Mamiya 645 Sekor C 500/5.6: Budget bird photography?

[leebert]

I'm currently shooting with a 645 Mamiya Sekor 300/5.6 ULD ($150, street) & having generally good results w/ a 24MP base-model DSLR (D3200), works well with my vintage Nikkor 1.4x TC. The D3200's crop Optical viewfinder isn't such a friend for such long work (I can shoot down into the pixels w/ the 300/5.6 ULD), so I'm looking at going over to a Sony EVIL body with focus peaking & sensor IS.

But even so, birds hate people & so I need more reach. So instead of going over to digiscoping, I'm looking at getting even longer vintage medium format glass. I had contemplated the rb67 350/5.6 APO, but after finding a few hard-to-find reviews**  I've been eyeing the Sekor C 500/5.6.

Am I nuts, or for $450 - $550 can I do better with a different long lens?

**   Mentioned in TLL article by M. Reichmann,  Mamiya 500 F5.6 on 5DII , & an older review  on a 10MP Canon D40x
& ...
Stilt & chickee



SO:

• It's a beast, a bit hefty at 2.2kg (1.5kg more than the 300)
  
• It suffers CA & has a MFD of 29' (9 meters). I can bring it in to 22'/7.5m with an extension tube & add UV & ND filters.
  
• It's reputed as keeping sharp even with the Mamiya 2X TC
  (given proper handling, & it's gotta be a real Mamiya TC, not the "Teleplus" POS I've tried ).
  
• I believe it's only "C" glass, but Adorama says it's ULD glass
  
• It's essentially a 6/5-group telescope but a bit shorter than the vintage (but wonderful) Leica 500/6.8.
  
• I've seen some bad samples OL of people trying this lens, looking really soft (bad copies?), but I'm attributing that to poor telephoto handling.
  
• I need sharp IQ over color correctness. I can handle CA in post.
  
  

But the price is right ($450).

[ondebanks]

I've been in a similar position to you about this lens, tempted to buy, wondering how good it is and not sure what to make of the clearly divergent sample photos online.

I have a Mamiya 645 ProTL system brochure which says "The C 500mm f/5.6 uses ultra-low dispersion glass to give superior resolution in a long telephoto design." That seems to be conclusive as to the use of special ULD glass at least somewhere in the optical design. But then you see some sample DSLR photos with pretty strong CA and you wonder...

Of the C ULD 300/5.6 N, the brochure says "The 300 f/5.6 performs extremely well at all apertures due to the use of Mamiya's ultra-low dispersion glass to eliminate chromatic abberation". Note the word eliminate, which is not used in the 500/5.6 description.

The C 500/5.6 may be in the same category as the 150/2.8 A lens, of which the same brochure says "The A 150mm f/2.8 is a high speed telephoto utilizing Mamiya's ultra-low dispersion glass for superior performance at all apertures." I have that lens, and it's very nice, but wide open, it is not in the same league for CA as my 200/2.8 APO. The C ULD 105-210/4.5 zoom I have is also better on CA than the 150/2.8 (OK, it's also slower wide open). And I have one other ULD-marked lens, the 24/4 ULD fisheye, which exhibits no axial CA to my eyes, only slight lateral CA well off-axis.

So I think I sense a pattern in Mamiya's lineup:
(1) Lenses labelled as APO have fully corrected CA (and SA)
(2) Lenses labelled as ULD have very highly corrected CA...I would compare these lenses to "ED" designs in telescopes/camera lenses.
(3) Lenses without ULD labelling, but referencing the use of ULD glass in their descriptions, have well corrected CA (better than say, a simple achromatic doublet refracting telescope, or a bog-standard telephoto of the 1970s), but it is still apparent on many subjects.

There has to be an exception of course, and it's the A 120/4 macro. This is presented as a type (3) lens [no labelling, just a description: "formulation of high density/low and ultra-low dispersion glass"] but it has delivered type (1) APO-like performance in my usage so far.

Anyway, for now, I've held off on the C 500/5.6. The best results I've seen from it are lunar pics here (scroll down past the bug macro shots), which are really impressive (at f/8), but I am wary of how much they may have been processed for the web; a good trick for CA-afflicted shots of the moon is to just pull out the green channel and convert that to B&W, and that might be the case here.

I'm also intrigued by the potential of the RB/RZ 500/6 APO (full APO!) with a Fotodiox adapter, but you're talking ~2.5 times the price.

