Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 APO with Nikon D4

[Brian Hirschfeld]

While working on my in-depth review of my new Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 APO, I purchased and adapter which lets me use it on my Nikon's. I took some test shots with it available here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhirschfeldphotography/sets/72157629928720543/

Would anyone be interested in seeing IQ180 vs D800e , I thought that this would be any better then D800 since D800e lacks the anti-alaising filter like the IQ180. I also plan to do the test with and without the 2x TC, and hopefully do it in locations where i can move the camera to get the same framing for both bodies

[EricWHiss]

Thanks for sharing the images, Brian as I have an adapter to use the Mamiya lenses with my Canon DSLR but so far only have the 80 f/1.9 which I like.
I find the bokeh of the 300 in the far OOF areas distracting and unappealing unfortunately.

[ondebanks]

Thanks for posting the test images, Brian; they look crisp and aberration-free, as I'd expect from this lens (I own its little brother, the 200/2.8 APO).

I find the bokeh of the 300 in the far OOF areas distracting and unappealing unfortunately.

Looking at Brian's "original" size images, I think that's just the signature of pretty neutral bokeh, which is a sign of excellent spherical correction. Appealing bokeh generally comes from lenses which are under-corrected at that focal distance. The one complaint I'd have, looking at those images, is that the lens could do with more aperture blades to give rounder oof highlights when stopped down a little.

Ray

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Thanks guys, both the 80mm 1.9N and 200mm f/2.8 are on my hit list for the near future. I think the 80mm 1.9 is certainly something special on medium format but have never seen any images on a DSLR.

The 150mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8 and the (rare) 500mm f/5.6 APO's all seem to be great. I read someplace that the 150mm f/2.8 is in this series although I do not know if it contains APO elements. Haven't looked I do have some data on it but haven't gotten to it.

I personally like the bokeh of the 300mm f/2.8 wide open, but obviously, especially for this particular subject matter, as you stop down, of course gaining DOF and possibly some sharpness, the "bubbles" get smaller yet still perfectly round (or spherical sounds more intelligent ray ).

[ondebanks]

Thanks guys, both the 80mm 1.9N and 200mm f/2.8 are on my hit list for the near future. I think the 80mm 1.9 is certainly something special on medium format but have never seen any images on a DSLR.

I use the 80/1.9 on a 5DII - mainly astro but also snaps of my kids, etc. It has a nice look. Over on reddotforum they put it on a Leica S2, and said it's like a Summilux.

The 150mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8 and the (rare) 500mm f/5.6 APO's all seem to be great. I read someplace that the 150mm f/2.8 is in this series although I do not know if it contains APO elements. Haven't looked I do have some data on it but haven't gotten to it.

The 500mm APO is f/4.5 - not to be confused with the older non-APO 500mm f/5.6 "C" lens.

The 150/2.8 is a curious one. It is a member of the 1990s "A" series but it has no explicit "ULD" or "APO" in its naming, and it is not white-barrelled like the 200/300/500 APOs. Here and there though, you find references to it having some form of special low dispersion glass - see for example the PDF on the "N" lenses that I posted in the "Thoughts on the Leaf Credo" thread:
Using low-dispersion glass, this lens eliminates color blur on the image center or periphery due to color aberration, offering even more sharpness to the picture and its details.
If that's the case, then the fact that it sells for around $250 nowadays is just astounding.

I personally like the bokeh of the 300mm f/2.8 wide open, but obviously, especially for this particular subject matter, as you stop down, of course gaining DOF and possibly some sharpness, the "bubbles" get smaller yet still perfectly round (or spherical sounds more intelligent ray ).

Brian, I think your spherical is different to my spherical? I was talking about spherical abberration control (i.e. do light rays from all zones of the lens converge at the same point?), rather than the round shape of the oof highlights. Any circular pupil will give a round oof image, at least on-axis, but that's unconnected to how good or bad the abberrations are.

Ray

[Brian Hirschfeld]

It would help if I actually read, your right on the spherical.

Thank you for correcting me on the Mamiya 500mm, again apparently I wasn't paying too much attention.

I absolutely love these fast lenses on the Leica S2, those are the first I have seen of this lens, but I have also seen the Hasselblad 110mm f/2 and some other fast lenses on the S2 and I think they are absolutely gorgeous especially for some reason. It's interesting since it has a smaller sensor then IQ180 and other full-frame backs, yet the DOF doesn't suffer because of the slightly smaller sensor size (I think)

150mm f/2.8 is indeed something, especially compared to the AF version its certainly a steal (but then again this is the same for most of these lenses) also I found this site http://www.jafaphotography.com/mamiya_150mf.htm which says it has ULD, but I question some of its accuracy from other things said in this article and others.

