Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED Weapon - How Long Before MF Glass goes nuts...

Thanks Jeff.

Sounds like Red are getting everyone up to Dragon so they can resell the cameras as BattleTested ... and (complete guess) would have mandated upgrading to MiniMags too .. was it not for the the masses of old media that people are locked into.

... So people get A complete Brain refresh from spanking new [CF] equipment :)

AJ
 
What about the Mamiya lenses different series?

There's the 645, 645 AF (auto focus), RB, RZ, 6, 7, Mamiya/Sekor. Can anybody shed some light on what one should go looking for? Only the 645?

I know some can be adapted to canon mount, I think it's the manual 645 standards? or is there any other way to use different ones on RED, PL or Canon at the moment?
 
Patrick Grossien said:
What about the Mamiya lenses different series?
Click to expand...

There are some interesting comments on this thread from 2012 about 67 lenses:

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00ZnsY

The problem is that there is no lens wider than 50mm for the Mamiya 67 system.

A list of Mamiya 645 lenses, starting at 24mm (but that's a fish-eye, which is IMO useless):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/comp_mamiyamed_2.html

A list of Pentax 645 lenses, starting at 25mm:

http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/systems/c_39.html

The very wide Pentax lenses won't be cheap, though.
 
The list...

The list...

I am officially ready Jarred. Anytime you want to drop the 65mm news works.

In all seriousness I went Mamiya over Hasselblad. I will probably end up kicking myself for not buying both but I wanted full sets and seeing how I may not be able to use these for a while I couldn't justify multiple sets.

So here it is:
Primes
1. Mamiya 645 35mm F/3.5
2. Mamiya 645 45mm F/2.8
3. Mamiya 645 55mm F/2.8
4. Mamiya 645 70mm F/2.8
5. Mamiya 645 80mm F/1.9
6. Mamiya 645 110mm F/2.8
7. Mamiya 645 120mm F/4 Macro
8. Mamiya 645 150mm F/2.8

Zoom
1. Mamiya 645 55-110 F/4.5

Doubler
1. Mamiya 645 2x N

I got an adapter for the Dragon but just to check for any issues. Can't see myself using these for anything apart from MF stuff.
Should be fun
 
Nice we ahve Mamiya glass too, a couple of odd lenses here but it is really nice glass. Some breathing issues with most of the 645 stuff though but most of its great glass.

Patrick O'Sullivan said:
I am officially ready Jarred. Anytime you want to drop the 65mm news works.

In all seriousness I went Mamiya over Hasselblad. I will probably end up kicking myself for not buying both but I wanted full sets and seeing how I may not be able to use these for a while I couldn't justify multiple sets.

So here it is:
Primes
1. Mamiya 645 35mm F/3.5
2. Mamiya 645 45mm F/2.8
3. Mamiya 645 55mm F/2.8
4. Mamiya 645 70mm F/2.8
5. Mamiya 645 80mm F/1.9
6. Mamiya 645 110mm F/2.8
7. Mamiya 645 120mm F/4 Macro
8. Mamiya 645 150mm F/2.8

Zoom
1. Mamiya 645 55-110 F/4.5

Doubler
1. Mamiya 645 2x N

I got an adapter for the Dragon but just to check for any issues. Can't see myself using these for anything apart from MF stuff.
Should be fun
Click to expand...
 
If you come across one these: BUY THEM! they're all incredibly sharp aerial lenses. The only reason they fetch relatively low prices is because they don't come in shutter, making them unusable on MF backs.

Wild Heerbrugg (Leica Aerial division) 98mm f/1.4
Aerojet Delft 70mm f/1.6
Aerojet Delft 112mm f/1.4
Aerojet Delft 150mm f/1.5
Perkin Elmer 75mm f/1.5
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
Nice! The Alexa 65 has two sets of glass, the vintage and modern - the vintage appear to use older Hasselblads, and the moderns the newer autofocus Hasselbads. Which did you go with?!

I'd already gone with the older Hasselblads a while back - 50 2.8, 80 2.8, 110 f2, 150 2.8, 180 F4, 250 F4 and x2 Mutar. They are a mixture of FE and CFEs (the FE's are great because they are sans shutter, and often a stop faster). Considering getting the 40mm...

RP lens has modded mine, which has been great...

Are yours Hassys or Mamiyas?
Click to expand...

We're going to need a Hasselblad Survival Guide soon...
 
Thanks guys, appreciate the info!
 
Isn't there a problem with mid format still lenses ( including hassy ) and that is one of resolving fine detail . Just because they shot larger format does not mean they can resolve as much fine detail as say full frame glass or do the modern hassles overcome this issue?

Comments ? .....or did I imagine that ; ) ,

P.s also there are no super speed options in mid format so what do you do in low light without hiring in another gaffer truck ?
 
Last edited:
Resolving fine details?