Ray

[leebert]

There has to be an exception of course, and it's the A 120/4 macro. This is presented as a type (3) lens [no labelling, just a description: "formulation of high density/low and ultra-low dispersion glass"] but it has delivered type (1) APO-like performance in my usage so far.

I've read elsewhere of the apo-grade IQ of that lens.

Anyway, for now, I've held off on the C 500/5.6.

The "Retired Photographer" link (above) he mentions not being able to reach infinity with the 500/5.6 on his Canon crop body, but says it's sharp otherwise. I generally forego infinity shooting (esp. with extension tubes) but the 500 might change my tune.

Generally speaking I rarely run into CA with the 300 ULD, but when I do it's the typical bad shot, wide open, dark figure against sky. I tend to shoot stopped down to f/8 or f/11 with the 300 ULD.

Otherwise I have a couple of simple tests for sharpness that clear up a lens' general IQ fairly fast ... one is shooting for the pixels on an LCD monitor, the other is detail in a feather duster. Where birds are unforgiving is detail. Slight astigmatism / radial aberration less so, esp. since I'm shooting w/ a crop 35mm sensor. Perhaps the CA gets worse toward the edges.

I'm also intrigued by the potential of the RB/RZ 500/6 APO (full APO!) with a Fotodiox adapter, but you're talking ~2.5 times the price.

Ray

Price, but also weight & stability.

The rb67 350/5.6 apo has tempted me but it weighs in the same as the 500/5.6. Even if the bellows-replacement helicoid brings more stability to the rig, it all still looks a bit Rube Goldberg-ish... I need to be able to carry it on levies, on & off the tripod.

I'm shooting cheap digital so I can get away with a variety of techniques ... bursting w/ focus rocking is the biggie, f/8 - f/11 on bright subjects limited by ISO 400 (800 is noisy on the base-model Nikon). Taking things slow (drats!) I'll probably get a proper Mamiya 2X TC first, try it out on the 300 ULD. It's got room for 1.7x (but Nikkor 1.7x TCs don't come cheap), maybe it'll drive 2x OK? That and some loupes & an eye cup.

The Kingfisher was shot w/ the 300/5.6 w/ a vintage Nikkor 1.4x TC from about 15m.

/lee

[ondebanks]

Otherwise I have a couple of simple tests for sharpness that clear up a lens' general IQ fairly fast ... one is shooting for the pixels on an LCD monitor, the other is detail in a feather duster. Where birds are unforgiving is detail. Slight astigmatism / radial aberration less so, esp. since I'm shooting w/ a crop 35mm sensor. Perhaps the CA gets worse toward the edges.

I guess we select test subjects to match our shooting experience, and principal usage. My favoured lens tests are starfields (when the sky is clear) and distant city lights, tilting the camera to run the urban horizon diagonally corner-to-corner. I haven't been entirely rigorous in doing this though: I have a backlog of lens acquisitions to put through the city lights test, but I already am fairly confident about how they perform from just using them.

The rb67 350/5.6 apo has tempted me but it weighs in the same as the 500/5.6. Even if the bellows-replacement helicoid brings more stability to the rig, it all still looks a bit Rube Goldberg-ish... I need to be able to carry it on levies, on & off the tripod.

It looks sturdy enough to me. I suppose the main issue for you is that 350/5.6 is very close to your existing 300/5.6. But the MTF chart for the 350/5.6 APO is off the scale...best of all the RB/RZ lenses, among the best I've seen for medium format in general, which (for the few here who just don't value MTF charts  ) would translate into superb feather detail and tone/colour contrast on your birds. It helps to know these things when making a decision.

I'll probably get a proper Mamiya 2X TC first, try it out on the 300 ULD. It's got room for 1.7x (but Nikkor 1.7x TCs don't come cheap), maybe it'll drive 2x OK?

The Mamiya 2x is compatible with the 300 ULD. It is not compatible with M645 lenses shorter than 140mm because its protruding front element collides with their rear elements (at least when they are focused to infinity).
 

The Kingfisher was shot w/ the 300/5.6 w/ a vintage Nikkor 1.4x TC from about 15m.

So 420/8 overall...not bad as it is not a matched TC. I don't see CA, anyway.

/lee
[/quote]

[leebert]

It looks sturdy enough to me. I suppose the main issue for you is that 350/5.6 is very close to your existing 300/5.6. But the MTF chart for the 350/5.6 APO is off the scale...best of all the RB/RZ lenses, among the best I've seen for medium format in general, which (for the few here who just don't value MTF charts  ) would translate into superb feather detail and tone/colour contrast on your birds. It helps to know these things when making a decision.

