[Ratmagiclady]

I wonder if anyone's ever tried the 70mm LS lens for Mamiya? Kind of wondering how they are as lenses.

My 80/2.8 has a lube problem: gummy lube finally gave in down here and oiled the blades, (this lens could be up for a modest trade, if anyone tinkers. It's actually in lovely shape, apart from the lube, which I think is its only problem. (think it was stored a long time before I got hold of it. At least I think all the parts are pristine. ) ...Planning to replace this with another, next time I can spare what a BGN one costs, but I might not mind going a touch wider, even if the actual LS is off, and the price is right: for FOV's I pretty much just like something a little bit long and a little bit wide: (in this case, rather little indeed, on the long end: I'm in love with the 110, and that's only like 65mm equivalent. That's OK, though: what I like to do with the 645 is pretty much to shoot as I would with 35mm and use the bigger film to just take in more than I usually do.

Anyway, we'll see. There'll hopefully soon be an upgraded computer in the house, and I'll need to lay hands to some PSE. Then there'll be time for some of these 'little' neglected things. I've been itching to get out more and shoot with this fellow for a couple of weeks, now. Hard to be in the mood for MF when you're creaky, though.

[Ben_Edict]

I wonder if anyone's ever tried the 70mm LS lens for Mamiya? Kind of wondering how they are as lenses.

My 80/2.8 has a lube problem: gummy lube finally gave in down here and oiled the blades, (this lens could be up for a modest trade, if anyone tinkers. It's actually in lovely shape, apart from the lube, which I think is its only problem. (think it was stored a long time before I got hold of it. At least I think all the parts are pristine. ) ...Planning to replace this with another, next time I can spare what a BGN one costs, but I might not mind going a touch wider, even if the actual LS is off, and the price is right: for FOV's I pretty much just like something a little bit long and a little bit wide: (in this case, rather little indeed, on the long end: I'm in love with the 110, and that's only like 65mm equivalent. That's OK, though: what I like to do with the 645 is pretty much to shoot as I would with 35mm and use the bigger film to just take in more than I usually do.

Anyway, we'll see. There'll hopefully soon be an upgraded computer in the house, and I'll need to lay hands to some PSE. Then there'll be time for some of these 'little' neglected things. I've been itching to get out more and shoot with this fellow for a couple of weeks, now. Hard to be in the mood for MF when you're creaky, though.

Hi, I got the newer 80mm LS recently, and hadn't time to use it yet. But time will come.

In the mean time, some user opinions for you:

Mamiya 645 Leaf Shutter Lens Advantages - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

If you get a 70mm LS, you wouldn't need another standard lens, I think. I can highly recommend the 55-110mm zoom, though, because it covers all og the range you are contemplating and it is a very good lens (indeed much better, than I hoped for, when I bought it). Other wiese, I personally would jump to the 80/1.9 and forego the 2.8 version.

Ben

[Steve Beswick]

Maybe if there's any more of those As-Is 645Js or the like on Keh?

Wondering if you could sneak one of those on to some little tilt adapter, and have some fun with the bigger image circle. I think I've seen similar things for maybe Pentacon lenses or some such.

I may have cleaned KEH out of those - last night I ordered another 645j where the only flaw listed was bad foam for $3, and a dead 645 super for $1.29! Take a guess which one I'm gonna grab the flange from! I also ordered a 1000s listed as "speeds off" for $10. If the speeds are only as far off as the last one I will be a very happy boy indeed!

by the way, I think they also had a m645 listed as inoperable for $8 if anybody is interested in grabbing it for the flange.

Now all I need is a good, inexpensive source for foam. Any suggestions?

[Ben_Edict]

I may have cleaned KEH out of those - last night I ordered another 645j where the only flaw listed was bad foam for $3, and a dead 645 super for $1.29! Take a guess which one I'm gonna grab the flange from! I also ordered a 1000s listed as "speeds off" for $10. If the speeds are only as far off as the last one I will be a very happy boy indeed!

by the way, I think they also had a m645 listed as inoperable for $8 if anybody is interested in grabbing it for the flange.

