Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,842   Online: 890
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    The MC lenses aren't the latest Zeiss, but they don't suck. Some of the PE lenses, like the 150mm, are the MC lens with newer coatings. I think the 200 is the same. My 250 sure seems to be the same. Others were redone, like the 40mm, and might be better, though I don't know.
    The 180 PE is a newer design and might be superior to the 200 optically. It definitely focuses closer.
    I have heard that the 75mm MC was nothing special, that the E-II and PE (which supposedly are the same design) are superior optically.
    Urban legend, resultant from jounalists. NONE of the MC lenses which I looked up in the list below are the same formulation as any of the PE lenses!

    Optical design of each lens, in terms of elements and groups

    40PE=9/8, 40MC=10/8
    50PE=9/7, 50MC=9/8
    75PE=6/5, 75MC=6/4
    150PE=6/5, 150MC=5/5
    250PE=6/6, 250MC=5/5

    The other lenses have no direct PE equivalent...100 Macro MC, 200MC, 500MC
    Last edited by wiltw; 12-06-2010 at 09:30 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Urban legend, resultant from jounalists. NONE of the MC lenses which I looked up in the list below are the same formulation as any of the PE lenses!

    Optical design of each lens, in terms of elements and groups

    40PE=9/8, 40MC=10/8
    50PE=9/7, 50MC=9/8
    75PE=6/5, 75MC=6/4
    150PE=6/5, 150MC=5/5
    250PE=6/6, 250MC=5/5
    Interesting. I accepted that the PE 150/3.5 and 250/5.6 were the same as the MC based on the close focusing distances being the same, while the all-new 135 and 180 PE's had much closer distances. That in itself is certainly not proof, but I never checked further. There was also a 150/4-are your specs for the 3.5?

    The other lenses have no direct PE equivalent...100 Macro MC, 200MC, 500MC
    That I have to disagree with. There were PE 100 macro's. KEH has some for sale right now. They also have a couple of E's. Tamron says the MC designation was dropped in favor of E, though I sure haven't seen many lenses marked "E".

    www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/etr_guide.asp

    I suspect but don't know that they are the same, as the 105mm 4.5 PE macro was coming down the pike.

    There is definitely a PE 200. It also has a long close focus compared to the 180.
    I have not heard of a 500MC, though they sold both the 500 f/8 PE and 500 f/8 EII, which are very different lenses, with the PE much larger and twice the weight, and much more complex optically.

    www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/etrsi_lens.asp
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #13
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    I decided to look into this further.

    I dug out The Bronica Manual by William Cheung, copyright 1989. All ETR series lenses are referred to in it as "E" not "MC", though the 75 and 500 are elsewhere referred to as E-II. Tamron's ETR Guide states that "MC" was dropped because multicoating had become widespread by then.
    (If "E" equals "MC", what if they were squared?)

    Comparing the Tamron specs and the specs in Cheung's book corroborates what wiltw said-the PE are different designs.

    Medium Format Cameras, Users Guide to Buying and Shooting, by Peter B. Williams, copyright 2001, says,
    "The earliest series were designated MC, and for the most part are very good performers. Two lenses to avoid in the MC line are the 150mm f4 MC and the 75mm MC--the 150mm f4 because it is a poor performer and the 75mm because of mediocre performance and a 58mm filter thread (virtually every other ETR lens has a 62mm filter thread). The 150mm f3.5 MC, which replaced the f4 lens, is a true standout, with quality that matches the latest PE version. The MC and E or E-II lenses are optically the same, except for the 75mm f2.8 E-II which is a vast improvement over the MC version....
    ...All PE lenses are computer designed."

    Thanks to wiltw for challenging my misconception.

    So stradibarrius, as for the 200/4.5 MC, I'd not hesitate to get it, but if you want to be sure you're getting the latest design, go for the PE version.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    344
    Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was trying to remember when writing the post, whether it was a 75 or 80 but was too lazy to dig it out of the closet to check. It is in fact the 75mm f/2.8 MC lens, as shown here: on my web site.
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    revdodjim-

    You mentioned the 80-do you mean the 75 or are you talking about the SQ lens?
    Pentax 67ii, Fuji GF670, Mamiya 6, Pentax 645N
    Chemical Cameras
    My Galleries

  5. #15
    Katie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    739
    Images
    89
    I do the same thing .. confuse my 75 with my 80 (for the hassy - which is busted, by the way).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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