Was it this MTF chart?

http://www.xpan.se/DailyPhotoDiary/2012-12/custom/033.html

Flat curves!? Never have I seen such! OK, so this is what they mean by MTF performance.

Coupled with the right mirrorless camera, it might prove as powerful in terms of reach.

Some facts:

RB67 350/5.6 Apo:

• Availability of a RZ67 1.4x teleconverter. Some dremmel work is required, however to adapt it to an rb67 lens.
• Weighs 2/3rds of the 645 500/5.6 (3/4's w/ the Fotodiox helicoid adapter)
• Min. focal distance of 3 meters, which is better than the 300/5.6 ULD (4m) & waaay better than the 500/5.6's 9 meters(!)
• Wonderful lens, super-sharp (your MTF cite). The 645 500/5.6 appears to work fine with 35mm full frame, but suffers in terms of CA.
• Not as ridiculously LONG as the 500.

Now I contacted one of the 500/5.6 reviewers & he commented he got fine results with his Sony Alpha A7R, but that's a full frame sensor at 41 lp/mm (it has a .80 crop factor vs. a Canon FF sensor). So the 500/5.6 is probably well suited to that FF sensor, and in fact, it might be best-suited to full frame sensors b/c it'll resolve above the 50 lp/mm typical of FF 35mm sensors. Judging from so many soft examples online of people shooting with that lens, I have my doubts that it can surpass the 85 lp/mm densities of crop sensors, netting a loss, not a gain.  

What this means for the rb67 350/5.6 APO:

• When a lens' MTF curves stand out, we're usually talking 100+ lp/mm. And a crop sensors' 1.5x finer grained photosites afford an advantage with seriously sharp glass
• 500mm vs. 350mm, the factor is 1.4x. Against the 645 500/5.6, the rb67 350 apo may well carry its own weight, and more (color correctness, etc.)

But still, I need a better camera body, so I'm looking at working with an EVIL (Electronic viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) camera body.

The Sony lineup is dominated by crop-sensored EVIL & SLT camera bodies. The Sony Alpha A58 (affordable at $450, street) has both focus-peaking & sensor-shift. It's about 10% shy of the Nikon D3300's sensor density. Sony's A6000 lacks sensor-shift, but its IQ is superior in almost every regard to the base-model Nikon sensors (even though its sensor is 6% less densely packed).

About using 35mm-format crop cameras:

Oranges-to-tangelos, a good 24MP crop sensor vs. a first-rate 34MP FF sensor, the 22% you gain in photosite magnification (3.5 micron vs. 4.5 micron) comes vs. the 33% more pixels in the FF sensor. For now the current pile of 24MP crop sensors basically loses 11% in the bargain.

And although crop sensors get maligned (as do 35mm FF sensors by MF photographers ), you won't hear it from birders. Sure we could really use the extra 2 stops of DR & lower noise (oh but for more shoulder in zones 1 & 9!), but reach is the biggest problem going for us. That said, we ain't landscape artists (although sometimes we'll shoot a sunset with a bird flying in front of it ).

Now for real esoterica there are the digiscopers & astro geeks with their afocal eyepiece projection onto front-irised wide-angle & macro lenses. What originally got me wise to Mamiya glass was reading up on digiscoping & I ran into an amateur astronomer happily using a Mamiya 645 300/2.8 APO as an astrograph.

/lee

[Geods]

I'd recommend the Nikon 1 system for birding. Combining the V3 with their new 70-300 makes for a light weight super reaching system with blazing speed that will make a nice 11x14. if I were a sports photographer, I'd have this system which is plenty good for magazine sized images. If I needed larger prints than MFD is the system of choice.

[leebert]

I'd recommend the Nikon 1 system for birding. Combining the V3 with their new 70-300 makes for a light weight super reaching system with blazing speed that will make a nice 11x14. if I were a sports photographer, I'd have this system which is plenty good for magazine sized images. If I needed larger prints than MFD is the system of choice.

Good point. I'd absolutely have to rely on AF to reliably exploit that camera body, or its EVF is very high-res & zooms readily.

I'd originally looked at the Nikon 1 V3 & dpreview pointed out IQ was a great deal rougher than the mid-range Sony APS-C. I suspect one reason is the 2.56 micron photosites on the V3 (2.72 crop factor, 18 MP). I'll double check w/ DXOMark & see what they have to say about the IQ on that sensor.

