I went so far as to download the user's manual for an RB67 the other
day. I've always been intrigued by the monster. Maybe I'll actually
read the manual and find out what it's like to use it.
Chuck Norcutt
Dawid Loubser wrote:
> OK, I know this is off-topic (but what else is new?)
>
> Has anybody ever figured out why Mamiya lenses are so amazingly good?
> Or is it just
> me? Sure, one can accept that the lenses on the Mamiya 7 rangefinder
> are among the
> best lenses available at any cost, especially the wide-angle lenses.
>
> But I am talking here even about the retrofocus SLR lenses for the
> RB67. Specifically, I
> am talking about my scratched, slightly busted 65mm C-series wide
> angle lens, with an
> equivalent of 32mm FOV.
>
> Have a look at this recently scanned slide (Provia 100, Epson V700)
> shot wide open (notice very shallow DOF,
> blurred foreground just to prove it's taken wide open :-) in very
> demanding lighting conditions. This is a
> torture-test for any lens, with extremely bright highlights all over
> the frame.
>
> http://www.deviantart.com/download/141023473/Cubana_Full_Size_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
> I have never personally used any wide-angle lens that can perform
> anywhere near this level. Not many
> 35mm or equiv. lenses, wide-open, will not show one bit of chromatic
> aberration or coma with these bright
> lights in the corners of the frame. And lets not even talk of the
> M.Zuiko 17mm, the "equivalent" on
> Micro four thirds, which is supposed to be 30 years newer technology
> than the Mamiya. Medium format
> resolution aside, the aberrations visible in an output image of
> similar size should have been at
> least at a similar or better level.
>
> This may be ballsy, but I'd like to see if the Leica M Summicron 35mm
> (a non-retrofocus design) can compare,
> for an image of at the same output size. (sure, I know this is medium
> format, but we can still compare relative
> lens performance by "ignoring" capture medium size, it's the output
> that counts, right?).
>
> You should see this Mamiya lens sing at f/8, it's spectacular. Man, I
> can but only imagine how good their symmetrical
> 65mm lens for the 7 rangefinder must be.
>
> Every time I lust after that OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.0 lens I can't afford
> right now, I am consoled by using this magical
> lens (which actually cost me a lot cheaper than the Zuiko :-). Ken,
> you're the lover of the Zuiko 35mm f/2.8, show
> us what it can do? (relatively speaking)
>
> Sorry for the off-topic rant, but damn, every time I use one of my
> Mamiya lenses, I realise how pedestrian most lenses
> for 35mm cameras are by comparison, and I can't understand why the
> Mamiyas should be so much better? In fact, with the
> *huge* flange to focal plane distance of the massive RB67 body (which
> is actually an 8x8cm SLR camera, i.e.
> even the Pentax67 lenses sit much closer to the film because its
> mirror is much smaller) the Mamiya lenses
> (which also cover 4x5in, by the way) should be worse. Yet, they are so
> much better than most others I've seen.
> Also, spectacular as the Schneider SA 90/5.6 XL is on the Linhof 617,
> it needs to be stopped down to f/11 for that
> level of performance. The Mamiyas are great wide open.
>
> And so cheap in the current market...
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