[gerald.d]

Damn. I've been holding out picking up a 300/2.8 for a while now. Guess I'd better snap one up fast, since I'm guessing there might be a few people after one in the very near future

[Pesto]

For what it may be worth, I have been shooting with the 500 APO on a DF body. It is a great lens and is capable of producing beautiful images with my P40+ back.
It really does "snap into focus" as is said, especially at f/4.5 all the while being quite a tank to lug around... no carbon fiber here!
I recently posted some images on GETdpi if anyone is interested.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/4730-fun-mf-images-179.html

Douglas Benson.

[rogan]

Brian,
 Don't know where to ask this so I'll ask it here.....Are you a pro or what do you shoot? You seem to own every expensive camera known to man and have tons of opinions but I can never figure out in what context to put them. I don't know if you are a rich doctor that shots leaves, pro advertising photographer, wedding photographer, god knows what. You have so many optinions, some I agree with, others not so much but when I look at your links I get confused on what you are basing these on. I am not being rude(not intentionally anyway), just trying to understand what the opinions are based on. It's great when people share and appreciate you here but I have been dying of curiosity.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

For what it may be worth, I have been shooting with the 500 APO on a DF body. It is a great lens and is capable of producing beautiful images with my P40+ back.
It really does "snap into focus" as is said, especially at f/4.5 all the while being quite a tank to lug around... no carbon fiber here!
I recently posted some images on GETdpi if anyone is interested.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/4730-fun-mf-images-179.html

Douglas Benson.

Absolutely love those shots. Look amazing. Have you ever tried it with the 2x TC?

[Brian Hirschfeld]

organ check your pm. 

[Pesto]

Hello Brian,
Thanks for your kind words.
No, I have not tried the Mamiya 2X; as it is, this lens really begs for mirror up use which, of course, is rarely feasible shooting moving and uncooperative subjects. I think that the added magnification of the multiplier would create more of a challenge than I would wish to deal with... vibration at these magnifications with the high resolution backs has been a major problem in my experience.
While it would appear to be obvious, I should mention that the P1 DF, P40+, 500 APO combination is a very different animal than my D3x and 600 f/4.

[EricWHiss]

If you guys like the mamiya 300mm, you'd probably love the Schneider/Rollei 300mm.    I had to go back through my image catalog and compare some images taken with the Schneider 300mm f/4 for Rollei against these images taken with the Mamiya 300.     I knew I didn't like look of those mamiya 300mm images but it was hard to put my finger on why exactly.  After comparing images I have a better idea.  The bokeh of the Schneider is very smooth and not distracting.  The mamiya has hard edges and a strong look to the bokeh which competes for attention.   But why would you want the background to be competing for attention if you are using a fast lens to isolate the subject in focus?  The schneider renders both foreground and background OOF areas or bokeh significantly better - smoother with no hard edges or double edges (all of course IMHO) than the mamiya.  Plus the mamiya suffers from specular flare - take a look at the large floating circle images of the aperture shape in many of Brian's test shots.  I guess it's a personal opinion but I don't like those large 'bubbles' at all. 

[henrikfoto]

The Pics from the Mamiya looks a bit like mirror-lenses, with the sircular out of focus rendering.
I like it in a way, but it can be destracting in some images. For me it has an "old" look to it.

Henrik

[ondebanks]

If you guys like the mamiya 300mm, you'd probably love the Schneider/Rollei 300mm.    I had to go back through my image catalog and compare some images taken with the Schneider 300mm f/4 for Rollei against these images taken with the Mamiya 300.     I knew I didn't like look of those mamiya 300mm images but it was hard to put my finger on why exactly.  After comparing images I have a better idea.  The bokeh of the Schneider is very smooth and not distracting.  The mamiya has hard edges and a strong look to the bokeh which competes for attention.   But why would you want the background to be competing for attention if you are using a fast lens to isolate the subject in focus?  The schneider renders both foreground and background OOF areas or bokeh significantly better - smoother with no hard edges or double edges (all of course IMHO) than the mamiya.  Plus the mamiya suffers from specular flare - take a look at the large floating circle images of the aperture shape in many of Brian's test shots.  I guess it's a personal opinion but I don't like those large 'bubbles' at all. 

I went back to Brian's images again and examined every one closely. There is NO evidence of "specular flare". The "large floating circle images of the aperture shape" are not lens flare artefacts; they are real scene features (patches of light filtering through the leaves) rendered oof.

But I won't argue whether the 300/2.8 bokeh could be nicer - it could be.

It's great to hear that the Rollei lens is so good, for the Rollei/Hy6 platform. It's just a pity that those lenses can't be usefully adapted to other systems (the flange distance is fine, but there's no way to control the aperture...so not even the Chinese have come up with an adapter).

But hey, if you want a 300/4 lens with less distracting bokeh, and you shoot with a Mamiya (or Pentax or Contax), all is not lost! It's hard to beat the bokeh - and you certainly can't beat the price - of the CZJ MC Sonnar 300/4. Image quality in the plane of focus is also very uniform, right into the corners.

Below is an astonishingly boring photo that I took on a dismally grey day with the 300mm at f4 (well, I sought out another "tree in front of trees" photo to match Brian's, and this was all that I had taken with the Sonnar). Anyway, I show it here because I think that the bokeh ain't bad.