Now all I need is a good, inexpensive source for foam. Any suggestions?

Steve, good news in a way. But unfortunately, shipping dead 645s to Germany by KEH is very expensive and costs probably 15 times as much as the camera itself... Ithink, the easiest route to go for making an 645-PK adapter is buying a macro spacer. This also gives the tube for adjusting the flange distance.

Ben

[pingflood]

I may have cleaned KEH out of those - last night I ordered another 645j where the only flaw listed was bad foam for $3, and a dead 645 super for $1.29! Take a guess which one I'm gonna grab the flange from! I also ordered a 1000s listed as "speeds off" for $10. If the speeds are only as far off as the last one I will be a very happy boy indeed!

by the way, I think they also had a m645 listed as inoperable for $8 if anybody is interested in grabbing it for the flange.

Now all I need is a good, inexpensive source for foam. Any suggestions?

Yeah, look up 'Interslice' on ebay. He sells light seal kits that contain the strips, foam, and tool to replace them, all for a very good price.

[Steve Beswick]

Steve, good news in a way. But unfortunately, shipping dead 645s to Germany by KEH is very expensive and costs probably 15 times as much as the camera itself... Ithink, the easiest route to go for making an 645-PK adapter is buying a macro spacer. This also gives the tube for adjusting the flange distance.

Ben

I would agree with you, but I don't think that the macro tube would clear the flash horn on most of the newer models.

[Ben_Edict]

I would agree with you, but I don't think that the macro tube would clear the flash horn on most of the newer models.

I don't know the clearance, as I only have my trusted 1000s bodies. Could you measure how much space is there? I can always just take the mount of the extension tube and turn my own tube with the smalles possible diameter.

Ben

[Ratmagiclady]

Yep, Ping has the very source of foam I was mentioning. 'Interslice' is run by a real stand-up guy.

As for any shipping-parts-cameras things, I can still take things down, if it's about shipping, if you need to work around postage. The only problem is I'm in the same state as KEH, which might mean (big) sales tax. And there's a bit of a shipping minimum. Either of which could conspire to make it not worth the exercise, but I'm not so arthritic I can't gut something and airmail some pieces.

[Steve Beswick]

I don't know the clearance, as I only have my trusted 1000s bodies. Could you measure how much space is there? I can always just take the mount of the extension tube and turn my own tube with the smalles possible diameter.

Ben

Well I was going to say that any mount adapter would need to be tapered, but I just held my 150/3.5 up to my K10 and I think I'm going to change my mind. the base of the Mamiya lens is barely larger than the flange on the Pentax.

[Ben_Edict]

Well I was going to say that any mount adapter would need to be tapered, but I just held my 150/3.5 up to my K10 and I think I'm going to change my mind. the base of the Mamiya lens is barely larger than the flange on the Pentax.

Steve, I have one Mamiya extension tube (which I want to keep and will not convert) and it easily fits under the K10/K20 prism housing. So, that is nice. Now I just need another tube, which I will then convert. Seems to be an easy job with the help of those cheap ebay M42-K adaptors with the flange.

Ben

[Steve Beswick]

Steve, I have one Mamiya extension tube (which I want to keep and will not convert) and it easily fits under the K10/K20 prism housing. So, that is nice. Now I just need another tube, which I will then convert. Seems to be an easy job with the help of those cheap ebay M42-K adaptors with the flange.

Ben

I think you are right, just watch out - some of the ebay adapters have thinner flanges than others.

[Ratmagiclady]

Hi, I got the newer 80mm LS recently, and hadn't time to use it yet. But time will come.

