Happiness is a sharp lens

[BillOConnor]

I mostly shoot paintings for my daily bread, but never in a studio and often in terrible situations, like large paintings on the wall in a corner. Often enough, not even my 80mm lens is wide enough on my P65+/Mamiya AFDII, so I've been using a 55mm AF lens that is good but not great. From this forum, I heard many of you sing the virtues of the 50mm shift lens, so when one showed up at a decent price, I jumped. I had to use it Saturday without even an informal test. WOW! I think it is as sharp as my 120 Macro, no formal results available, just my eyes.

Here's a jpeg.

Bill

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Thats nice, good example too, thanks.

[sbernthal]

How do you light it?

[tom_l]

Same story here too;-)))
most people think a scanning  (or multishot) back is the way to go, in a perfectly lit studio. Real life condition are often very different, artwork is sometimes displayed in a corner, or near a south-side window, stairways, you're not allowed to take it off the wall, you only have 30 minutes for a single shot in a castle, palace, or building with high security and also often bad electric installations. (at least in good old Europe).
Plenty 100 reasons to choose a 1-shot system (P25, now IQ160) that gets to job done.
Indeed, 90% of the time, the Zeiss 120mm is my lens to go, but I never travel without a CF 50mm Zeiss (unfortunately the weakest link in my lens bag) and a Nikon T/S.

Great picture btw


Tom

[BillOConnor]

How do I light it? Boy is that the $64,000 question? From both sides until I run out of room and then from one side and use the graduated filter function in Camera Raw. It's a bitch, but it can work if I use my flash meter more than I'd like.
It's funny, I spent a day and half on a huge Alfred Bierstadt and didn't get it. It was too complex an image. I was humiliated. A couple of weeks and several dozen paintings later, I returned to it, with no real plan. Somehow, it fell into place. It's so amazing how our brains work on problems when we don't realize it.

Bill

[mediumcool]

It’s a very good lens (I have one) but it has some barrel distortion, happily not the moustache distortion of the ugly duckling that is the 35mm f3.5.

[BillOConnor]

I must have gotten very lucky with my eBay 35mm f3.5. It has its issues, but nothing I can't live with. The distortion is mild, the CA is mild. From what I'm hearing, I'd better hold onto it.
Here is a shot I wouldn't have gotten with a tech camera. The light was falling too fast.

Bill O'Connor

[mediumcool]

I must have gotten very lucky with my eBay 35mm f3.5. It has its issues, but nothing I can't live with. The distortion is mild, the CA is mild. From what I'm hearing, I'd better hold onto it.
Here is a shot I wouldn't have gotten with a tech camera. The light was falling too fast.

Bill O'Connor

Bill, the lens formula has never been changed (lens body certainly and coatings maybe); there was a long thread on GetDPI where I think I made myself quite unpopular by pointing out the lack of cloth covering the emperor (these days, is the emperor Mamiya or Phase One?). Visible distortion depends on the subject matter; if the photographer shoots non-linear subjects, or does it diagonally, distortion on the 35/3.5 is often not easy to see, but it is always there. BTW, I got mine cheap on eBay too, and got some nice results out of it.

[henrikfoto]

I mostly shoot paintings for my daily bread, but never in a studio and often in terrible situations, like large paintings on the wall in a corner. Often enough, not even my 80mm lens is wide enough on my P65+/Mamiya AFDII, so I've been using a 55mm AF lens that is good but not great. From this forum, I heard many of you sing the virtues of the 50mm shift lens, so when one showed up at a decent price, I jumped. I had to use it Saturday without even an informal test. WOW! I think it is as sharp as my 120 Macro, no formal results available, just my eyes.

Here's a jpeg.

Bill

Hi!

Nice photo, but what 50mm shift lens is this?

Henrik

[mediumcool]

Mamiya, in 645 mount. Ex. lens.

[gerald.d]

Bill, the lens formula has never been changed (lens body certainly and coatings maybe); there was a long thread on GetDPI where I think I made myself quite unpopular by pointing out the lack of cloth covering the emperor (these days, is the emperor Mamiya or Phase One?). Visible distortion depends on the subject matter; if the photographer shoots non-linear subjects, or does it diagonally, distortion on the 35/3.5 is often not easy to see, but it is always there. BTW, I got mine cheap on eBay too, and got some nice results out of it.

