Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,942   Posts: 1,585,742   Online: 1082
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    Bronica SQ System - PS vs S lens

    I've been gradually assembly a Bronica SQ-A system together from various parts of the world, and have acquired an 80mm f/2.8 PS lens as a starter, but will start looking at other lenses in the future ...

    The questions I have are; what is the difference between the earlier S and the later PS lens, besides the bank balance ?. Also, from those who have either or both, are there noticeable/notable differences between the two ?

    I've trawled the Forum topics because I did see a succinct description of the difference between the S and PS from someone before - but these things have a habit of disappearing more often, the older I get. Strange thing that ....

    David47

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    305
    ps is better coated and noticeably sharper

  3. #3
    Paul Green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    154
    Images
    1
    Like heeppharm says the PS's are better coated, but I can't tell the difference when looking at prints made by either.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    342
    Better coated and not noticeably sharper.

    Half stop detents on the PS apertures, whereas the S series had only full stop detents. Not a big issue though since the aperture actually changes as soon as you move the ring so you can set the half (or third or whatever) stop by eye.

    On the 50mm lens the older S version uses 67mm filters whereas the PS uses a 77mm filter that you don't need for anything else Bronica. This, and the fact that I can't see any difference in sharpness or colour, explains why I use a 50S alongside an extensive array of PS lenses.

  5. #5
    Keith H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    16
    I have both a PS 80mm and S 50mm and 150mm lenses, they are all sharp and have good contrast in normal use. I find the lenses to be more prone to flare than say Zeiss T* ( sun or other bright light source in the image) but the difference between the PS and S is less than the difference seen if using a cheaper UV or skylight filter. Thought I have to declare a dislike of 'protection' filters unless conditions dictate.
    Regards.

    Keith Hudson

    My film set on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/zx9/set...7603300220450/

  6. #6
    NJS
    NJS is offline
    NJS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    125
    I think that with most of the lenses difference is barely noticeable. I think the main difference is 50mm lens, I think design in PS version have changed with bigger front element, due to vignetting in S version. I have mostly PS lenses except 105/3.5 S and I think coatings in PS lenses have richer color rendition, my limited experience in comparison tell me that S lenses have colder color cast. As for sharpness I can not speak, all of the lenses I use are very sharp wide open and get even better when stopped down - most importantly diffraction is almost unnoticeable pass f/11, at least I haven't been able to notice it in bigger enlargements, even at f/16 and f/22.

  7. #7
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    I suspect a controlled blind test of S/PS shots would be inconclusive. I recently got a pretty 105/3.5 S that's subjectively "better" than the 80mm PS/B that came with my SQ-B kit--"better" meaning simply a "look" I like. Guess the difference really depends on your enthusiasm for hair splitting-vs-enjoying your Bronica.

    Here's a quick SQ system overview with a good deal of useful info:

    http://www.ayton.id.au/gary/photo/photo_BronicaSQ.htm

  8. #8
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    My 50 is a PS; my 80 and 150 are S. I'm happy with all. The 150 S is f/3.5 and the PS is f/4, but this isn't terribly significant. I bought the S because it was markedly less expensive than the PS and I was assembling the system on a budget.

    The newer I backs, though, are worth buying over the non-I because the ISO dial on the older non-I back is much harder to change and read if you have a prism finder. With a waist-level finder it's not an issue.
    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?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8
    Many thanks to all contributors. The info you've given me is very helpful, and now I feel I can make some informed choices. The general difference for the PS seems to be in lens quality, 1/2 stops and elimination of vignetting for the 50mm lens (read that on the link from CGW) ... other than that, the end item print (and therefore neg) seems to be about the same with either lens.

    Keith H and and NJS, your pictures on the links are spectacular. Just proves that film is still alive and very well indeed.

    So now I can go and enjoy my SQ-A .... and the Mamiya RB67 Pro-S lead brick that lives in the same closet.

    David

  10. #10
    NJS
    NJS is offline
    NJS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    125
    david, thanks for your kind words.

    so, basically there isn't much difference, mostly not worth the extra buck. However - lens coatings only matter with wide angle lenses which design consists of many glass elements therefor making it more possible for rays to get 'lost' or 'mixed-up' and then cause some abberations and such, so having better coatings in WA lens helps there.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin