for flare, nothing does a better job than keeping direct light out out of the lens. Use a lens shade or physical barrier (magazine?) to keep direct and reflected light out of the lens. The problem is when your subject itself is reflecting sunlight. A white house in the sun, although not direct light, can be considered a light source, and will flare like one. If your lens was shaded when you shot the pic, then you have found a limitation of your equipment. That doesn't mean the equipment is bad, it's just not suited to high flare situations. It is not the only camera/lenses that has this limitation. Keep shooting (with the lens shaded) and see what looks good and what doesn't. Check the gallery--there's a dude shooting night street scenes of store neon--they have a lot of flare and it's a coated rolleiflex. Every camera will flare given the right (wrong?) conditions.
On a side note:
Anybody that says that ken rockwell's information is useless or resorts to calling rockwell names is a person who's comments I would ignore myself--obviously no content with namecalling. Rockwell has some good information for free, and he has some opinions, just like everyone else. Why do the haters hate rockwell's opinions? Jealousy, pure and simple.
HEY--using the word "ignore" above--I just discovered the use of the ignore function! I thought it was useless but what it does is allows you to pre-flag those people who have given known bad advice in the past, such as a certain jealous rockwell hater. That way a year later when you have a question you need real answers for, you can have the bad answers filtered out automatically without having to remember who gives the useless or bad answers. Everyone else seems to only use the ignore function to "punish" people they don't like by not listening to them, which never really made any sense to me. Now I KNOW what its value is--to prevent the suspect information from polluting the good answers.
I don't get it why should anyone be jealous of Ken Rockwell, as you've stated he voices his opinion that doesn't mean that his opinion is always correct though. A lot of things can go wrong with older tlr's that has little or nothing to do with the lens and more with correct alignment of the taking and viewing lens or the groundglass position. The Mamiya TLR though not as good as the Rolleiflex was used by many pro photographers who have nothing but good things to say about the system. So in this context the Ken Rockwell's opinion should be seen as what it is a personal opinion amongs many other opinions.
I also admit that Rockwells site can be very informative and entertaining but would I base my lens or camera choice on his site alone no. Would I recommend it for information gathering purposes sure.
Because he's likely making some good money doing what were doing here for free.
Originally Posted by MDR
Wait. Scratch that doing here for free part. I pay to be here.
Originally Posted by rich815
By the way, if anyone bothers to actually read Rockwell's comment on Mamiya TLRs its not some comprehensive, detailed review and he does not even posture it as such. Its indeed an opinion on one set he once owned, and that's pretty much all he says. This is it in its entirely:
"Mamiya TLRs have been around for many decades.
Mamiya's TLRs are unique in that they have interchangeable lenses! Of course each lens is a pair of lenses.
I owned a C3 system and thought the lenses were the only medium format lenses I've ever used that were less than spectacular.
Mamiya TLRs are probably the best way to get a screaming deal for a multi-lens medium format system, but I never liked the lenses.
As of 2010, I'd pass on these because you can get Hasselblads for a song as well."
I had a C330 and found that the 55mm was solid, the 80mm ok, the 105mm silver in particular to be fantastic, and the 180mm and 250mm mediocre at best. They seem to have less contrast and are plenty sharp, but definitely not a Rolleiflex or a Mamiya 7 quality. I now have a Yashica LM that, by my enlargements, is roughly the same. I doubt I could tell the difference.
My flare problem was w/the 65mm, and I didn't hope to have detail in the shadows. That is the only picture i've had a problem with, otherwise the lenses are nice. But I don"t think the TLR lenses, except maybe the very latest, were multi-coated.
Oh, I have'nt used the 180 or 250 yet.
Some of the Mamiya TLR lens designs date back to the late 1950s. Depending on the age and condition of a specific lens you will see some variation. And that is without including the lens sets that have been poorly reassembled!
Halation in the film would be a risk, even with an ideal lens, under the conditions described.
on this video (at 9:15 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEjE-5kI3FQ
paul stand is using a mamiya TLR in his garden in france, so i think the lenses are good as the photo's of this master photographer