My Bad, Sorry! So it's closer to a Gauss than a Tessar :-(
I don't have the Mamiya 180/4.5, but the 140/4.5 Macro I do have is
spectacular beyond belief,
I absolutely adore it:
> http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/086/2/2/undergrowth_with_a_view_by_philosomatographer-d3cl9bc.jpg
(Ilford HP5+ 6x7cm, 140mm @ f/4.5, RB67, 12x16in print on Ilford MG IV
Multigrade Pearl paper)
I actually had the superior, modern K/L version for a while, but I
went back to using my old C-series one,
it's smaller, lighter, better-built (all-metal, great craftsmanship),
and I could not see any difference in
my work.
regards,
Dawid
On 14 Jul 2011, at 3:18 PM, Sawyer, Edward wrote:
> No, it's nothing like a tessar. It's a modified Gauss design.
> Though I do
> agree tessars tend to have great bokeh, and within their limitations
> can be
> quite good lenses. (Check the MTFs for the RZ67 180 f/4.5 W-N for
> example).
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
