Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Christoph B. on February 21, 2016, 04:22:12 pm
-
I was thinking of getting a fast lens with about 180mm and I found quite a few 180mm 2.8 Sonnars for Pentacon Six - does anyone have any experience with this lens on a digital back? (The MC version, not the old 'zebra' version)
What other options are there?
I already have a 120mm and a 210mm so I don't want to get too close to those focal lengths and as I said it should be fast, so 4.0 isn't what I have in mind...
-
I was thinking of getting a fast lens with about 180mm and I found quite a few 180mm 2.8 Sonnars for Pentacon Six - does anyone have any experience with this lens on a digital back? (The MC version, not the old 'zebra' version)
What other options are there?
I already have a 120mm and a 210mm so I don't want to get too close to those focal lengths and as I said it should be fast, so 4.0 isn't what I have in mind...
I have long experience with many different copies of the CZJ Sonnar (all MC type)... forget about using it with an MFDB... it won't do even with 9μm pixel size. Go for the Hassy 180/4 instead... Unfortunately you can't have the Schneider 180/2.8 for the Rollei 6xxx/HY-6 working on your Mamiya... at least not at present time. A bird told me though that it is possible that there will be an adapter sometime in the (not so far) future... ;)
-
That's a bit disappointing, I was hoping for something more encouraging...especially since a lot of 35mm DSLR users gave a good feedback on the lens.
Do you happen to have some examples of photos you took with the lens?
A 4.0 lens isn't really what I'm looking for, I want something quite a bit faster, so 2.8 is a requirement - otherwise I would have already gone for the Hasselblad.
-
That's a bit disappointing, I was hoping for something more encouraging...especially since a lot of 35mm DSLR users gave a good feedback on the lens.
Do you happen to have some examples of photos you took with the lens?
A 4.0 lens isn't really what I'm looking for, I want something quite a bit faster, so 2.8 is a requirement - otherwise I would have already gone for the Hasselblad.
Unfortunately the "images" (if one can call them that) out of this lens with an MFDB aren't worth keeping... I kept one (my fourth) to have with my P-6 and Arax 88CM (which both I don't use for years now) and kept testing it on my Contax 645 with Sinarback Emotion 22, Imacon 528c, Hasselblad CF-39MS & Sinarback 54H through a really good adapter as to find some use for it.... Pointless... Clearly it looks a gorgeous lens of immaculate build quality that leads one to think that its optical performance could be on par... but... Sorry.... I sold my last copy through a listing (here on LuLa) for 250 euros about two months ago and I won't have a fifth copy... The previous three copies I replaced because I thought the poor performance could be out of sample variation... Well, now I'm certain that it's not!
-
Hmm that's too bad.
But thank you for your detailed experience!
I'm really baffled that Mamiya/P1 never thought of a lens between the 150 and the 210/240mm, to me there's a big gap right where the sweetspot for portrait photography lies. Many people want to get the 120mm - but the 150mm is a bit too close to the 120 to justify its purchase. A 165 or 180mm would have been a great addition to the Mamiya lens lineup!
What about the Penax 67 165 2.8? That would be pretty much between the 120 and 210mm! I only used the 105mm and 200mm but never had the chance to try the 165...
-
Hmm that's too bad.
But thank you for your detailed experience!
I'm really baffled that Mamiya/P1 never thought of a lens between the 150 and the 210/240mm, to me there's a big gap right where the sweetspot for portrait photography lies. Many people want to get the 120mm - but the 150mm is a bit too close to the 120 to justify its purchase. A 165 or 180mm would have been a great addition to the Mamiya lens lineup!
What about the Penax 67 165 2.8? That would be pretty much between the 120 and 210mm! I only used the 105mm and 200mm but never had the chance to try the 165...
