L. M. Tu
Established
I know next to nothing about medium format, but I've noticed incredibly low prices on Mamiya 645 manual-focus equipment. In my local area craigslist, there are ads for 645E cameras with 80mm lenses for $200 apiece; a 645J with lens for $150; 150mm lenses for $50 apiece (no information about which generation, etc.). I've also seen adapters to fit M645 lenses onto Canon and Nikon mounts, for about $60. I am tempted to pick up the 210mm F4, and especially the 80mm and 120mm macro lenses, to use on my D40 and Nikon film bodies. Those have got to be cheaper than, say, a nice 105mm Micro-Nikkor, and I can put up with manual diaphragm operation and stop-down metering. Has anyone else tried this? Any caveat?
hans voralberg
Veteran
I tried Hasselblad on Nikon, except for the fact that the lens is freaking huge IQ is good, I dont see much difference with 35mm lens on normal prints, or view on computer at a sensible magnification.
Eric T
Well-known
I have a set of Pentacon mount lenses and two Mamiya 645 lenses, all manual focus. I have the adaptors to use these lenses on a 4/3rds digital camera (Panasonic DMC-L1k). Last weekend I did a comparison of these lenses on this camera to see which ones were the sharpest at three focal lengths (wide open, 8, and 11).
Of all of the lenses I have, the 65mm f/3.5 Mir was by far the sharpest. The 80mm Arsenal f/2.8 was very good as well. I was surprised to learn that the 80mm f/1.9 Mamiya was not very sharp and not nearly as good as the 80mm Arsenal at three focal lengths (using identical focal lengths, 2.8, 8, and 11). The 105-220mm Mamiya zoom was terribly impressive either.
Not all FSU lenses were so great. The 45mm f/3.5 Mir was marginal as was the 250mm Jupiter f/3.5. The 180mm Zeiss Sonnar did a decent job but nothing touched the 65mm Mir.
After my testing, I went online and learned what others had to say about the 65mm Mir. It seems that this FSU is highly regarded as a sharp lens.
I have to admit that my flaw in this experiment was not using a tripod. Perhaps the Mamiya lenses would have fared well under those conditions. I will have to do this again with a tripod. But I was taking a photo of a bright scene in my backyard so shutter speeds were fast.
I also used some manual focus 35mm lenses. I have an old Nikkor Macro lens (55mm, f/2.8). It did a very nice job, about as well as the 80mm Arsenal. The others did not give outstanding results.
Of all of the lenses I have, the 65mm f/3.5 Mir was by far the sharpest. The 80mm Arsenal f/2.8 was very good as well. I was surprised to learn that the 80mm f/1.9 Mamiya was not very sharp and not nearly as good as the 80mm Arsenal at three focal lengths (using identical focal lengths, 2.8, 8, and 11). The 105-220mm Mamiya zoom was terribly impressive either.
Not all FSU lenses were so great. The 45mm f/3.5 Mir was marginal as was the 250mm Jupiter f/3.5. The 180mm Zeiss Sonnar did a decent job but nothing touched the 65mm Mir.
After my testing, I went online and learned what others had to say about the 65mm Mir. It seems that this FSU is highly regarded as a sharp lens.
I have to admit that my flaw in this experiment was not using a tripod. Perhaps the Mamiya lenses would have fared well under those conditions. I will have to do this again with a tripod. But I was taking a photo of a bright scene in my backyard so shutter speeds were fast.
I also used some manual focus 35mm lenses. I have an old Nikkor Macro lens (55mm, f/2.8). It did a very nice job, about as well as the 80mm Arsenal. The others did not give outstanding results.
philipp.leser
Established
I think my Mamiya 80mm f/2.8 is sharper than my f/1.9! It might just be that the 2.8 is newer, but the f/1.9 doesn't really feel very sharp.
raid
Dad Photographer
I use Pentacon 6 lenses on my Mamiya 645J and 645, but I also have the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 which is a very sharp lens. The Zeiss Jena lenses for the Pentacon 6 can be of first quality. Two lenses in particular are known for their excellence; the 50mm/4.0 and the 180mm/2.8. I sometimes use the 180mm Zeiss lens on a Canon FD camera for potraits. I also use the Zeiss Jena 120mm lens that way. The size is huge but the end results are awesome since I shoot through the central part of the lens [which has highest resolution].
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I used to have the Zeiss Jena 50mm f/4 Flektagon, 80mm f/2.8 Biometer, 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar and 300mm f/4 Sonnar. The two Sonnars came with semi-auto diaphragm adapters for Pentax/Practica mount. They were great lenses on the Pentacon-Six and more than sharp enough to use on 35mm for 11x14 prints.
Chris101
summicronia
I made this adapter so I could use my Mamiya bellows with my Nikon slrs and dslrs, but it works with lenses as well:
Conner999
Member
Use Mamiya 80/1.9 C, 150/3.5 N, 200/2.8 APO and tested 55/2.8 N on Canon 1DS2. Love them. Have 120/4 macro and M645 Bellows on way from HK. Looking for a 55/2.8 C or S. All have VERY nice 'pop' when in focus in VF (EC-CIV screen). Also seem faster in terms of light transmission/DoF than rating would imply.
200 APO is VERY close in IQ to Leica APO R (have owned them all under 280mm), but a bit ergonomically challenged on DSLR. Will never sell. Essentially same performance as CV 180/4 APO but better color. Butter bokeh
80/1.9 - sweet. Soft WO, but 1 stop down gets VERY sharp. Love the color and over-all rendition. Well corrected for CA. Smoooth operation and bokeh.
150/3.5 - sharp, but not a razor. Well corrected for CA, smooth bokeh, nice pastel-like color rendition.
55/2.8 N - Very sharp, but being N vs C, bit higher contrast.
Best adapters so far - Fotodiox Pro. I use a nikon-mount adapter plus a chipped Nikon-EoS adapter to enable focus confirm on 1DS2.
HIGHLY recommend M645 on a nice DSLR. Great build, operation and performance for miniscule $$.
Older C versions are all metal, lower contrast but nice tonality (can always add contrast)
Newer N versions are metal & plastic, multicoated, more contrast
S versions have C construction but N coatings
Prefer the C followed by S versions for operation and smoothness.
200 APO is VERY close in IQ to Leica APO R (have owned them all under 280mm), but a bit ergonomically challenged on DSLR. Will never sell. Essentially same performance as CV 180/4 APO but better color. Butter bokeh
80/1.9 - sweet. Soft WO, but 1 stop down gets VERY sharp. Love the color and over-all rendition. Well corrected for CA. Smoooth operation and bokeh.
150/3.5 - sharp, but not a razor. Well corrected for CA, smooth bokeh, nice pastel-like color rendition.
55/2.8 N - Very sharp, but being N vs C, bit higher contrast.
Best adapters so far - Fotodiox Pro. I use a nikon-mount adapter plus a chipped Nikon-EoS adapter to enable focus confirm on 1DS2.
HIGHLY recommend M645 on a nice DSLR. Great build, operation and performance for miniscule $$.
Older C versions are all metal, lower contrast but nice tonality (can always add contrast)
Newer N versions are metal & plastic, multicoated, more contrast
S versions have C construction but N coatings
Prefer the C followed by S versions for operation and smoothness.
Last edited:
L. M. Tu
Established
I am going to be adapting lenses to a small-sensor digital SLR, so I am mostly interested in the longer optics. The 80mm and 120mm macro are very tempting. And the 200mm APO sounds like a great optic. Thank you all for sharing your experience.