Manual lenses - yes. Auto lenses like the Hasselbald H-series, Mamiya 645AF and Contax 645AF - no. Physically they could, but they lack aperture rings.
Sorry...
I'm not too familiar in medium format lenses...
I'm looking for a superwide (landscape) or telephoto lens (for portraits) options in Medium format lenses, hoping perhaps someone knows a wonderful lens that's hard to beat by 35mm lens.
Yeah, 12mm on medium format...that's REALLY wide. Equivalent to a 4.6mm lens on APS-C.
About the widest medium format lenses you'll find will probably be in the 24mm range, I would think. (It's actually close to the same enlargement from full frame as full frame is from APS-C. Roughly a 1.6x factor, depending on which exact format you're talking about.
I don't have experience in the medium format arena for specific lenses, but you'll likely be looking at lenses from 35mm and beyond.
[I'm using "MF" to mean "medium format," not "manual focus."]
Paul, one problem is that most MF lenses do not resolve as much as 35mm lenses do; the legendary "sharpness" of MF cameras is often due to the size of the negative, not to the sharpness of the lens. I'd go so far as to say that even moderately priced EOS lenses like the 85/1.8 will definitely be sharper than any affordable MF lens, and as noted above you won't find any MF lenses wider than 24mm.
There are some good reasons to mount MF lenses on EOS cameras (usually it's done to get tilt/shift capability with an adaptor), but unparallelled "sharpness" isn't usually one of those reasons.
Fwiw, the sharpest MF lenses are reputed to be the Mamiya 7's, but they won't work on an SLR.
Sorry my comment was a bit rude. You're not really going to find a medium format lens that's still superwide on 35mm. Like JMan13 said, 35mm focal length is basically the widest you're going to get, although I'm sure you can find something as wide as 24mm. Longer lenses you'll definitely be able to find, although they won't be very fast, with some exceptions. I think there's a Zeiss 110mm f/2 for Hasselblad, which I believe some people here have used with success. I'm not really sure you'll see any benefit over using regular 35mm format lenses though, apart from possibly using a tilt-shift adapter.
I have a bunch of CZJ and Kiev lenses (Kiev 66 mount) which are awesome when used on MF body. They are not any better than 35mm lenses on the 35mm body. And they are darn heavy!
So, if the medium format lens is, let say 200mm, it would me about 125mm for my 5D?
No, 200mm is 200mm, and the effective angle of view will be the same as with a 200mm designed for a 35mm camera (or your 5D, which is 24x36mm sensor, same as 35mm film).
I agree with all of Ralph J.'s points. MF lenses are designed to "cover" a larger sensor or film, which is why they are good for shift movements (with an adaptor that allows you to shift the lens). Otherwise, there is really no advantage to using them on your 5D, and there are quite a few disadvantages: weight, bulk, cost, lack of AF and meter coupling, not to mention generally lower resolution than good 35mm format lenses. One other possible advantage: you are using the central portion of the lens' coverage circle, so there may be more uniform sharpness to the corners of your frame.
The shortest focal length I've seen in medium format is 24mm, and that is VERY expensive.
Sorry guys, the idea that as a whole MF lenses don't resolve well on 35mm is incorrect. Now do some MF lenses suck? Yup. But so do some 35mm units. On the other hand, some MF lenses are exceptional and do very well on a 35mm body.
The concept comes from the fact that MF film (say 645) because of the size of the film substrate, had a higher number of random-sized grain distributed throughout the emulsion vs a 35mm negative and thus the lenses had a distinct advantage in capturing detail, DR, etc.
As such, the average MF lenses didn't NEED to resolve as fine detail because the grain structure and greater enlargement need to get an 8x10 print from a 35mm negative vs a 6x4.5 one. However, because a given MF lenses didn't NEED to resolve well doesn't mean that it didn't. You have to move the thinking into the the digital age.
Scenario: You have a MF digital back with a pixel size of X and a FF DSLR with the same or similar pixel size, a MF lens, say the Hasselblad 110/2, and an adapter.
Other than the lack of AA filter on the MF sensor, the shallower DoF the MF sensor would deliver and differences in firmware within the cameras (that would exist when shooting any two bodies) , what will be the differences in IQ, using the same lens on both bodies from center of frame out to the edge of the FF negative (20mm from center frame)? NADA.
AA filter aside , the 'grain' is of uniform and like/similar size across both sensors - the only difference is one sensor captures more of the image circle than the other.
I've used MF lenses such as the Hassy 110/2 and Mamiya 200/2.8 APO with superb results on my 1Ds2. Many folks here and on other forums like www.getdpi.com and LL use MF lenses on FF and crop bodies - sometimes using their Nikon, Canon or Leica bodies as backup units to their MF backs. In my case the 110/2 was an excellent portrait lens and I would go so far as to say the Mamiya 200 APO, in terms of IQ, stands in the same company as the best Leica APOs I've used. Yup, it is THAT good. Ergonomically,it's more awkward than a comparable Leica, but it also cost peanuts compared to same.