Sorry, I have never tried P67 or any of its lenses for that purpose.... I'm very careful to post an opinion for people to read only if I'm certain I know what I'm talking about... The Zeiss 180/4 I borrowed and tried out of a friend with an adapter for Contax 645 and I can say that it is a great lens... The Schneider 180/2.8 I've tried on an HY-6 of another friend with Sinarback 75 back and can certainly say that the combination was a ...killer one! Mind you that I know that a Rollei to M645 lens adapter is coming at some time in the (not so far) future, (with full interface communication) as it is coming out of a company that I'm (highly) involved with... I can't be sure of the timing as there are other priorities coming first, but I think it will worth the wait. ;)
-
Sorry, I have never tried P67 or any of its lenses for that purpose.... I'm very careful to post an opinion for people to read only if I'm certain I know what I'm talking about... The Zeiss 180/4 I borrowed and tried out of a friend with an adapter for Contax 645 and I can say that it is a great lens... The Schneider 180/2.8 I've tried on an HY-6 of another friend with Sinarback 75 back and can certainly say that the combination was a ...killer one! Mind you that I know that a Rollei to M645 lens adapter is coming at some time in the (not so far) future, (with full interface communication) as it is coming out of a company that I'm (highly) involved with... I can't be sure of the timing as there are other priorities coming first, but I think it will worth the wait. ;)
Well that's very interesting! Does that man the leaf shutter would also be controlled by the adapter? :O
edit: even if it can't be controlled by an adapter - I don't care! as long as the aperture works I'm happy to wait! :)
-
Well that's very interesting! Does that man the leaf shutter would also be controlled by the adapter? :O
edit: even if it can't be controlled by an adapter - I don't care! as long as the aperture works I'm happy to wait! :)
Full interface communication, means ...full interface communication! Yes, the leaf shutter will work, even AF will work is one uses an AF Rollei lens...
-
Full interface communication, means ...full interface communication! Yes, the leaf shutter will work, even AF will work is one uses an AF Rollei lens...
:O can't wait for this to happen!!
-
Hi,
DHW fototechnik published the MTF charts for most lenses, the Xenar 2.8/180 chart is here:
http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/en/mediumformatlenses/afd-lenses/afd-tele-xenar-28-180-pq.html
The Zeiss data for the Sonnar 180/4 is here:
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/hasselblad_cfi_cfe/sonnar4_180mm_cfe_101132_e.pdf
According to the MTF data the Hasselblad Sonnar 180/4 is near optimum performance at full aperture, that indicates a very well corrected lens.
Based on the MTF data the Zeiss Sonnar is much better, but it may be noted that Schneider doesn't say the lp/mm used. The combo 10/20/40 lp/mm is normally used by German companies, so my guess is that 10/20/40 is used in Schneider graphs.
I own the Sonnar/4 and feel it is a pretty good lens with the P45+ back I have, some images here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/180_4/
I also own the Pentax 165/2.8 lens that I have shot with my Pentax 67 on film and I had the feeling it was not so great.
Just to mention, I have checked my Pentax 67 45/4, which used to be regarded as one of the better lenses for the P67 on my Sony A7rII, and it just was useless.
Just to say, I am not arguing for the Sonnar, or any other lens, just share some info I have. Good luck with your choice.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Contrary to the MTF on the DHW site I found a set of MTF-curves for the Schneider 180/2.8 which are much better. These curves are coming from Photodo who made their testing at the Hasselblad factory on Hasselblad's MTF equipment.
I would happily buy the Schneider 180/2.8 based on these curves.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
DHW fototechnik published the MTF charts for most lenses, the Xenar 2.8/180 chart is here:
http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/en/mediumformatlenses/afd-lenses/afd-tele-xenar-28-180-pq.html
The Zeiss data for the Sonnar 180/4 is here:
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/hasselblad_cfi_cfe/sonnar4_180mm_cfe_101132_e.pdf
According to the MTF data the Hasselblad Sonnar 180/4 is near optimum performance at full aperture, that indicates a very well corrected lens.
Based on the MTF data the Zeiss Sonnar is much better, but it may be noted that Schneider doesn't say the lp/mm used. The combo 10/20/40 lp/mm is normally used by German companies, so my guess is that 10/20/40 is used in Schneider graphs.