In the mean time, some user opinions for you:

Mamiya 645 Leaf Shutter Lens Advantages - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

If you get a 70mm LS, you wouldn't need another standard lens, I think. I can highly recommend the 55-110mm zoom, though, because it covers all og the range you are contemplating and it is a very good lens (indeed much better, than I hoped for, when I bought it). Other wiese, I personally would jump to the 80/1.9 and forego the 2.8 version.

Ben

Ah, missed this reply, before, thanks, Ben. The 70 does look like it'll do nicely qualitywise: I'll just keep an eye out for one, and see what they come down to. I could surely use the speed of a 1.9, but it'll have to wait till I can afford a decent one, I think. The 2.8s are so cheap and common that I think I'll probably end up just getting a slightly-rougher one for the time being, to have for mostly utilitarian purposes where the 110's just too tight.

(Trying to not spend too much on Mamiya 645 at this point, since I'm unclear on what medium format work I'll find myself stressing, anyway. I may wish to go square-format or 6x7 after the next move, depending where that's to, and we may be gearing up for a move by the time so I'm just sorta hanging out here. ) I'm almost done getting what I need for the Pentax digital,
and kind of looking forward to slowing down on the major gear acquisitions for a while, once we get some kind of computer thing going here, so I can really concentrate on a proper study of post, get a little bit of an inventory of prints together, try to get some cash coming *in,* then maybe see.

The zoom's kind of an interesting concept, never looked at one, given it seems kind of nonsensical to put a zoom on MF. ...slower, I presume?

I wonder a bit about them, though, both that and the longer one. Where I lived last, it was pretty scenic, but hilly in a way that meant it was always hard to get the angles on things to really capture the place: made me want to go longer and occasionally wider than I usually do: I really wanted to take advantage of the bigger negative for some local interest prints, nice big enlargements and all that. I'd presumed the quality compromises in a zoom wouldn't be worth it. ...I'd figured on one of the 150s, back then.

[Ben_Edict]

Ah, missed this reply, before, thanks, Ben. The 70 does look like it'll do nicely qualitywise: I'll just keep an eye out for one, and see what they come down to. I could surely use the speed of a 1.9, but it'll have to wait till I can afford a decent one, I think. The 2.8s are so cheap and common that I think I'll probably end up just getting a slightly-rougher one for the time being, to have for mostly utilitarian purposes where the 110's just too tight.

The 70 should do the job and also should be not really expensive. I even got my 80 for an unbelievably low price, right from Calumet (a showroom piece without box, but otherwise LN). On the other hand the 1.9 is a gem. It is pure fun to use it wide open with that shallow DOF.

(Trying to not spend too much on Mamiya 645 at this point, since I'm unclear on what medium format work I'll find myself stressing, anyway. I may wish to go square-format or 6x7 after the next move, depending where that's to, and we may be gearing up for a move by the time so I'm just sorta hanging out here. ) I'm almost done getting what I need for the Pentax digital,
and kind of looking forward to slowing down on the major gear acquisitions for a while, once we get some kind of computer thing going here, so I can really concentrate on a proper study of post, get a little bit of an inventory of prints together, try to get some cash coming *in,* then maybe see.

I symphathize. I always think, now I am done - until I find the next temptation… It seems, spending money is much easier and faster to accomplish, than bringing cash into the house. Photography is really an expensive profession.

I have been thinking about larger MF formats (especially 67) for many years and have been using Hasselblads and Bronicas, which I found nice cameras. But the quality difference between 645 and 6x6 is not really visible, but having 15 shots on a 120 roll is an advantage, as is the smaller size of the equipment.

Instead I opted for extending my LF gear, adding an ancient Graflex Crown Graphic to my Cambo rail camera. The Graflex is old and has only limited movements - but enough for most outdoor uses. With the right lens, the shift is good enough for nice architecture shots as well. And as the camera folds down into a compact and robust package, portability is not worse, than a 67 system.

The Cambo is for indoor uses only, now.

The zoom's kind of an interesting concept, never looked at one, given it seems kind of nonsensical to put a zoom on MF. ...slower, I presume?

