[quote=elitegroup,Sep 3 2008, 04:40 PM]Correct me if I'm wrong but it says on their website the new batch of glass/optics are made by 'Carl Zeiss'

[Quote/] The current prototypes are equipped with lens groups completely "Made in Germany" by Carl Zeiss. These lens groups are being assembled in Germany and embedded into Hartblei barrels made from German special aluminium. [End Quote]

More info at this link http://www.hartblei.eu/en/optics-by-carl-zeiss.htm

[/quote]

We have tested these lenses for a dutch fotoforum but these are not the lenses tah are to be used on a MF camera. They were not bad at all but only fit 35mm camera's. We had all of them ; the 40mm, the 80mm and the macro planar. These are the lenses designed by a german photographer who bought a part of the hartblei name.
The 45mm for MF is just an old russian design. Lenses arent made for years and only supplies are bought to get enough lenses for Phase.

I think we will have to wait and see. I really don't think Phase will sell a renamed lens for 3 times the price. Every new lens they bring out has to be better than the stuff before, otherwise they would lose customers.

James,

I agree with what you say, but with comment to above. Lets remember there was a time when cameras and lenses were more affordable (than the latest developments from Mamiya). The medium format players still in the field are changing that and pushing much higher in prices. Why? If digital is so much superior to film, why does it need to cost more? This is tough for us amateurs who seek higher quality than DSLRs and larger media format than the 24x16mm and 36x24mm sensors...

Regards
Anders

To some extent I agree, though medium format was always more expensive, film, lenses, and large format even more expensive than that.

The difference was that prior to digital a less expensive camera with good glass, or even a used camera still allowed you to easily use the latest sensor (film).

Now it's different and the digital film is the most expensive element of the package.

Then again it's not all bad expecially at the amateur level. If you are cautious and do some research a Valeo 22, an H25, an A 17, even a later model p21 will give you very very close to the same quality as any of the newer backs. In fact the sensor in most of these is the same as the newer backs, just the convenience and speed is increased, but not that much towards the final image quality.

Adding one of those on a used Contax, or Mamiya or even a first generation H-1 is not that much more than a new Canon and if your shooting for only your own personal work, it probably will last you many years.

JR

These new 45mm will be better becaurse of the better coatings and smaller tollerances in production but will be made from the same batch lenses out of the 80ies from last centurie. They dont make 45mm anymore but had a huge pile of them laying in warehouses.

I wonder how much of a difference coatings would make?

Looking at my old Hartblei 45, there is no sign of ill fitting parts, it seems very well made (admitting that the look of it is not to everyones taste).

So you optical experts out there... how much quality improvement can one get from better coatings?

I assumed it would only improve maybe flare characteristics which would be useful but not address the fundamental issue... that the lens calculations would be exactly the same.

Moreover these are lens calculations are at a fairly extreme point on the spectrum of uses, with the shifting, size of elements etc. Its not a very large front element considering what its trying to do.

I await the reviews with interest but not a great deal of anticipation.

I saw the note about the new $3995 price tag for the 45ts.

All I'm saying is, before I wrote that check, I'd want to do lots of testing with this "new" lens design.

Also, the physical design of the way it rotates and tilts is very Sputnik-era; let's just say it's not the most elegant efficient design. I guess if you had to have some tilt, it's better than nothing, but compared to the incredible ease of working with the Canon tilts, Canon wins hands-down.

I just shake my head in disbelief at writing a four thousand dollar check for slapping some lipstick on a pig.

Phase -- you gotta love 'em. When backed in a corner, I guess a man's got to fight, but this desperation move of rebadging every Edsel left in the marketplace; well, it just screams of panic to me. Rumors have it that they're now about to get into the automotive business, and they've located every AMC Gremlin on the planet, and they're manufacturing silver Phase logos to slap on the hoods. Revised price: $46,000 USD, for a 1972 AMC Gremlin that's been run through a car wash. New director of "remarketing" at Phase: Fred Sanford.

In terms of long-term quality products, my money is on Sinar, and I never would have said that a year ago. Sinar is listening, and they seem to be delivering.

[quote=gwhitf,Sep 4 2008, 05:39 AM]


Also, the physical design of the way it rotates and tilts is very Sputnik-era; let's just say it's not the most elegant efficient design. I guess if you had to have some tilt, it's better than nothing, but compared to the incredible ease of working with the Canon tilts, Canon wins hands-down.


Nothing beats the technical or mechanical design of the Hartblei!!! No canon, nikon or other has te same movements. It are the only lenses that have full 360 degrees tilt and schift rotation independent from eachother. No other lens can do that Canon is always fixed at 90 degrees for example( unless you modifie it in an other angle.
I think it is better to work some time with the lens befor making statements
I am sure you learn to appreciate that lens, I have all types of them, and lukkely i switched untill I got the perfect ones.

Yeah, the issues here seem t ob ethe glass, and of course this is a stop-down lens.

At the prince they're selling them I think Schneider or Zeiss would find it profitable to enter the market.

Edmund

[quote=ixpressraf,Sep 4 2008, 11:05 AM]
[quote=gwhitf,Sep 4 2008, 05:39 AM]
Also, the physical design of the way it rotates and tilts is very Sputnik-era; let's just say it's not the most elegant efficient design. I guess if you had to have some tilt, it's better than nothing, but compared to the incredible ease of working with the Canon tilts, Canon wins hands-down.
Nothing beats the technical or mechanical design of the Hartblei!!! No canon, nikon or other has te same movements. It are the only lenses that have full 360 degrees tilt and schift rotation independent from eachother. No other lens can do that Canon is always fixed at 90 degrees for example( unless you modifie it in an other angle.
I think it is better to work some time with the lens befor making statements
I am sure you learn to appreciate that lens, I have all types of them, and lukkely i switched untill I got the perfect ones.

[/quote]

I use a P45+ on an AFD II. The Mamiya body is what it is - a cheap, somewhat obsolete, merely OK body with cheap to expensive, mostly OK lenses (with the new lenses being much nicer). All in all, nothing really spectacular. Competent. Uninspiring.

The problem for Phase One is that the AFD II and III, and most of their associated lenses, are NOT in the same league as their backs. Not even close. And by associating with these merely OK bodies and mostly OK lenses, they diminish shooter's experience with their backs.

There was some talk by Phase One, when the AFD III was released, that this was just a stopgap until they can come out with an entirely new design. Obviously that could just be marketing BS, but it would certainly be nice if true. Now if only Phase One understood the concept of a published roadmap :-)

Well what I have seen from the 80mm and from the new 150mm lens I would say they are not OK lenses, I think they are really good. I don't know many lenses that can compete with them. Now if they keep track as they promise and redesign all current lenses i think we will have a lot of fun.

I specifically said the new lenses were much nicer.

Absolutely right, the mechanical design is spot on. Its only the glass that lets it down.

Every design has its compromises though and the Hartblei certainly has. Given the choice though I would choose the Hartblei mechanical movements over my three Canon TS lenses.

(BTW : The 'look' is certainly Sputnik. But then the Russian space program beat the US into space didn't it! Nasa spent millions developing a ball point pen that could write in zero gravity... the Russians gave their cosmonauts pencils. I appreciate such a simple design principle).

I was lucky to test a lot of hartblei lenses and kept the ones that were best. I had two perfect 35mm SR lenses but one got dammaged when hitting the concrete floor) and two perfect 85mm for nikon /canon mount. I also have a extremely good 45 mm but had several bad ones before i found the wright one.
This photo is with a 45mm on a mamamiya.

Okay, a couple of things. First, there is a really good chance this will be Zeiss glass. Which will make most of the comments on this board irrelevant! Of course if it is just a rebadged Hartblei then they would be deserving...


