Mamiya D series samples anyone?

[free1000]

I recently started using my AFDII for a project and began to wonder how much advantage is gained from some of the newer lenses such as the 75-150 and 80. Also I Notice that the 45mm is also now updated to a D series lens.

Has anyone seen, or posted examples of these different lenses, possibly compared with their non-D versions? People have often said the new ones are great, but I'd be interested in seeing how they differ.

[Doug Peterson]

I recently started using my AFDII for a project and began to wonder how much advantage is gained from some of the newer lenses such as the 75-150 and 80. Also I Notice that the 45mm is also now updated to a D series lens.

Has anyone seen, or posted examples of these different lenses, possibly compared with their non-D versions? People have often said the new ones are great, but I'd be interested in seeing how they differ.

Where are you located? You'd be welcome to come test new versus old in our studio in either Atlanta or Miami.

Running formal tests to post on the forums is incredibly time consuming because of the degree to which people nit-pick and always say you should have changed something or done something differently. I can tell you from my experience the 150mm f/2.8 D is a huge improvement in sharpness and reduced chromatic aberration over the 150mm f/3.5 IF you're shooting below f/5.6. Above that there is a difference, but it's not huge. The 80mm D is likewise much better than the 80mm non-D when shooting towards wide open. I don't have enough experience on the 45mm D lens to conclude anything; our company was shipped a bad copy when it was first released and I haven't had a chance to retest with a new one.

There is also non-IQ factors to consider. The thread size on the new 80mm is 67mm not 58mm. The build quality is higher, and there is an AF/MF switch on the lens which helps some styles of shooting. The new 80mm D also has a reduced black-out time.

Nothing like personal hands-on time however.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[Doug Peterson]

The 150mm 3.5 AF I have is a good lens and spending some $3K on the new 2.8 D is quite a stretch for little if any in-print improvement, yes build quality is better and a half stop faster, but not every photo is shot with a lens wide open.

The point (to me) of this lens IS to shoot it wide open or near wide open to produce the medium format shallow depth of field with smooth out-of-focus areas.

If you were looking for a long lens to mostly shoot at f/8 I would save money and buy the older 3.5 version. If you're looking to shoot portraits or landscape details wide open then it's well worth the money.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[Guy Mancuso]

Agreed. Love the 2.8 version and it is extremely good wide open. The difference is if your shooting at F8 than the 3.5 version is fine but wider than that the 2.8 will be a better choice. No regrets on spending the money for the 2.8 but for a lot of stuff I shoot I need the fast lenses.

[Doug Peterson]

Then my response would be to save money yet again by buying a used Hasselblad 110/2.0 with the Mam/Hass adapter if you really want to shoot wide open.

That's a good idea as well. One of the benefits of a very open system.

[PLLove]

I had the 150 3.5 and upgraded to the 2.8 "D".  Everyone is correct--above f8, both lens are really good.  At wider aperatures, the 2.8 version really shines.  I also like the better build quality of the newer version.

I tried the 75-150 "D" and the 105-210 (at similar focal lengths) was just as good.  There was no differences across the aperature range.  So, I couldn't justify the cost of the newer zoom.  It wasn't really better in terms of IQ and the range was a bit limiting for me.  

On another note, I am thinking about selling my 55-110.  This lens is OK, but a fast prime at 55mm might be better for me.  I use the 80mm (when I'm not using the 150 or 105-210) most of the time anyway!

-Pat

[BobDavid]

I did a lot of work with the 150 f/3.5. It was a great portrait lens. At the time, I didn't have a single complaint about that lens. I bought a mint version on Ebay for around $250. I sold off my Mamiya equipment a few months ago and have migrated over to an H system.

[bcooter]

Then my response would be to save money yet again by buying a used Hasselblad 110/2.0 with the Mam/Hass adapter if you really want to shoot wide open. A lot of medium format lenses have a 2.8 aperture but not inherently intended to always shoot at 2.8 or close to it. And let's be honest, Mark Tucker has a style a lot of people want in their own work. MT's style has sold countless Canon T/S lenses, 85/1.2 lenses and so much more. Companies should write him a check for romancing all of us into the super shallow wide open portrait world.

I feel the 150mm is a little long for 645 portraits regardless of full frame, 36x48, 33x44 sensors.

If any medium format company is serious they need a fast 100 to 110 mm lens and not just for portraits.

From full length fashion on locaiton, to lifestyle, a 110 is as close as you can get to the Canon and Nikon 85mm lenses.

B

[free1000]

Thanks for these responses everyone.  

I recently tried the Hassy 110 with an adapter and while the look was really great, I wasn't fond of the manual AF, maybe that will change if I get my eyes laser corrected :-)

The comment about the 105-210 is an interesting point versus the 75-150. Actually I have used the 105-210 and its very nice. I may get one.

The 75-150 is actually a slightly irritating length for me. I like the 55-110 range, but although I seem to have a pretty good copy, I maybe should consider the 55 prime for the wide end. Or selling it and sticking with 55, 80 primes and using the longer zoom.

Completely agree with the point about the 150 being a bit too long. If it wasn't for that fact, I'd probably be buying the 2.8, but in the small studios I end up using thats hard work and I usually shoot with the Canon and the 85 simply because of the lack of space.

[ziocan]

Then my response would be to save money yet again by buying a used Hasselblad 110/2.0 with the Mam/Hass adapter if you really want to shoot wide open.

that sounds like a great idea.