I own the Sonnar/4 and feel it is a pretty good lens with the P45+ back I have, some images here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/180_4/
I also own the Pentax 165/2.8 lens that I have shot with my Pentax 67 on film and I had the feeling it was not so great.
Just to mention, I have checked my Pentax 67 45/4, which used to be regarded as one of the better lenses for the P67 on my Sony A7rII, and it just was useless.
Just to say, I am not arguing for the Sonnar, or any other lens, just share some info I have. Good luck with your choice.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
I just compared my Hasselblad Zeiss Sonnar 180/4 and my Pentax 67 165/2.8 at f/4 and f/8 on a Sony A7rII near center and with maximum shift on my HCam Master TSII.
I did a quick comparison at f/4 and at f/8
What I have noticed at f/4
- Both lenses outperform the sensor easily at f/4 near centrum, both cause a horrible amount of moiré
- The lenses actually produce less moiré at f/8 than at f/4, so I guess optimum performance is around f/5.6 on both
- In the corner the Sonnar is much better at f/4, the Pentax 165/4 has a lot of chromatic aberration.
- The Pentax catches up very well when stopped down to f/8 and may outperform the Hasselblad lens in the corners.
So, what I found is that the Hasselblad 165/2.8 does remarkably well when stopped down to f/8. At f/4 it is very sharp in the centrum but has a lot of issues in the corner.
So, contrary to my expectations, the Pentax 67 165/2.8 may be worth checking out. I will try to post a few samples in a few days.
I enclose the near axis comparisons at f/4 and f/8. Hasselblad on the left and Pentax on the right.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Here are corner crops from the Pentax 67/2.8 compared to the Zeiss 180/4.
Some shifts were used, but my TS adapter doesn't allow much shift without shading on these lenses. The corners may be comparable to corners on a 44x33 sensor, or so.
Hasselblad on the left Pentax on the right.
Not a terrible lot of difference, so the P67 165/2.8 may be worth trying.
I did not correct for chromatic aberration, as I wanted to show the images as they were. Same sharpening applied to both.
(Landscape preset in Lightroom)
Best regards
Erik
-
Thank you! That's very helpful - though I expected more from the Pentax lens, the 200 4.0 was extremely sharp and detailed even in the very corners of 6x7 - one of the best lenses I've ever used.
Right now I'm not sure if it makes much sense to get the Pentax lens or just wait for the Rollei adapter to surface and then get the Schneider... That would be amazing - a perfect portrait lens with f 2.8 and a LeafShutter! :D
-
Hi,
This is pretty demanding, 4.5 micron pixels. My Pentax 67 45/4 just falls apart in a similar test shot outdoors.
Best regards
Erik
Thank you! That's very helpful - though I expected more from the Pentax lens, the 200 4.0 was extremely sharp and detailed even in the very corners of 6x7 - one of the best lenses I've ever used.
Right now I'm not sure if it makes much sense to get the Pentax lens or just wait for the Rollei adapter to surface and then get the Schneider... That would be amazing - a perfect portrait lens with f 2.8 and a LeafShutter! :D
-
My first attempt to buy a Pentax 67 came to nothing when I arranged for a test shoot with my local dealer, with a 160mm with internal shutter. On a tripod, of course, but it wasn't good enough for my expectations/needs.
My next exposure (without test!) came years later when I bit the mental bullet and bought a new Pentax 67 ll. Beautifully made, it was to be my last 120 format camera: I couldn't get it to give me pix without bounce, both mirror and shutter, the latter confirmed because I was shooting on a massive Gitzo with MU. You can't beat the shutter unless you do time exposures.
Sam Haskins did a show to which I was able to go, and his 6x7 slides were great; Sante D'Orazio was another guy using that camera, and even there I can see several occasions where the thing blurs on him, making Helena Christensen look a litle bit off... and that's a minor miracle of mechanical failure rather than of nature. Perhaps Pentax shutters were not all flawed, but how could one tell before purchase?