Interesting reading that thread.

As I've mentioned (probably on more than one occassion!), I'm very reluctant to fork out thousands for modern so-called "digital" lenses, if I can pick up an equally well performing old manual lens for a tenth of the price.

I should point out that for my use, AF is of little value (particularly considering how poor the AF is on the Phase One cameras compared to what I'm used to with the Canon 1D Mk IV). Perhaps if a new camera from Phase One massively improves the AF functionality, then I might consider the AF lenses being worthwhile, but until then, I'm happy to stick with the old lenses IF the optical quality is up to scratch.

So far I've picked up a 150 3.5, 80/1.9, 50 shift, 200/2.8 and 300/2.8. I'm holding off on anything wider as I am pretty certain I'll be going down the HCam/Canon TS-E route for that. Need to fill in the 120 gap with a macro, and I'd love to have the 120 TS, but apart from that, I'm almost done for focal lengths above 50.

What I don't understand is the outcome of the thread you linked to re the 35mm, and what it means for the claims of Phase One's CTO -

"his new Phase One 35D uses the optical design of the previous lens as its starting point, so is not strictly a new design. However, its optics have been recalculated to optimise it for digital use. There are in fact significant changes to it."

Is this, to put it bluntly, a load of bull then? Absolutely disgraceful state of affairs if this is the case.

[mediumcool]

Interesting reading that thread.

What I don't understand is the outcome of the thread you linked to re the 35mm, and what it means for the claims of Phase One's CTO -

"his new Phase One 35D uses the optical design of the previous lens as its starting point, so is not strictly a new design. However, its optics have been recalculated to optimise it for digital use. There are in fact significant changes to it."

Is this, to put it bluntly, a load of bull then? Absolutely disgraceful state of affairs if this is the case.

Pek pek bilong bullmacow is New Guinea pidgin for “bullshit” (I spent some time in Port Moresby in 1970–71 and remember some of the lingo); exceedingly appropriate in this context. And Doug Peterson’s post is quietly compelling. Also this from me last January.

[mediumcool]

Having said that, I have got some very nice pix from my el-cheapo 35N.

[BillOConnor]

My favorite 35mm slr lens for my Phase One back is undoubtedly the new Zeiss lens for the Hy6. Uh-oh, it's not out yet, may never be, Phase One backs don't go onto the Hy6, and it will be a FORTUNE.
Hell, guess I'll have to muddle through with my flawed Mamiya lens.
BTW you mentioned pincushion distortion with the 50 shift, I don't think I own a Mamiya lens that doesn't have some pincushion or barrel distortion. Now the lenses for my GX680? None, though I don't own the Fuji 50mm and probably won't.

Bill

[mediumcool]

My favorite 35mm slr lens for my Phase One back is undoubtedly the new Zeiss lens for the Hy6. Uh-oh, it's not out yet, may never be, Phase One backs don't go onto the Hy6, and it will be a FORTUNE.
Hell, guess I'll have to muddle through with my flawed Mamiya lens.
BTW you mentioned pincushion distortion with the 50 shift, I don't think I own a Mamiya lens that doesn't have some pincushion or barrel distortion. Now the lenses for my GX680? None, though I don't own the Fuji 50mm and probably won't.

Bill

I recently sold my Toyo view camera and Rodenstock lens because I have mobility problems, and would probably never have used it outside without difficulty and angst, considered a GX680 as a replacement to use with my Leaf back (alongside the AFD), but decided that was too heavy too. Lovely lenses though!

Speaking of 35mm lenses, the old Pentax MF lens is pretty good, and I have thought of getting a Bronica 40mm to use with an adapter on the Mamiya.

[Rob C]

I recently sold my Toyo view camera and Rodenstock lens because I have mobility problems, and would probably never have used it outside without difficulty and angst, considered a GX680 as a replacement to use with my Leaf back (alongside the AFD), but decided that was too heavy too. Lovely lenses though!

Speaking of 35mm lenses, the old Pentax MF lens is pretty good, and I have thought of getting a Bronica 40mm to use with an adapter on the Mamiya.

Take care: during my mid-life crisis I went from 500 C/M to Bronica 67 (GS1 or something) and bought the 50, 100 and 250 optics for it, the whole kit being brand new. It didn't flourish as a relationship: I could never get the MU to work, the 50 was crap and the 100 was good but the 250 was just not anything special, and having bought it, the 250, to shoot models, it turned out to be too slow in both senses. Also, the film refused to lie flat in the frame.