If you'd like to judge for yourself, I shot this on Epic MX, mostly with the Mamiya 645 35mm and 55mm. There's one shot using a Canon 17mm TS but I think the rest are all Mamiyas IIRC. The interview with Gene was definitely on the 35mm.


While my Contax Zeiss primes lead the way with what I shoot these days, I still have all my Mamiyas and won't be selling them anytime soon. Someday they'll come in handy again.
 
Paul Russell said:
Resolving fine details?

If you'd like to judge for yourself, I shot this on Epic MX, mostly with the Mamiya 645 35mm and 55mm. There's one shot using a Canon 17mm TS but I think the rest are all Mamiyas IIRC. The interview with Gene was definitely on the 35mm.


While my Contax Zeiss primes lead the way with what I shoot these days, I still have all my Mamiyas and won't be selling them anytime soon. Someday they'll come in handy again.
Click to expand...

Hey Paul, is that highlight blooming effect from a filter/post or is that the look the Mamiyas produce?
 
Mike Garrick said:
Isn't there a problem with mid format still lenses ( including hassy ) and that is one of resolving fine detail . Just because they shot larger format does not mean they can resolve as much fine detail as say full frame glass or do the modern hassles overcome this issue?

Comments ? .....or did I imagine that ; ) ,

P.s also there are no super speed options in mid format so what do you do in low light without hiring in another gaffer truck ?
Click to expand...

Yes - generally speaking Medium Format glass can be a bit softer than Full Frame or S35. Their image circle is so large, they don't NEED to be as sharp. The vast negative they were designed to imprint on already prints down...very sharp. And then it's just math...the larger the image circle...the harder it can be to VERY sharp.

That said - there are some SHOCKINGLY sharp Medium format glass, that bucks this trend. I went for Hasslebads, in particular the FEs, that don't have a SHUTTER...and with more space for optics...are often a stop faster...a number of these Hassy's and others are VERY sharp.

The 50 2.8 FE...hits over 90 on the MTF chart...VERY SHARP...amazing close focus
The 180 F4 is VERY sharp.

The 110 FE F2 is great also...
The 150 2.8 FE is also great...

Truth is...the 6K Dragon sensor doesn't take much to outresolve...you don't need crazy sharp glass to make Dragon look good.

But what MF can give you is...

1) amazing bokeh
2) Ability to tilt shift...
3) Large image circle that can cover larger Imax sensors down the road...

Also yes - most MF glass are 2.8 and F4...again the large image circle makes faster designs hard...especially on wide angles that are often F4....there is usually an F2 portrait available (Hassy has a 110 F2 for example)...but the norm is 2.8, F4 standard, and 5.6 fo teles...

Here are some samples we've shot on MX with Tilted Hassys:












We mostly tilt shift on the Hassy FE 50 2.8 and 150 2.8

Here's a spot shot exclusiely on a tilted Hassy, an 80 2.8 i believe wide open, on a Scarlet MX, again...not the sharpest lens in the world (equivalent to many full frame 1.4's wide open probably)...but certainly sharp/organic enough to look very pleasing...especially as we're shooting through the very HEART of the lens...

 
Last edited:
MichaelJQuill said:
Hey Paul, is that highlight blooming effect from a filter/post or is that the look the Mamiyas produce?
Click to expand...
IIRC it's from the bad old days when I used to use Looks. The Mamiyas don't normally bloom like that. I think I was trying to make the lamp behind Gene's head tail off nicely, where it was suffering from the MX sensor top end cut.

But I'll shoot some test stuff with my Mamiya primes this week and let you all have a look.
 
Here is the lens test I promised. It's the first one I've ever done formally, so I hope that I've got most of it right. I put my Contax Primes in there as well for comparison.
All lenses tested under the same light, 5600K fluoros, f8, STH OLPF, Shot in 6K and bounced to 1080p with DEB. Resolve medium NR, medium OLPF comp, high detail.
I made very slight adjustments to lift and gain to equalise them for all lenses. This makes it easier to see any colour mismatches.
I was in a bit of a hurry so the framing doesn't match very much, but you can get the gist of it.

Lenses Tested

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]Mamiya 645 manual C series
210mm
150mm
80mm
55mm
45mm
35mm[/TD]
[TD]Contax Glass
200mm f2.8 MM
135mm f2.8 AE
85mm f1.4 AE
28-70 MM zoom at 60mm
60mm Macro
50mm f1.4 AE
35mm f1.4 AE
25mm f2.8 AE[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I was surprised that the Mamiyas do not colour match throughout the range. It's nothing that an experienced colourist couldn't fix easily, but it's noticeable.
I'm not surprised that the Contax zoom is inferior to the primes, being slightly darker and having a slight greenish tint, but this lens is not known as a classic.

PW: R3D
https://vimeo.com/121040764 for ipad users.
 
I have a question about the title of this thread:
What does Weapon have to do with MF glass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top