However, in trying to figure that out, and in following a link from above where Hartblei talks about using Zeiss glass in their lense bodies, it lists a 40, not a 45.

http://www.hartblei.eu/en/sr40if.htm

I would much prefer a 40 over 45! Although 45 is okay. 50 is too narrow for much of what I do. I might end up with that one straight from Hartblei if it gets good reviews. So, like people say, we'll see!

In general though, I think people are forgetting one thing in talking about cost and these MF systems. Film! The price of a whole PO or AFDIII is quite cheap with several lenses when used with a film back. As I do landscape and my # of shots per year is very low (I do sell images but have a non-photo day job as well), I am a very very happy Mamiya user and my cost per image is great! The quality and size of enlargements I can do is incredible for the prices I've paid for the equipment.

Oh - and even the older MF glass, not the really old stuff, but the lenses that are pre-2008 are considered extremely competitive with Zeiss and Hassy from everything I've read from people how have actually used both. There is an article on this site where they test several MFDBs and the Mamiya glass was used right with the Hassy/Zeiss and the zoom lens was considered the equal of the Hassy zoom equivalent. Find that article for more info... Anyway, not trying to start a lense-war here, but just to say there are *many* who think that Mamiya glass is just a hair or two short of the Zeiss/Hassy equivalents (versus being 10 feet under them).

That 40mm is for DSLR bodies as listed at the bottom of that web page. The Phase lens is a 45mm Hartblei.

Yeah -figred that it was for small format a half hour after posting. It starts by saying it was designed for 6X6, but then when you read the details about what cameras it is for, it is clearly for small format. That also means that the 40 isn't wide at all!!!


Note it says about the 40:

Even with wide open aperture, the optical resolution
is exceptionally high. Detail structures up
to 200 line pairs/Millimeter would be possible if
suitable chips would exist. The perfect lens for the
demanding studio and architecture Photographer.


Is it possible that Phase One would re-badge/sell a 700 lense for 3 or 4k when the same company is selling something like the 40? I've seen companies do really really dumb things, but this would be near the top of the list (assuming that further testing reveals that the glass itself doesn't fit the standards set by the rest of the Mamiya line-up or forthcoming Phase One lenses). We have that one line to work with 'improved glass' or whatever... I suppose it would have said Zeiss if it were Zeiss as that is a selling point, rather than 'improved' or whatever word was used. The existence of the 40 implies that they can work with Zeiss and maybe in future the glass will be replaced if it isn't?

Chris Lawery, who started the thread and sells the lenses, could confirm or deny this, no? This is one of those situations where there is a fact at hand, and speculation is of moderate value at best when the information could be had directly.

Chris - I know the lense got a lot of heat throughout this thread and I'm not asking you to enter the fray - I understand the virtue of staying above such fray - but from a factual perspective could you just reply with a 1-liner letting us know if the 45 has Zeiss glass or Hartblei glass?

As said, we have tested all three hartblei lenses with Zeiss glass in it. The 40, 80 and 120 macro planar. These lenses are made by hartblei ukranie with carl zeiss west germany glass. However only internded for 35mm camera's. The 45mm3,5 for MF cameras uses russian glass but as they are running out of lenses ( producrion stopped years ago) they are looking for a replacement. The new coming 45mm will probably be using new and" better" lenses.
I have the complete lens set-up from russian SR lenses and i am very happy with them. They are never ultra sharp but very" Cartier Bresson" like( never seen a sharp image from him but always very beuatifull unsharp renderings) My favorit's are the 35 and 80mm for my canon gear and a coupple of 45mm for the mamiya/contax camera's.
For those interested, a link to the article:http://www.fotoapparatuur.nl/Artikelen/index.php/test-hartblei-superrotators/513/

Cool!

Thanks

Does anyone know if PhaseOne has started supplying any copies as yet? I am eagerly awaiting my copy and hoping it will be supplied soon.

Regards,

Piet Gispen
http://www.pietgispen.com