I wonder a bit about them, though, both that and the longer one. Where I lived last, it was pretty scenic, but hilly in a way that meant it was always hard to get the angles on things to really capture the place: made me want to go longer and occasionally wider than I usually do: I really wanted to take advantage of the bigger negative for some local interest prints, nice big enlargements and all that. I'd presumed the quality compromises in a zoom wouldn't be worth it. ...I'd figured on one of the 150s, back then.

I know all the thinking about the compromised quality of zooms. But I was surprised by the good quality of the 55-110. It's an f/4 constant aperture zoom. As the zoom ratio is only 1:2 and the wide angle end is not that wide, it offers surprising quality even in the corners. Stopped down to f/8, which is, what I usually use, I cannot detect a difference compared to my primes. It really saved me from buying the 50mm, though the 120mm Macro is still tempring.

Ben

[Ratmagiclady]

The 70 should do the job and also should be not really expensive. I even got my 80 for an unbelievably low price, right from Calumet (a showroom piece without box, but otherwise LN). On the other hand the 1.9 is a gem. It is pure fun to use it wide open with that shallow DOF.

Nice. I'd mostly want it for more ease of focusing when my eyes become tired, really. But I could find use.

I symphathize. I always think, now I am done - until I find the next temptation… It seems, spending money is much easier and faster to accomplish, than bringing cash into the house. Photography is really an expensive profession.

Heehee. That, it can be. I'm glad I'm not a real lens fiend, but there's always something. It's something to keep me active, anyway, as much as I can be, anyway: my ambition's really to start breaking even, month to month, just investing in what I can while I build some digital skills and kind of wait out the lousy economy. It's been a long sort of process, that way. The timing might even work out, though.

I have been thinking about larger MF formats (especially 67) for many years and have been using Hasselblads and Bronicas, which I found nice cameras. But the quality difference between 645 and 6x6 is not really visible, but having 15 shots on a 120 roll is an advantage, as is the smaller size of the equipment.

Instead I opted for extending my LF gear, adding an ancient Graflex Crown Graphic to my Cambo rail camera. The Graflex is old and has only limited movements - but enough for most outdoor uses. With the right lens, the shift is good enough for nice architecture shots as well. And as the camera folds down into a compact and robust package, portability is not worse, than a 67 system.

The Cambo is for indoor uses only, now.

I've been considering doing the same thing with a Graphic or other old press camera: I've got a lens-shutter I've managed to hoard through all the years, that ought to work nicely if I find the rest of a rig. LF's for later, though: Got enough going on just now.

As for formats, it all depends. Given I'm often either low on energy or, in some places, chasing light that won't last, (or of course, people,) that means a lot of handholding, and I suspect that a 45 degree finder on square format would just be a lot steadier for me: and there'd be some cropping ease about it, simplified bracketry if I do anything studio-like, etc. I've considered even going with some combination of older Hassie and Kiev stuff, depending what fits together. Haven't really explored that in depth: don't really know the models. Something out of the Bronica Sq series might do, too.

I know all the thinking about the compromised quality of zooms. But I was surprised by the good quality of the 55-110. It's an f/4 constant aperture zoom. As the zoom ratio is only 1:2 and the wide angle end is not that wide, it offers surprising quality even in the corners. Stopped down to f/8, which is, what I usually use, I cannot detect a difference compared to my primes. It really saved me from buying the 50mm, though the 120mm Macro is still tempring.

Ben

Does sound potentially-useful, though. Something to maybe keep an eye on for the future.

[Steve Beswick]

Well I'd love to tell you all about my UG grade 80mm f1.9 from KEH. I'd love to say that UG is nothing to fear. Unfortunately UPS (I call them oops) screwed up AGAIN, this time blaming it on a train derailment. I'm just wondering how far away the driver will be on Monday when he throws the package on to my patio, and how big of a puddle it will land in.