True, its 150 lp/mm is 2.5x the resolution density of a 24 MP FF w/ 60 lp/mm. But compare that to APS-C crop (DX) at 90 lp/mm, 1.6x. So the 70-300mm would have to be able to cover FF, crop to CX, *and* shoot like a 750/5.6 on a CX sensor. I suspect the functional resolution might bring that down quite a bit, esp. if that zoom starts to soften toward the end.

• If any consumer-grade Nikkor zoom can meet the CX sensor's 150 lp/mm I'd be surprised.
• We were in fact hoping to either do better than 11x14 or have more latitude in crop.
• I'd rather not carry around an automated AF/VR zoom, not in the marshes. Low maintenance is another criterion.
• The Nikon V1's don't have IBIS or focus peaking which pretty much makes using any other manual lenses I have as difficult as using a DSLR w/ an OVF
• Full kit comes to about $2000, lens + body.

Still, that's a helluvalota reach vs. full frame 35mm format & the crop might more than make up for it even versus APS-C.

OTOH WRT the previously mentioned RZ67 350/5.6 APO ...

• The RZ 1.4x TC brings the 350 to 490, but pushes it to f/8
• APS-C Sensors resolve to ~90 lp/mm ... if the 350/5.6 APO resolves to 120 lp/mm I'm in business even with the 1.4x TC
• The RZ67 lenses are mechanically simple (to say the very least!) ... So ... easy to repair, dry & irradiate (I have a Japanese UV-C shoe sterilizer )
• Sony bodies w/ IBIS & focus-peaking addresses the use of other vintage manual lens
• Full kit: $450 lens, $150 TC, $500 body: $1100

And I generally like vintage Mamiya 645 glass otherwise.

Some birders also use the eentsy teentsy Pentax Q, sports focus-peaking & IBIS. At 230 lp/mm its resolving power is theoretically 3.8x that of a 60 lp/mm FF ... so a 300mm could theoretically achieve 1100mm equivalent reach, etc.

Head-to-head there's a birder-oriented vid of using the Pentax Q w/ the Canon 400, against a GH3 & a Canon APS-C. Crop-to-crop the IQ really does fall down w/ the Q, probably suffering from being a 12 MP sensor out-resolving the lens (never mind noisier sensor, less DR). At 12 MP it's strictly pre-cropped SOOC relative to the other cameras. The micro 4/3rd GH3 in that demo came out ahead, a bit.

[tochnia]

I have Mamiya 500/5.6 and even I have only done some tests with it /due to lack of suitable tripod head until recently/, here are is my opinion:

- Lens is very long and heavy, so handheld it would be impossible for use /unless you are "Rambo" type shooter/
- Due to size and weight it require very good tripod and head - I'm very happy with Manfrotto 393 Gimbal head which match it perfectly
- Again due to size and weight, good results are obatained with mirror lock-up or timer shooting, or very high shutter speed (1/1000s or more)
- Lens is a little bit on soft side wide open at 5.6, but gets sharp immediatelly at 8.0
- Using 1.4X or 2.0X Nikon convertor produce good result if lens is closed at f11 (not so good at f8), so this is limiting to quite static objects shooting
- Minimum focus distance of 9m is quite limiting, so it is better to think about extension rings

My test were done with Nikon D800 /36mp/, strictly on tripod. In most cases it is even easier to mount camera to lens, than usual opposite.
I have also Mamiya 300/5.6 and 500/5.6 is MONSTER when it put next to it.

[leebert]

Well, it may be one of the stupider things I've done, but I grabbed one for $345 & am learning its various virtues & shortcomings. It's not a great lens, it's not a bad lens & if I become a better photographer by working with it it's probably worth it. Being a very long achromat pushed to the extreme of 24MP APS-C 3.5u micron photosites, I'm probably using it on its edge of serviceable use.

But I might seriously think about the older RB67 500/6 which doesn't suffer chromatism (& apparently didn't suck like the 360mm). It can be had for about $350, but since it's a bellows lens it requires the Fotodiox helicoid adapter, $150 extra for each system I own (Nikon & Sony).

The RZ67 350 & 500 apo's are of course also very reasonable for their quality & reach, I saw one Z 500/6 go for as little as US $1100 (but he said it had a little bit of "rot" which I took to mean fungus). There's a Z 1.4x TC that might impair the apo somewhat, but it'll be sharp wide open & no C/A. It'd be a helluva system for $1300 total (including TC) (compare to a Canon "L" 500/4).

