I think even some of the Mamiya 645 lenses may be under-rated. I
can't say I discern any "signature look" like the biting microcontrast
of many Zeiss lenses but many have few vices. The M. 120 macro is very
nice indeed and I have a couple large prints in a macro book from
it that are superb.
Perhaps even smoother bokeh than the "cream machine" CV125 Apo Lanthar.
I remembered this comparison to the 120 mm Hassy --see below. At
least they are smaller and less expensive --that is why I urged Mr.
Michelberger at Mirex to persist in his efforts to fabricate a T-S
adapter for Mamiya in OM mount. I have stalled in getting the M
35/2.8 to use on the adapter for pano's (even with tilt!) as the
corners may be a bit soft and I have the nice Z. 35 shift--though it is
SC version and can really flare a bunch.
Mike
a bit of age on this but FWIW:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
"There were some differences in contrast between lenses, but once these
were normalized with adjustment curves, the differences in resolution
were much smaller and possibly within the range of experimental error
such as focusing. If I had to rank the lenses from good to best, they
would be: Mamiya 120 Macro, Hasselblad 120 Macro, Apo Sironar HM 100,
Hasselblad 50-110 Zoom. Based on these tests, I do not concur with
Michael's earlier conjecture that the quality of the P45 captures would
be lens-limited."
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|