Rob C

[mediumcool]

Take care: during my mid-life crisis I went from 500 C/M to Bronica 67 (GS1 or something) and bought the 50, 100 and 250 optics for it, the whole kit being brand new. It didn't flourish as a relationship: I could never get the MU to work, the 50 was crap and the 100 was good but the 250 was just not anything special, and having bought it, the 250, to shoot models, it turned out to be too slow in both senses. Also, the film refused to lie flat in the frame.

Rob C

Rob, I quite liked the idea of the GS1 (big neg in a [relatively] lightweight camera) but knew no-one here in SA who had one, so never did get one (demo stock was hard to find to try gear out); I did buy a Bronica SQ-A (square) kit for a very good price—50, 80 and 150, body, AE prism and lever-wind grip for something like $800 in the ’80s—and it worked well, but the 40mm PS lens for the same cameras had a very good rep, not far off the SWC’s 38mm Biogon.

However, using PTLens to fix the weird distortion, and with the help of a bit of *sharpness falloff* in Capture One means I can with some effort put out work from the 35 Mamiya that can be quite acceptable.

[ondebanks]

As I've mentioned (probably on more than one occassion!), I'm very reluctant to fork out thousands for modern so-called "digital" lenses, if I can pick up an equally well performing old manual lens for a tenth of the price.

I should point out that for my use, AF is of little value (particularly considering how poor the AF is on the Phase One cameras compared to what I'm used to with the Canon 1D Mk IV). Perhaps if a new camera from Phase One massively improves the AF functionality, then I might consider the AF lenses being worthwhile, but until then, I'm happy to stick with the old lenses IF the optical quality is up to scratch.

Hi Gerald,

That's exactly my position as well. I had Mamiya 645 as a film platform since the early '90s, so I had some excellent manual lenses like the 35 N, 55 N, 80/1.9 C and 200/2.8 APO, with my range extended by 2x N TC and the best P6/Kiev lenses on adapters (30mm fisheye, 300/4 Sonnar). Went to digital/AF on a budget 2 years ago (645AFD + Kodak DCS 645M back) and got only one AF lens for it, the 55-110/4.5 zoom. So where I need speed and convenience (digital + AF + zoom), like a family event, I'm covered adequately with that one AF lens. For everything else, it's manual focus primes all the way.

I have since then added a couple more - 110/2.8 N and 24/4 ULD fisheye. Excellent and incredible, respectively.

So far I've picked up a 150 3.5, 80/1.9, 50 shift, 200/2.8 and 300/2.8. I'm holding off on anything wider as I am pretty certain I'll be going down the HCam/Canon TS-E route for that. Need to fill in the 120 gap with a macro, and I'd love to have the 120 TS, but apart from that, I'm almost done for focal lengths above 50.

My next targets are the 120/4 macro, 300/2.8, and a 45/2.8 because sometimes the 35 is too slow and the 55 is not wide enough. Then I think I'll be just about done. Not particularly interested in shift applications so I think I'll skip the 50/4. Am curious about the 145/4 soft focus though, just for the fun of it. There are three 500mm lenses to choose from, but in that regime I think I'm better served by an APO telescope.

When I look at the entire AF lens lineup, there really is nothing that leaps out at me saying "you want me, don't you?!".
- Especially because none of them is faster in aperture than their manual focus counterparts, and several (80, 200/210, 300) are actually slower.
- I don't need fast leaf shutter flash synch.
- Whatever improvements there may be to corner performance, in say the 45/2.8 D, don't matter to my small-crop current DB.
- And a big, big, BIG turn-off is not being able to mount the AF lenses on a 35mm DSLR (my Zoerk adapter won't fit the wider AF flange) - and not being able to control their apertures even if I could mount them. Whereas the manual lenses work great on my 5DII.

Ray

[mediumcool]

Am curious about the 145/4 soft focus though, just for the fun of it.
Ray

I had the 145SF, but didn’t use it in the twelve months in my possession, so sold it. Difficult to focus too …

[mediumcool]

Two pics made with the 35/3.5 Mamiya.

http://mlkshk.com/p/BX7I

http://mlkshk.com/p/DHEP

Click through to see a larger image.