Will a 110/2 or Hassy 180/4 deliver the same uber-shallow DoF on your 5D as it would on say a Phase One P21+ back ? No. MF lenses are 'indicated' in 35mm FL and aperture sizes, and as such deliver shorter effective FLs and shallower DoF on MF because of the larger sensor size.
Find a nice MF lens and you'll actually IMPROVE upon the performance as indicate by the lens's MTF because when mounted on a FF body, you only capture the first 20mm of the image circle -- the weaker corners are not captured. In short, you get the lens's sweet spot.
In short, if you do your research and pick your weapons well, there are many MF lenses that will match or better many 35mm units in the same FLs.
Edited by Conner999 on Jul 10, 2008 at 03:54 PM GMT
1. ANY MF lens can be used on any of a Nikon, Canon or Leica body. Because the registration distances with MF bodies is so long versus 35mm cameras, the rear elements of MF lenses sit well in front of your camera's sensor/mirror. Actually MF lenses are probably the only non-EF lenses that will universally clear ANY 5D ;>
2. No way in hell you'll find a 12mm MF lens. Remember a MF lens is labeled as if it were 35mm. A Hasselblad 80mm is the same FL as Leica 80 'Lux, Canon 80/1.2 or Nikon 80/1.4 when mounted on your 5D. However, mounted on a Hassy, the effective field of view if closer to 50mm - hence most MF cameras sell with 80mm 'kit' lenses vs the standard 50mm units on 35mm.
The same with the aperture. F2.8 is F2.8 - BUT because of the larger sensor size, a MF F2.8 lens is actually more like an F2 or larger lens when mounted on a MF camera. Very skinny DoF.
As such,and as was mentioned earlier, MF lenses that are wider than 24-28mm are RARE and VERY, VERY (did I saw very?) spendy. The idea of using MF lenses on a 35mm is that many offer incredible performance for very low dollars, offer different drawing styles/IQ than offered elsewhere, to feed your curiosity -- or as a backup to an MFDBack. No sense buying a $5000 MF WA when a far cheaper Leica, Nikon or Contax Zeiss lens could do just as nice a job.
3. Related to #2, fast (say F2) MF lenses are relatively rare and reserved for MF cameras with focal plane shutters (shutter is in camera vs in the lens). Secondly because of the very shallow DoF an F2 lens will deliver on a MF back (more like F1.4 or so), fast MF lenses can tend to have very fine focus mechanisms - similar to a 35mm macro lens. This allows the MF photog to better place the skinny DoF his/her Mamiya 645 AFDII would have using it.
4. MF lenses, as you'd expect, have a larger diameter than 35mm due to the larger image circle. Larger diameter means larger glass elements means more weight vs. the same FL in 35mm.
5. Hasselblad CF lenses (shutters in lenses) can be used on 35mm - you just need to set the lens to 'F' - locking open the in-lens shutter (after cocking it of course).
6. Some MF lenses like Hassy's are actually EASIER to use in stop-down mode than 35mm ones. The lenses come with an aperture pre-set function that is actually cool once you get used to it.
You set the aperture to say F5.6. Nothing will happen - lens stays WO. Focus, etc - then when ready to shoot, stab a button on the LHS of the lens. Bingo, lens stops down to F5.6 and stays there until you hit the button again. Shoot. Stab button again, aperture is back to WO, focus on new subject, stab button, and back to F5.6, etc etc. Aperture can be changed at any time.
Edited by Conner999 on Jul 10, 2008 at 04:02 PM GMT
I had the Hassy to Nikon adapter, and a adapter to shoot my Pentax 6/7 lens on my Pentax 645, and another to two others to shoot thoses MF lenses on my K bodies. Results, seemed pretty good, a compermise. I now had leaf shutters on my 35MM for high speed flash. Well , i was always understanding, i was using the center/sweet spot of these MF lenses. All seemed ok, since the adapters were rather cheap and i had such an arsnel of lenses, already paid for.
Cheers
Harry
This is exciting.....
Now I get to research a whole lot of lenses for possible candidate....
I must admit, the price for MF lenses are pretty stiff compared to 35mm lens...
Thank you so much for the detailed eye-opening information.
Paul - prices form some manufacturers are steep. Zeiss makes lenses for the V-line of Hasselblads (H line lenses are made by Fujinon) and since many of the V lenses are still sold new, the prices reflect the two names on the lens and their current production.
Also note - be careful when looking at lenses. Many, mostly AF, MF lenses have NO aperture ring on the lens. Others like Mamiya RZ lenses have NO ability to focus the lens (RZ is a bellows-style camera). Shame, because many like the RZ units and Contax 645 lenses are reportedly just stellar.
