Upgrade my 80mm S to a 80mm PS - Bronica SQ-A
I've been thinking for a while that I'll get a 80mm PS lens just because of what loads of people have said about them. Sharper, better, well built etc etc
Just been looking around and found this - http://www.buonaluce.com/S2PS.pdf
Very intresting reading and stuff, but want I really want to know is that should I really do it. To be fair I think the PS lens look a lot better than the S as they got rid of that orange ring on the lens, which is why I'm looking to replace it as well cos it just looks a little cheap
I was wondering if anyone had taken the same photo with both a 80mm S lens as well a 80mm PS (or any focal length) to see which is actually sharper and the better lens to prove this
Cheers and look forward to your feedback
Hmmm, I acquired the PS 80mm as my first lens, based on what I'd read, and I'm happy with it but have no S version for comparison. My vague understanding at the time was that the optical differences were pretty modest in the mid-range focal lengths. Assuming that's correct, I'd probably opt to buy another focal length lens first. But I'm horribly practical and something of a minimalist.
I suppose another argument favoring the PS is they are not as old and might be in better shape, but if what you have is working ...
I just got a 150mm PS and the PS just look better on the camera. Like am I going by looks or for the quailty of the lens?? So I guess it's just up to me, but looking at your camera in on your pbase, it looks sooo nice
Unfortunately my only experience was with an S series lens. I have no PS series experience. I would imagine that by f8 or smaller the differences would not be pronounced. The S series the real clunks were the tele lenses. I did have opportunity to compare the S lens with 80mm Planars and the S series 80mm was noticeiably lower in contrast.
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well now if we're really honest here, what the camera sees is way more important than what the camera looks like!
Originally Posted by cherryrig
That particular lens was an ePrey good fortune where I got a claimed new-in-box unit that looked as though it was never on a camera for about a KEH "BGN" price. I'm happy with it.
I have a less mint 65mm and am still vascillating between the 110 mm f4 1:4 macro and the f4.5 1:1 macro. After that, I may well stop and concentrate on taking pictures with the stuff.
True true, but if your more happy with your camera you'll take more photos haha
Sorry but I'm one of those people who like stuff for how it looks, not really how it works. Just that it's newer, a bit better and stuff. I'm a hard person to please
If you like how the PS lens looks, and don't care how it shoots, buy it then.
Optically the 80s aren't that different between the versions. As mentioned earlier, the telephotos have more significant differences.
My 50 is a PS but my 80 and 150 are S lenses and I don't feel like I'm disadvantaged. One day I'll have to try a 150 PS but my S is not awful by any stretch.
Function over form for me. My winter tires may not be as pretty as my all-seasons, but they give me way better traction in the winter.
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?
I've had a few Bronica lenses in my time. Some were PS lenses, some were not. To tell you the truth I didn't notice the difference at all and I was blowing up my photos to 16x16 and 20x20. The difference, from what I understand, is in the coating. Apparently the PS has better coating for more contrast, but don't mistake this with sharpness, 'cause it's not the same thing at all. Contrast is good at giving the illusion that something is sharper.
I think the only difference you'll get when you get a PS lens is something that is newer and less likely to break and in the darkroom you won't have to use such strong contrast filters. Those are about the only benefits I think you'll find.
If sharp images is what you're after, consider perfecting your focusing, use your tripod and master your lighting and darkroom techniques. But that being said, the Bronica lenses are so cheap now that you can pick up the entire spectrum for under $1000 and have every lens Bronica makes. So, if you have the money, go for it.
hope this helps somewhat...
PS lenses have a different coating which may be noticeable with color shots, they have a plastic stop-down tab instead of metal, and they have a more convenient lift-lock for the time exposure lever instead of a screw. Also, the aperture rings are different and there are half-stop settings on PS lenses. I have the 80mm S, 65mm PS and 110mm PS and don't see any difference between them in photos; all are extremely sharp. But I just shoot B&W, so colors may record differently between the two series.