Cpt.Caveman
Newbie
Hi,
I have the 80 and 150 lenses that are great.
I am thinking about the wide angle lenses offered.
What are the pros and cons of the lenses 43, 50, and 64mms? Does anyone out there have some good examples and suggestions why one should be considered over another? I only want to buy one. My money is often spent on other items that have nothing to do with photography..
That said, I am a mountain climber and skier that likes to take photos in a camp and on the move with this sort of device and prefer less weight and equipment. I often work in colder than average conditions. I am aware that the camera really does freeze when exposed to certain conditions from prior experience. Though I will mostly use this sort of lens in a more controlled environment from a camp etc.
I am going to try and make it to the British Columbia Coast mountains again this summer via helicopter for a 2 week trip. I think the use or availability of a wide angle will produce some amazing images.
If you have any examples to compare shots between lenses and a target image\subject captured please share.
Thanks a bunch,
Caveman
I have the 80 and 150 lenses that are great.
I am thinking about the wide angle lenses offered.
What are the pros and cons of the lenses 43, 50, and 64mms? Does anyone out there have some good examples and suggestions why one should be considered over another? I only want to buy one. My money is often spent on other items that have nothing to do with photography..
That said, I am a mountain climber and skier that likes to take photos in a camp and on the move with this sort of device and prefer less weight and equipment. I often work in colder than average conditions. I am aware that the camera really does freeze when exposed to certain conditions from prior experience. Though I will mostly use this sort of lens in a more controlled environment from a camp etc.
I am going to try and make it to the British Columbia Coast mountains again this summer via helicopter for a 2 week trip. I think the use or availability of a wide angle will produce some amazing images.
If you have any examples to compare shots between lenses and a target image\subject captured please share.
Thanks a bunch,
Caveman
Last edited:
In your place I might give the 50 strong consideration, just going on the focal length. I'm not very familiar with the Mamiya 7, but do have 6x7 experience. The 80mm is a wonderful slightly wide normal, and the 50 would be a useful step wider.
For what it's worth, here are three 6x7 photos; first with 75mm, then 55mm, then 45mm.
Ok, 75mm ----
For what it's worth, here are three 6x7 photos; first with 75mm, then 55mm, then 45mm.
Ok, 75mm ----
And, here's one in Vantage WA, with the Columbia River in the background... Friend of mine shooting the Native American petroglyphs at the Gingko Museum. 55mm lens
Ok, now we're in your neck of the woods! Ballard ship canal locks, Seattle. 45mm lens.
jdos2
Well-known
I've a photo shot with the Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens from Oporto- intentionally exaggerating the strong rectilinear distortion of the lens.
It was an awesome lens, with a 90 degree perspective. I figured if I was going to go wide, I might as well go all the way!
I got rid of the camera for lack of a bright standard lens (and I've got all focal lengths covered with the Mamiya Universal- 6x9 and the 50mm has the same view as the 43 Mamiya 7 lens on 6x7) and difficult-for-me-to-reliably-see metering LED's, but with it I shot wide-angle shots that were simply beautiful. It's a great, great lens.
Never tried the 50 or 65. The 65 is nice in that it's a "wide standard" lens, more like a 35mm in 135, and uses the whole viewfinder if you don't overmuch like external finders. The 50 is close to 28mm, so if you see the world that way, it's a good choice...
You can't go wrong with any of the Mamiya 7 lenses so far as sharpness, flare control, and accuracy of imaging.
If there was a 2.0 or 2.8 standard for it, I'd still have it as my travel camera.
It was an awesome lens, with a 90 degree perspective. I figured if I was going to go wide, I might as well go all the way!
I got rid of the camera for lack of a bright standard lens (and I've got all focal lengths covered with the Mamiya Universal- 6x9 and the 50mm has the same view as the 43 Mamiya 7 lens on 6x7) and difficult-for-me-to-reliably-see metering LED's, but with it I shot wide-angle shots that were simply beautiful. It's a great, great lens.
Never tried the 50 or 65. The 65 is nice in that it's a "wide standard" lens, more like a 35mm in 135, and uses the whole viewfinder if you don't overmuch like external finders. The 50 is close to 28mm, so if you see the world that way, it's a good choice...
You can't go wrong with any of the Mamiya 7 lenses so far as sharpness, flare control, and accuracy of imaging.
If there was a 2.0 or 2.8 standard for it, I'd still have it as my travel camera.
Cpt.Caveman
Newbie
"I figured if I was going to go wide, I might as well go all the way!"
Ok then I am convinced by some of the comments here that I need the 43.
Thanks
Ok then I am convinced by some of the comments here that I need the 43.
Thanks
You will love the 43. If you look at te gallery you will see my two shots in B&W tken with the 43. This was my first roll with the lens.
V
vgoklani
Guest
Personally, I find the 43mm lens very hard to use.......it is too wide! I prefer the 65mm lens
V
vgoklani
Guest
remember, you also need to use the external viewfinder when using the 43mm too!
erayboy
Newbie
The 43 Is All I Use
The 43 Is All I Use
I have the 43 and the 80 ... and I plan on getting the 150 someday ... but all I use is the 43. It shoots what I see, and I can correct any degree of distortion in PS. Closed down, it gets EVERYTHING in focus from a few feet to infinity.
Here's a shot made at ankle-height looking straight into the sun (mod'd to look bleak and sinister ...). In the print, you can see the pegs going up the poles and the manufacturer's label on the microwave dish.
The 43 Is All I Use
I have the 43 and the 80 ... and I plan on getting the 150 someday ... but all I use is the 43. It shoots what I see, and I can correct any degree of distortion in PS. Closed down, it gets EVERYTHING in focus from a few feet to infinity.
Here's a shot made at ankle-height looking straight into the sun (mod'd to look bleak and sinister ...). In the print, you can see the pegs going up the poles and the manufacturer's label on the microwave dish.
Last edited:
erichard44
Member
I had both the 43 and the 65. Both are excellent lenses. I was unhappy using the external finder on the 43, but the images were superb. I sold it because I just didn't use it that much, and I really liked the 65 on the camera. When I switched to digital ( a Sigma SD10) I sold the Mamiya camera and the 65. I went to digital in part because where i live now, in the Philippines, I cannot even buy 120 film, let alone get it developed. The 65 acts like a 32mm (in 35mm terms) on the camera, and produces great images. I have sad feelings about selling.
R
rpsawin
Guest
Caveman,
Glazer's here in Seattle has a rental department and they have the 7II lenses available. It would be worth a few bucks to rent the lenses you are interested in before shelling out big bucks to buy a lens.
FWIW....
Bob
Glazer's here in Seattle has a rental department and they have the 7II lenses available. It would be worth a few bucks to rent the lenses you are interested in before shelling out big bucks to buy a lens.
FWIW....
Bob
L
laurentvenet
Guest
HI. I bought this summer the 50m, and among my two lens : 80 + 50, I mostly use the 80mm which is much easier.
I depends if you usually shoot with wide angle lens or not. With time, I understood I was more into slightly wide angles than very wide. with a wide angle lens, you need to get very close to subjects.
The extra viewfinder is another unconvenient thing.
I depends if you usually shoot with wide angle lens or not. With time, I understood I was more into slightly wide angles than very wide. with a wide angle lens, you need to get very close to subjects.
The extra viewfinder is another unconvenient thing.