Mamiya 645 AF lenses on NIkon FF?

[MichaelEzra]

Is there any adapter for Mamiya 645 AF lenses for Nikon FF?
I suppose, AF will not work?

Could anyone share experience in using MF lenses on FF?
Thanks!

[ondebanks]

I use M645 MF lenses all the time on a Canon 5DII full-frame. Also used them on a Nikon APS-C camera. My M645 adapter is by Zork - the unique thing is that all you have to do is change the T-ring for whichever 35mm marque, so it's "one adapter fits all".

I tried to mount my 55-110 645AF zoom onto the adapter, but it would not fit. The bayonets are the same, but the larger diameter of the flat area of the AF lens flange is the problem. For the same reason, an AF lens won't fit on an MF camera like the M645 1000s, and a MF rear lens cap won't fit onto an AF lens (unless you sand it down about half a mm, which is easy).

It is not a problem the other way round of course; I use MF lenses on my AFD body all the time. In this configuration, you can see how the smaller MF lens flange diameter does not fully cover the AF camera's silver flange. It's purely cosmetic; it makes no difference whatsoever in fit or operation.

Now you might be able to find a Nikon adapter which does fit on the Mamiya AF lenses. But you won't have AF operation - nor (what's worse) any control of the aperture! You could only shoot the lens wide open.

What I can say though is that M645 MF lenses deliver excellent image quality on a FF DSLR, as long as you focus carefully. I glued one of those "AF confirm" chips onto my Canon T-ring, so that my M645 lenses now get focus confirmation on the 5DII.

Ray

[Rob C]

I think it's a bad idea.

35mm dedicated lenses work well because they only have to cover the 35mm format; larger format lenses work on their native formats because they are designed to cover it. You can't just take the central area of a larger format lens and expect to have it work as well on a smaller format: they ain't made that way.

To make this more easy to imagine, would you really expect to take the 24mm x 36mm central part of a lens designed to cover 8x10 film and imagine it will match the results, on 35mm format, from a dedicated 35mm format optic? Of course not; it's exactly the same with any step away from the design point.

On a personal note: I did try to compare Hasselblad and Nikon side by side; it didn't work. The 'blad won when used full format, but not when masked off.

Sure, you can do many things with photography and find them 'acceptable', but that doesn't mean they are good options, just that you settle for different standards, either for the fun of it, because you may know no better, or because of economics.

Rob C

[theguywitha645d]

Good luck with your project. Medium-format lens work really well on FF sensors and they can have better corners as well. It is a bit of a myth that larger format lenses do worse on smaller formats. Well made lenses still make great images.

[MichaelEzra]

Thanks all for the info.

What I am trying to solve is that with arrival of D800E I would need to get a very sharp lens equivalent to 50mm focal length in FF. I looked at MTF curves of various 50mm FF lenses and they are disappointing. I expect that my Mamiya 645AF 80mm F2,8 lens (not the newer model)  will be much better, as long as I can manual-focus it well. the question is - which adapter to use to mount it and whether focus confirmation and/or aperture will be working.

[theguywitha645d]

You would have to manually stop down the aperture. I would take the lens off your camera and see if the aperture blades close down with the aperture ring. There is no reason, beyond Nikon not allowing it, not to have focus confirmation.

But your 80mm is really not a substitute for a 50mm. It would be more of a short telephoto.

[ondebanks]

You would have to manually stop down the aperture. I would take the lens off your camera and see if the aperture blades close down with the aperture ring.

The problem is that Michael's talking about the AF lenses, which don't have an aperture ring. Same reason why I steered clear of Nikon "G" lenses; I wanted a real aperture ring so that I could also use them on Canon bodies.

I looked at MTF curves of various 50mm FF lenses and they are disappointing.

That is odd - 50mm lenses are among the best for 35mm FF. Maybe the MTF looked disappointing because it was for f1.4 or f1.8? Apples with apples (f2.8 ), the MTF should be at least as good as the Mamiya 80/2.8. BTW I looked into the Sigma 50/1.4 some time back, and learned that it's a stunner, certainly pipping the Canon and original Nikon 50/1.4 lenses at the wide stops.

Ray

[MichaelEzra]

Ray, thanks for pointing it out, I missed the f stop by the MTF chart, now it all makes better sense:)
Here are results from the http://www.slrgear.com for some of the 50mm lenses in Nikon mount

The bottom charts are from http://www.photozone.de

I do have Sigma EX 70mm F2.8 macro and it is an extremely sharp lens, thus I tend do believe results for Sigma EX 50mm F2.8 will have to try it out!

[BernardLanguillier]

Not an AF lens obviously, but I have been very happy about my Zeiss 50mm ZF f2.0 makro.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Conner999]

Use M645 glass on Canon FF and now on Nikon FF with great results. As stated above, you need a manual aperture control.  

With Canon you need a chipped adapter for focus confirm, with Nikon no need. Body treats like any Ai lens - but with manual stop down. Shoot Manual or AP. I just configure a custom lens in-camera that comes closests to the lens FL /max aperture -- and away you go. EXIF aperture stays at max as you stop down. Very good adapters are the Fotodiox Pro line. Have used for years with great results and no issues.

Favourite lenses that perform VERY well starting wide open (and in all cases match or beat some much more reknowned native-mount glass at same apertures):

80/1.9 C and N (prefer the lower contrast C),
120/4 (utterly amazing)
200/2.8Apo (shockingly good, but not best ergos on an SLR. If had DF/AFD would be a must-have - same for the 300/2.8 APO - excellent )
150/2.8A (awesome)
55/2.8 (excellent)
80/4 Macro (very good, but much prefer the 120)
80/2.8 (no brainer for the $$).