With my 500C and C/M I found the 150mm Sonnar too short for good headshots, and I had it because when I was ¡n the market, the 180mm offering wasn't being offered. Having used the Mamiya 180mm on the awful Mamiya C33 TLR (what a gas trying to handle parallax with a moving red line!) I learned to love that focal length on 6x6. It was actually a great lens, too, but struggling in an impossible context.
Rob C
-
Actually I didn't have any problems with the shutter/mirror slap on the P67 - I know it 'feels' strong but in reality it isn't - anecdotally you can balance a coin on the camera body, take a picture and it won't fall down.
I think the only reason why it feels so strong is because the camera itself is very light (for a 6x7 slr!) and not really well balanced, especially with heavy lenses. And it's not very comfortable to hold, so it fells like you dont really have a good grip on it. But on a tripod (and especially with the MLU) it's a great camera - too bad you can't put a digital back on it...
-
Hi,
I had a lot of problems with shutter vibrations on my Pentax 67 when using 300/4. At that time I had a Manfrotto C55 and I got my the biggest head Bogen had.
After a couple of years I bought myself a Velbon Sherpa Pro and suddenly got sharp images even with the 300/4 + 1.4X extender. Next improvement was an Acratech Ultimate ballhead. But, that was 2005 and the digital wave did send my P67 into obscurity.
Best regards
Erik
Actually I didn't have any problems with the shutter/mirror slap on the P67 - I know it 'feels' strong but in reality it isn't - anecdotally you can balance a coin on the camera body, take a picture and it won't fall down.
I think the only reason why it feels so strong is because the camera itself is very light (for a 6x7 slr!) and not really well balanced, especially with heavy lenses. And it's not very comfortable to hold, so it fells like you dont really have a good grip on it. But on a tripod (and especially with the MLU) it's a great camera - too bad you can't put a digital back on it...
-
The sonnar is better than the 165 2.8 pentax, I would give it a try. There are people who use that lens on 35mm cameras. If it doesn't work out for you, it's easy to sell again without loosing money.
Also, Erik, could you please upload a A7rii raw test you did with the 45mm f4. Obviosuly a retrofocus wideangle for 6x7 isn't going to be stellar on a 46mp 35mm sensor, but it can't be "that bad". (I have the lens but never bothered buying an adapter).
-
Hi,
I will do some more testing with the 45/4. For this time I just share corner and center sample from my shoot previous Sunday. Left sample without CA correction and right with CA correction and additional sharpening.
I have a Kipon adapter that has not so good matting surfaces and I have seen some flare from it, that is problematic in diffuse light as I had last Sunday. In the studio shots it doesn't matter as all light is falling on subject. With the Hasselblad I use a Novoflex adapter that has much better internal painting.
I will do a comparison with my Distagon 40/4 CF FLE, which also has quite a few issues.
The Distagon 60/3.5 CF works just fine: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/H_CF_Lenses_on_A7rII/
If I get better test images with the 45/4, I will post them full size and also as raw.
Best regards
Erik
The sonnar is better than the 165 2.8 pentax, I would give it a try. There are people who use that lens on 35mm cameras. If it doesn't work out for you, it's easy to sell again without loosing money.
Also, Erik, could you please upload a A7rii raw test you did with the 45mm f4. Obviosuly a retrofocus wideangle for 6x7 isn't going to be stellar on a 46mp 35mm sensor, but it can't be "that bad". (I have the lens but never bothered buying an adapter).
-
Thanks Erik, I guess that's what you can expect from the lens, the CA might be a little bit exagerated because of the filter stack vs film. If the A7rii had a 67 sensor the lens would be usable ;) The 45mm was a special lens for 67, the only wider lens was the 43mm mamiya, but that's a rangefinder.
I think the Pentax 67 55mm f4 (last version) will be better.
-
Hi,
The filter stack wouldn't cause problems with telecentric lenses and the problem it causes is mostly astigmatism but maybe some field curvature.
Most sensors have around 2mm optical glass equivalent, same as Sony A7rII. Micro 4/3 has around 4 mm. MFD probably also has 2mm as I have read that Schneider glass is calculated for 2mm.