That said, the 300/2.8 is on my "some day" list to replace my 300mm Sonnar, because it is f2.8 and a full-on APO. Rear bokeh just doesn't come into the realm of astrophotography    And my 200/2.8 makes a super, portable telescope, so the 300/2.8 would be even better: in visual astronomy, linear aperture matters bigtime, and 107mm beats 71mm handily -  good big 'un beats a good little 'un, as they say.

Ray

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I went back to Brian's images again and examined every one closely. There is NO evidence of "specular flare". The "large floating circle images of the aperture shape" are not lens flare artefacts; they are real scene features (patches of light filtering through the leaves) rendered oof.

That's very true, and I was surprised why people were comparing it to a mirror lens. It was interesting lighting conditions with sun-setting light coming through the tress and interacting with the leaves. Possibly not the best for a test of the bokeh, which is my fault. That said there were a few others in there which had "better" lighting and backgrounds.

I'd love to see some samples you guys have from your 300mm's. Maybe I should start a new thread? I absolutely love the 300mm focal length on medium format film and digital, and some of my best (I think) medium format images have been taken on 300mm.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhirschfeldphotography/sets/72157629770554479/

These are two of my favorite images of mine taken with a Hasselblad H2 / P65+ and / Hasselblad HC300mm.

[EricWHiss]

What I'm calling specular flare is the images of the aperture blades that is created by small streams of off axis light coming through the holes in the trees etc.  I think this is what has been referred to as 'bubbles'.   Some of them are quite small but a few are quite large.  First off they cover up detail in the image and secondly they signal the viewer that he/she is viewing a photo instead of letting them imagine they are seeing through a window into reality.   That's one big reason I don't like them, but as you can't exactly control where they fall, the 'bubbles' can cover up detail.   I'd much prefer to have none of those bubbles, specular flare, or whatever you wish to call it.   One thing I have wondered about is if these are worse with digital sensors than with film?   Are they created in the lens or from light coming through the lens and bouncing off of the sensor and then back off the lens to the sensor?

btw - I could not post the 300mm Rollei Schneider samples I referenced but will try to dig up some that I can share.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Cool, would love to see the samples. And it sort of makes sense that these could be more of an issue with high-resolution digital sensors, but I don't know enough about the topic to properly comment. I'm sure someone here does though....

[EricWHiss]

Not just high res sensors.  Most digital sensors are more reflective than film was...

[ondebanks]

What I'm calling specular flare is the images of the aperture blades that is created by small streams of off axis light coming through the holes in the trees etc.  I think this is what has been referred to as 'bubbles'.   Some of them are quite small but a few are quite large.  First off they cover up detail in the image and secondly they signal the viewer that he/she is viewing a photo instead of letting them imagine they are seeing through a window into reality.   That's one big reason I don't like them, but as you can't exactly control where they fall, the 'bubbles' can cover up detail.   I'd much prefer to have none of those bubbles, specular flare, or whatever you wish to call it.   One thing I have wondered about is if these are worse with digital sensors than with film?   Are they created in the lens or from light coming through the lens and bouncing off of the sensor and then back off the lens to the sensor?

This is a very common phenomenon in photography; I am really surprised that it is generating confusion. Looks like a little lecture is required!

• You cannot do anything about the dimensions and brightness of these "bubbles" (I prefer "disks") of defocused light - you can't fight optical physics.
• Every lens at the same f-stop and focal length would produce them on these scenes - it's nothing to do with who makes the lens - Mamiya, Schneider or whoever -, and these are not "artefacts" that some lens designs would produce, while better ones would not.
• They are part of the scene, part of the background. Expecting them to not be there "covering up detail" is like expecting that if you shoot a portrait of a person standing in front of a building, then the building would have magically disappeared in the recorded image!
• Their size varies only with the chosen lens f-stop and how far out of focus they are (the greater the distance of the light source from the plane that is being focused on, the larger they are).
• They are not due to some "off-axis" cause: the light is not coming from outside the image FOV, and a source which is exactly on-axis (bang in the middle of the photo) but behind the plane of focus would produce exactly the same thing.
• They are not reflections of any sort.
• They would be equally visible regardless of the medium (film or digital) - and regardless of its resolution.
• As for the impression of viewing a photo vs viewing reality: our eyes don't behave like this anyway (they don't have the narrow field of a telephoto, and they cannot produce such extreme selective focus), so I don't think that anyone looking at this sort of photo could ever regard it as being like viewing reality through a window. On the contrary, it always seemed to me that strong selective focus is powerful precisely because it is not what our eyes are accustomed to seeing.

The only thing one can hope for, is that the edges of the oof disks are circular, soft and blend smoothly into everything they overlap with in the image. In other words, the quality of the bokeh can be better, but the presence and dimensions of it cannot be diminished, except by stopping down (which would kill the whole deliberate look of very selective focus).

Ray