• On 24MP APS-C it'll evince more noticeable chromatic aberration within the limit of its resolving power (I figured it shoots around 80 lp/mm based on other people's test shots using 18MP FF camera bodies). Basically: Smaller pixels, larger apparent C/A.
  
• Bright contrast areas, longitudinal C/A, mitigated by stopping down ... maybe a polarizer.
  
• Full sunlight: Lateral C/A, mitigated with UV-2B / UV 420 or 85B filters (switch to Tungsten WB).
  
• Macro extension tubes bring the mfd down to 4 meters & helps show that it's pretty sharp.
  
• It plays well with any camera that proffers focus-peaking & IBIS (slow shutter when propped on a car window).
  
• It's heavy but I can "Rambo" it sometimes by jamming my elbow into my gut / hip. I'll have to upgrade from my lightweight tripod.
  

 


Pictures:

Kingfisher at 35 meters, stopped down, missed the focus a bit (was just learning to use the A77's features)

Ruddy Duck at 25 meters ...

Eastern Phoebe (off-center crop) w/ some errant wavelengths to her right. This is either long. or lat. CA, not sure, but it does increase toward the edge.

Macro extension tubes at four meters, of feathered cat toy. The feather's barbs & then anterior barbules are visible. That's not bad at 12 feet, pretty damned macro, I must try it in the field w/ my 300/5.6 ULD.

[leebert]

- Using 1.4X or 2.0X Nikon convertor produce good result if lens is closed at f11 (not so good at f8), so this is limiting to quite static objects shooting
- Minimum focus distance of 9m is quite limiting, so it is better to think about extension rings

My test were done with Nikon D800 /36mp/, strictly on tripod. In most cases it is even easier to mount camera to lens, than usual opposite.
I have also Mamiya 300/5.6 and 500/5.6 is MONSTER when it put next to it.

Yes, I have it now & it *IS* huge.  I'm just learning how to use it.

1) I think a partial stop, f/9 is a pretty good compromise. I might de-click mine.

2) I'm going to try a UV-2B or UV 420 filter to address the Lateral chromatic aberration, & the Longitudinal C/A resolves by stopping it down (it suffers a bit of both in bright sunlight). Also a decent polarizer for white birds & sandy scenes...

3) I tried the macro tube trick & I can bring the MFD down to 4 meters (!), which could pose some interesting macro ability.

4) I agree, I'd rather shoot sharper & crop, then try to use a 1.4x TC, esp. with a 24MP APS-C sensor.

5) Since we aren't suffering much in the way of vignetting we gain a functional partial stop ... that is, f/11 on the lens shoots more like f/10 (or better) on your FF sensor, I might be closer to f/9 on APS-C.

6) I think the best FF 35mm-format camera for the M645 Sekor 500/5.6 might be the 36 MP Sony A7R's , its sensor's pixel pitch is 6um / 45 lp/mm, a very nice match for *this* lens, PLUS the Sony camera offers focus-peaking & sensor stabilization.

7) Another "Alt" lens: The older bellows lens, the RB67 Sekor C 500/6 suffers almost ZERO C/A but requires that $150 Fotodiox helicoid focusing adapter. As mentioned in this thread, the RZ67 500/6 Apo goes for $2000, but if it's anything like the 350/5.6 Apo, it might be a crazy good lens, up there in MTF with the Canon 500/4 "L" lenses, but for 1/4th the price.

[tochnia]

I have one further advice for you new lens.
Try to get Mamiya 2X teleconverter /or Vivitar - Kenko/.

I just get Vivitar 645 2X, and I was pretty surprised what quality it gives me on stopped down Mamiya 300/5.6.
On fists look it was better than Kenko teleconverter for Nikon.

I have done just quick test, not full tests and comparison.
But since FF sensor is using only crop /sweet spot/ of 645 teleconverter vs full image of Nikon /35mm/ ones it makes sence to use 645 TC.

[leebert]

I have one further advice for you new lens.

Try to get Mamiya 2X teleconverter /or Vivitar - Kenko/.

I just get Vivitar 645 2X, and I was pretty surprised what quality it gives me on stopped down Mamiya 300/5.6.

Thanks!

I tried a Kenko M645 2x TC & haven't been overly pleased with the results, but I'm on 24MP APS-C.

I might budget Mamiya's own M645 2x TC & see how it does, it's optically very different, but unlike the M645 Vivitar & Kenko, only works with the longer telephoto lenses b/c of its protruding front elements.

-- Lee