big gap in Mamiya/PhaseOne lens lineup - why?

[Christoph B.]

So I've been thinking about the reasons behind the huge gap in the focal length between the 150mm and the 240mm lens - is there a reason behind this or am I missing something?

I mean there's a 110mm , 120mm and 150mm and then nothing until 240mm... doesn't make much sense to me. That's like having a 69mm,  75mm,  95mm and then a 150mm in small format. That's a big jump at the end. Why don't they continue the 105-210mm to close the gap?

[Joe Towner]

Easy answer - the old glass won't hold up with the XF100mp setup.  The 120mm is a macro, and an old design that's just amazing so why change it.  When you see / mangle a 40-80 LS lens - it's bigger & heavier than the XF+back - it's a lot of work to perfect things at the level folks will be expecting.

There's an old Mamiya 200mm/2.8 I hope they revive at the current standard, plus a 300mm/2.8 that would be fun.  The 105-210 while doable, would require enough interest from buyers/dealers to pull off.  Speak with your dealer and let them know what you want.

-Joe

[Paul2660]

Yes, sadly the newer glass, 35LS, 40-80LS are huge and heavy and most times would require a tripod or someone with great upper body strength.  Both lenses as Joe mentioned are heavier or as heavy as the XF.  They are also extremely expensive, as purchase of both of them would be in the 13K range new.

The one lens many forget is the 210mm.  I have this lens and it's razor sharp, at least on 80MP and 60MP.  Can't see it not being on 100MP.  It's much lighter than the 105-210, but of course limits your range.  The 150mm  F 2.8 seems to always get great reviews, and Phase now has the 150 F 3.5 in the LS version, which outwardly seems quite small and compact.  So you have the 80mm, 110mm 210mm and 240mm not perfect but something.  Only the 210 is older and non LS but much more affordable. 

Paul C

[Christoph B.]

I'm sure a redesigned 105-210 would really hold up with the 100mpx sensor - and the sensor wasn't there 4-5 years ago so I don't really get that argument.

@Paul: I too have the 210mm but I didn't mention it because..well it's not a part of the P1 lens lineup and as you said there's no LS version. And even it it were it would still leave a pretty big gap between 150 and 210.

Strangely enough Hasselblad also has a 150mm and 210mm lens and nothing in between - even though it had a 180mm on the V lineup. What happened? Were the 180mm lenses not that popular? They even had a 160mm CB...

I don't think it makes much sense to have a 110mm, 120mm and a 150mm but not a 180 or anything else between 150 and 210/240..

[synn]

Are there that many creative challenges that require something between 150 and 210?
Personally, I have not come across such a situation so far, the frames i want to capture around this focal range are made with either lens and a bit of feet zooming.

...and I agree with Paul, the 210 is a killer. I have a feeling it will do good even at 100MP.

[Christoph B.]

Are there that many creative challenges that require something between 150 and 210?
Personally, I have not come across such a situation so far, the frames i want to capture around this focal range are made with either lens and a bit of feet zooming.

...and I agree with Paul, the 210 is a killer. I have a feeling it will do good even at 100MP.

Are there that many creative challenges that require something between 80 and 120? And yet there's the 110mm... and it's not even right between those two but only 10mm less than then macro. Go figure..

And speaking of the 120mm - there are 3 versions in production, the non-AF, AF, and AF-LS. And yes, I do come across the gap nearly daily - I'm used to a 100mm small format equivalent for portraits. I guess it's not a big deal if someone uses a smaller sensor but I feel like there's something missing here.

Anyway - if nobody missed it so far...okay.

[synn]

The 110 is a portrait oriented lens while the 120 is a macro. Hence, the existence of both is justified, IMO.

[Christoph B.]

The 110 is a portrait oriented lens while the 120 is a macro. Hence, the existence of both is justified, IMO.

A macro with excellent portrait capabilities - my point is not that the 110 is useless but that it's weird there are a lot of lenses in the range of 80-150 (and a 70-150mm zoom as well) but none between 150 and 210/240.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Joe Towner]

It does make sense, the longer focal lengths aren't the strongest point of MF.  And when working with the narrow depth of field, you're better off backing up and using the 210/240 and getting an extra inch of DoF than having a close up where eyelashes aren't fully in focus.

I'd love to have a lot more focal lengths, but due to how much it costs to develop and produce a wide range of lenses, it's not viable.  It would be really nice if Schneider did a 1.4/1.5x tele adapter that works with the 80mm and longer lenses, as their 2x is amazing but only works on a few lenses.

-Joe

[Christoph B.]

It does make sense, the longer focal lengths aren't the strongest point of MF.

As far as I know the longer lenses are much better than the shorter focal lengths - at least for an SLR design such as the P1/Mamiya cameras.

And when working with the narrow depth of field, you're better off backing up and using the 210/240 and getting an extra inch of DoF than having a close up where eyelashes aren't fully in focus.

Using the same magnification and using the same aperture you'll have the exact same DoF, whether it's on a 35mm or a 240mm does not make any difference at all. And you'll need the same amount of light for the same magnification, so if the eyelashes weren't fully in focus with the 110 or 120mm they won't be with the 210/240 or any other lens either.

And I not thinking of a 160mm, 180mm, 190mm etc, I'm thinking of a 105-210mm zoom or something like that It would be pretty good addition to the current lineup and a good lens for traveling.

[Ken R]

Honestly I find that in the longer focal lengths I do not mind more of a gap (in mm) between lenses. A 2x zoom is most times too close for the size and weight penalty they have. Most times I rather use primes.

The bread and butter of medium format lenses (645 to 6x6) is the 40-150mm range (some would say the 50-150) with longer focal length seeing much less use and hence significantly less demand.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would think that if you need the perspective of a 200mm, it may be better shoot with a 200mm f2.0 on a D810/5Ds. Those lenses offer superior correction, blazing fast AF, VR, more Dof control options, nicer bokeh, a tripod foot that will ensure your camera is nicely balanced on a monopod... and are in the same price range.

OK, you won't get the faster sync speed if you need strobes outdoors, but it seems like a better solution overall when applicable.

For landscape, stitching is pretty much always applicable when using long lenses so you get the resolution too.

Cheers,
Bernard