I was very happy with the 45/4 when I was shooting film. It is a much lighter lens than the Distagon 40, so I had some great hopes. But I will shoot a comparison with the Distagon 40.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, I guess that's what you can expect from the lens, the CA might be a little bit exagerated because of the filter stack vs film. If the A7rii had a 67 sensor the lens would be usable ;) The 45mm was a special lens for 67, the only wider lens was the 43mm mamiya, but that's a rangefinder.
I think the Pentax 67 55mm f4 (last version) will be better.
-
Hi,
I shot some test chart type shots with the Pentax 67 45/4 and the Distagon 40/4 and the Pentax lens was pretty good, so I need to reshoot the outdoor test.
I will start a new thread when I have something to share. This one is not about wide angles.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, I guess that's what you can expect from the lens, the CA might be a little bit exagerated because of the filter stack vs film. If the A7rii had a 67 sensor the lens would be usable ;) The 45mm was a special lens for 67, the only wider lens was the 43mm mamiya, but that's a rangefinder.
I think the Pentax 67 55mm f4 (last version) will be better.
-
Hi,
I shot some test chart type shots with the Pentax 67 45/4 and the Distagon 40/4 and the Pentax lens was pretty good, so I need to reshoot the outdoor test.
I will start a new thread when I have something to share. This one is not about wide angles.
Best regards
Erik
Can't wait to see it ;)
-
Hi,
Short version below. "Raw" images here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/MFLens_On_A7rII/
This time I used the Kipon front end with the Novoflex back end. It works!
Just two shot stitch from the Pentax 67, this time it clearly outperforms the Distagon. Just shows how easy it is to mix up!
Best regards
Erik
Can't wait to see it ;)
-
Funny ^^.
I wonder how the 75 2.8 AL compares to the 80 2.8 CFE. I have the first one, but I've never tested it on digital.
-
Hi,
I did have the 80/2.8 CFE. I got rid of it for the 60/3.5 and 100/3.5 combo as I had a limit two what I could carry…
My guess is that the Pentax 67 45/4 may go in the luggage for next trip. Next lens to check out is the Pentax 67 90/2.8.
Best regards
Erik
Funny ^^.
I wonder how the 75 2.8 AL compares to the 80 2.8 CFE. I have the first one, but I've never tested it on digital.
-
Hi,
I did have the 80/2.8 CFE. I got rid of it for the 60/3.5 and 100/3.5 combo as I had a limit two what I could carry…
My guess is that the Pentax 67 45/4 may go in the luggage for next trip. Next lens to check out is the Pentax 67 90/2.8.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Thanks for posting these tests. The old 40 f/4 Distagon somewhat predictably falls apart in the corners. However I am pleasantly surprised at how well the Distagon 60 performs. And the 100mm f/3.5 is indeed a sweet lens!
How much shift did you employ for these captures - i.e., what is the combined sensor "width" after the stitch?
John
-
Hi,
I did have the 80/2.8 CFE. I got rid of it for the 60/3.5 and 100/3.5 combo as I had a limit two what I could carry…
My guess is that the Pentax 67 45/4 may go in the luggage for next trip. Next lens to check out is the Pentax 67 90/2.8.
Best regards
Erik
Waiting for the 90 2.8 test ;) I don't have that one, I chose the 105 to go along with the 75. The 45 is nice because is so super compact, it's sort of the nikko 20 2.8 of the MF world.
-
Hi,
+/- 15 mm on all samples. Horisontal on the Distagon 40/4 and vertical on the others. I also tried the Pentax 67 45/4, it was better than the Distagon 40 CF in this test. But, it was a retest. Previous one I got bad results, trying to sort out what happened.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Thanks for posting these tests. The old 40 f/4 Distagon somewhat predictably falls apart in the corners. However I am pleasantly surprised at how well the Distagon 60 performs. And the 100mm f/3.5 is indeed a sweet lens!
How much shift did you employ for these captures - i.e., what is the combined sensor "width" after the stitch?
John