I've found a used 2.8 100mm lens, older one with silver body, $220, does that seem like a good price? There's no haze or mould or scratches.

Also as it's not multi coated but as I would put a good quality coated uv filter on it would that help some way, maybe get it near the standard of a multi coated lens??

Thanks,
Danny.

 

[oftheherd]

I've found a used 2.8 100mm lens, older one with silver body, $220, does that seem like a good price? There's no haze or mould or scratches.

Also as it's not multi coated but as I would put a good quality coated uv filter on it would that help some way, maybe get it near the standard of a multi coated lens??

Thanks,
Danny.

I don't really know on the price. But to compensate for lack of multi-coating (it should have some coating considering when it was made), I think you would be better with a lens hood and trying hard not to shoot into the sun or other strong point light sources.

 

[bsdunek]

Just for the record - I love my 100mm f3.5 retractable. The retractable makes it easier to use the bellows back on the Super - otherwise there is no need for it. When I was doing weddings I would have liked the extra stop of the f2.8, but got along OK.
I also use the 50mm f6.3 - really gives a nice wide view with the 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 back. I even put 35mm film on 120 rolls for a super wide 'Sprocket Rocket' effect. Fun!
Also have the 250mm f8.0. Also a very good lens IMHO. It does not couple to the rangefinder, but, as it is usually used at infinity, that doesn't matter.
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Mamiya Press lenses, or other accessories either.

 

[johannielscom]

You might be familiar with the post but there's likely people here that aren't:

http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00WZtN

Has some very nice shots of the gear and very nice shots taken with it!

 

[DannyTreacy]

Thanks for the replies, I bought the lens, turns out the rear plate with the rectangular cutout wasn't even stuck on properly, I actually don't think it was originally from the lens. Needless to say I will be getting a full refund, oh the perils of the bay!

Still on the lookout for a good 100mm 2.8 lens...

 

[graywolf]

Way, way, late on this, but in case anyone is still interested, I have had experience with both the 3.5 and 2.8 versions.

The 3.5 I had would cover Polaroid stopped down, but not wide open. While the 2.8 would cover Polaroid (3-1/4x4-1/4} wide open with the corners sharp. On film (6x9) it was really sharp, very Xenotar like. On the other hand the 2.8 was really prone to flare, you really needed the rectangular lens shade Mamiya made for it. In fact I still have the shade, in hopes of someday getting another Universal Press with the 100/28 lens (had to sell the one I had when I became disabled some years back. Unfortunately, I had never gotten to where I could go back to work, so never was able to replace it).

Is the 2.8 worth paying collector's price for it? Not in my opinion.

 

[dagbb]

For reference here is a comparison I made (click for full size). This was taken using a late model (non-E series) black Mamiya lens mounted on a copal 0 lensboard. Pictures taken with a Sony A7 and a graflok adapter on a Horseman VH. The crop is in the center of the image (shown at 100% size) and equals approx a 4300 dpi scan. The Schneider shot at f16 was refocused, and seems a bit off.

 

[oftheherd]

Thanks dagbb, interesting comparison.

 

[JChrome]

+1. Very interesting. The difference between F8 and F16 is significant.