Mamiya 7II lens ?
I just won a Mamiya 7II with 65mm and 150mm. I will primarily be using this camera for landscape and general shooting. I know the view finder in the camera only works with 65,80,150 lens and was looking to get one more lens. I don't mind using an external view finder.
So, I have a few questions about the mamiya lens line up.
- Which is the better lens 65mm or the 80mm? 32 vs 39 is pretty close.
- What is so bad about the 210 that sends people running? I know it's not rangefinder coupled but how is that any difference than focusing on a fotoman.
- Why was a lens not made to cover around 50 mm on 35?
and the big one - Any chance of a Mamiya 9 in the future?
The 80 sports fantastic resolution numbers, maybe the best of all in the series. I saw some tests (hevanet) that suggested it can clear ~120 lp/mm right across the frame. But it is a focal length that some people tend to find a bit too normal in 6x7 format.
I use the 50 on the Mamiya 6 and love it- my favourite scenic/landscape lens of all, on any camera. Absolutely amazing. But since you have the 65, you may to do some thinking.
N.b. you can use a 50 on a 7/7ii without an aux VF; it is just for [slightly] more accurate framing.
The 210 is one of the reasons why I may eventually spring for a 7ii (the longest on the 6/6MF is the 150). I could care less about RF coupling for far subjects.
I have two 7ii bodies (back and white film in one and color film in the other). I shoot mostly landscapes and have the 80mm, 65mm, and the 43mm lenses - all terrific lenses, BTW.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
the 65mmm is worse in the corners/edges wide open than the 80, which is like a tack from wide open. The 65 is still very good, however. Shot at f8-f11 it is merciless in its sharpness, as are all the others. I prefer the 65mm FL, however and so use this most of all my lenses. I find them very difference in use as the 65 just seems usable for everything! The 50mm is amazing in the corners too, even wide open, but is used less. I used the entire finder and then estimate a little more will be captured so frame tight. works for me. I use the 80mm least. If I had to own one lens it would be the 65. two? 65 and 50. three 65, 50, 150. Four (what I have now), 50, 65, 80, 150. The 43 I might add later, if at all.
Next to no chance of a Mamiya 8/9 IMO.
I dont know that the fuss is about on the 210mm focus. its not made for portraits but landscapes. Hyperfocal focusing should work fine and it should be easy - maybe not?!?! People do it all the time on LF and indeed their other cameras! as for performance I dont know - so few own them.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Personally, I much prefer the aspect ratio of 6x7 over 6x9 which like 35mm, I find a bit awkward. 6x7 enlarges onto commonly available B&W paper sizes like 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 inches with minimal cropping.
Originally Posted by PBrooks
I would much prefer to see Mamiya put the design effort in to produce a 7 III with TTL metering.
YES, TTL metering would be good! Its more of a spot meter, which is very accurate, but must be used with care (you need to know what is being metered). Mine meters from smack on the focus patch and little more. However, even above this I would ask for an auto light shield as per RF645. makes things much quicker.
A Mamiya 8 would be my wish. I find this format is the most balanced. 6x7 is a touch stubby and 6x9 a touch long.
If you compare the Mamaya to a Leica, it's the same story there. The "least" popular lens is the 135mm lens. Even though there is a 135mm frame in the rangefinder, it's very small. I'd say that the Leica is built to be used for 35-50mm lenses and that even the 90mm frame/coupling is there as a "last resort". At least that was the way I used my Leicas when I shot with them. 90% of the shots was with that lovely 35mm lens. I always found it easier to pick up a Nikon with a 105mm lens if I wanted to go into e.g. portraits. I did use the 90 lens and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it in terms of quality but I felt very distant from the subject I was shooting. (It was sometimes great fun to enlarge these negatives to find out what I really had shot.)
In short, it's really a matter of the rangefinder.
I know it's the same story with the Mamaya 6/7. The "least" popular lens is the 150mm with both of these cameras. Of course the 150mm have to be there for "camera system completeness", but as others have pointed out, most of the shooting is done with the shorter lenses.
the 150 is not easily to focus accurately, but is OK if you are not in a rush. As a 70mm equivalent it is a very handy FL for landscapes and the focus accuracy is not an issue in this regard, assuming no alignment/calibration issues. It is a very sharp lens. I have only used mine a couple of times, but will use it more on travels I think.
I love the 150 on my 6. I have zero problem focusing it. In fact when I want closeup shots on the go, I use the 150. Optically the150 is probably the best in the 6 lineup, very slightly better than the 50, though understand that these lenses are all very very good. Historically good.
I feel that the longish focal length of the 150 is useful for getting compression in a landscape. Here is an example. Attached is a (really crappy) snapshot of a test print of a landscape taken with the 50. And here is a shot taken with the 150- same scene, same point of perspective, both handheld from atop a bench. N.b. with the 50, I did crop out ~1/4 of the sky but the width is uncropped. The 150 shot is uncropped.
The only 6 lens that I don't completely adore is the 75. If I go for a 7ii then I will need to have an 80, though.
PBrooks, let me be blunt, you are going to want all of these lenses. If you are like me, you may even start to covet multiple copies. They are that good. They are all superb. Just prioritize and save up!