Have used T* Hassy F as well (such as 110/2 FE) via adapters, but prefer the lower contrast (I then salt to taste in post) M645 units.  

Have sold some of the units as had too much over-lap with other manual/AF  Nikon glass as made Canon -> Nikon shift (plus MF & Manual stop-down has limited suitability for my paid work), but two lenses I will NEVER sell are the 120/4 and 150A. Might actually secure another 80/1.9 before all the HDSLR users jack the prices up further if the right one arises.

On a side note, I actually sold my 70-200 VRII as I almost always used around 135mm+/- and prefered the side/side images taken with the 150A - despite the usability limitations the latter imposes vs the very good VRII, I couldn't justify the cost difference given how I shot the zoom.

On FM there's a LONG thread with sample images of M645 glass on DSLRs.  Like many posters above indicate -  a good lens is a good lens and some of the M645 units are VERY, VERY good. From a resolution perspective , if a lens performs well on a MFDB (obviously in center 24x36mm area) with a pitch of X, it will do as well on a FF SLR of a similar pitch (AA filter aside). Color/rendering firmware and CCD vs CMOS are another matter of course.

[Rob C]

Good luck with your project. Medium-format lens work really well on FF sensors and they can have better corners as well. It is a bit of a myth that larger format lenses do worse on smaller formats. Well made lenses still make great images.

Then doesn't it occur to anyone that all a lens maker would need to do, when designing for a different, smaller format, is crop down on the circle of a larger lens and save the work on all that new design?

As for better corners when using a larger format optic on a smaller format, what you are seeing is a more uniform spread of an inferior image. It is a frequent experience of people stepping from 35mm cameras to 6x7 that their expectations are somewhat dashed. They expect 35mm quality spread evenly over the 6x7 format, and they do not get that. I have owned new Bronica 6x7 and also new Pentax 6x7, but I always returned to Nikon.

Buy hey, it's your money - have your own experience!

;-)

Rob C

[ondebanks]

Then doesn't it occur to anyone that all a lens maker would need to do, when designing for a different, smaller format, is crop down on the circle of a larger lens and save the work on all that new design?

Rob, they certainly could. But would the users want to pay more for a larger, heavier, longer (more flange distance to make up) lens with that extra unused coverage? Optical constraints aren't the only ones.

The inherent/potential image circles of 35mm and MF lens designs from about 80mm and up are not that different. In the 35mm designs, mechanical bottlenecks in the lens-mount and mirror box, plus sometimes the use of smaller rear elements than the MF lens would use, truncate the image circle.

As an example, check out the current thread on getDPI where someone bravely adapted (hacked) a Zeiss 85/1.2 (35mm format lens) onto a Mamiya 645AFD. The lens has enough image circle to fill his 48x36mm digital back.

As for resolution, search around the 'net: you'll find people saying things like "On my 1Ds III, I tested the Mamiya 645 300/2.8 APO against the Canon 300/2.8 L IS; the Mamiya was better". Medium format macro lenses are sometimes preferred to the "native" 35mm mount macros too.

Ray

[Conner999]

As long as you don't get anything too obscure/rare, M645 glass is very inexpensive and a cheap love it/hate it/'it'll do in a pinch" experiment. If you love it, a collection can be built for modest coin. If you dislike it, selling it for what you paid will be of little issue.

Much like any lenses' rendering, it all comes down to personal taste and the desired look and feel of the output.

[alan_b]

+1 on the Zeiss 50/2 makro.  Also check out the Voigtlander 58/1.2 for a different look.

[ondebanks]

Favourite lenses that perform VERY well starting wide open (and in all cases match or beat some much more reknowned native-mount glass at same apertures):

80/1.9 C and N (prefer the lower contrast C),
120/4 (utterly amazing)
200/2.8Apo (shockingly good, but not best ergos on an SLR. If had DF/AFD would be a must-have - same for the 300/2.8 APO - excellent )
150/2.8A (awesome)
55/2.8 (excellent)
80/4 Macro (very good, but much prefer the 120)
80/2.8 (no brainer for the $$).

I'd agree with Conner999; my experiences are very similar (on a 5DII):

80/1.9 C - like a very mildly "soft focus" lens at f1.9 with some spherical aberration around a tight sharp PSF core, and the beginnings of coma in the corners. A whole different lens at f2.8, abbns are totally gone, outstanding over the full image field.
200/2.8 Apo - indeed, shockingly good. The best corrected lens I've ever used. Makes a fantastic compact APO telescope as well, and you can really push the magnification, especially when paired with the 2x N teleconverter.
55/2.8 N -  behaves like the 80/1.9, if you substitute f2.8->f4 for f1.9->f2.8. Higher contrast too.

and some others:

24/4 ULD fisheye - not the first lens you would think of for such a cropped format, but it gives interesting results and it is SO sharp even wide open (a moire machine on my 9 micron back)
35/3.5 N - a lot slower than 35mm-format offerings which go to 35/1.4, but it's excellent right from wide open (it definitely benefits from having its more aberrated outer field cropped by the small format)
110/2.8 N - a relatively uncommon lens but a real sleeper, I adore this at f2.8/f4 for portraits. And as Conner would say: a no brainer for the $$.

I've used some others only on 645 film (45/2.8 C, 150/3.5 C, 210/4 N), so I won't comment on them here.

Ray

[MichaelEzra]

Thank you all for your input!