Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Brad Bireley, Dec 26, 2008.
If you could only have 2 lenses for a Mamiya RB 67 what would they be?
65 and 127.
After that, the 210.
I would definitely not go for the 50.
50mm & 90mm I use those 90% of the time. I have a 250mm but it just don't see much use, but love the 50mm.
Okay, so after just stumbling on this thread and reading the last two posts, I have to ask each of you, why? Keith, why would you NOT use the 50, and 23mjm, why do you love the 50?
So, here's what I have [and what I have used] on the rb pro sd: 37, , 65, 90, 127 KL, 150 SF, 180 KL, 210 KL apo, 360. All are/were the newest models, except the 360 is an oldie. Of those the only one that disappointed me was the 50; it did not have good corner sharpness and also had significant distortion. This was best seen with the 6x8 back; if you cropped in a bit then it probably wouldn't matter so much, but I use the 6x8 back routinely.
Though it is probably an unfair comparison, I once compared the rb 50 to the 50 on my mamiya 6 and that just trashed the rb 50 utterly. Really no comparison at all. Night and day. After that I traded away the rb 50, and purchased an rz pro 2 just to get the 50 uld. Then I depinned an rz 110/2.8 and I use that on the rb for close focus, it is a very nice little thing, too bad it's not in the standard rb lineup.
When I first bought the rb, I used a 127 and loved it immediately. I see no weakness in this lens whatsoever. The 90 is also super, but I prefer the 127. I only use the 90 for one specialized purpose: it mates to a silly 360 degree gizmo that I use from time to time. I have no complaints with the 90 except that when you compare it to the 110/2.8, you think, damn, the 90 is one big ass lens and it isn't very fast! Oh well :rolleyes:
The 180 has, in my opinion, a really hard task up against the 210 kl apo. The 210 is the shortest apo in the rb line and I can report that it is spectacularly, jaw-droppingly sharp, and still with that characteristically smooth OOF rendering that mamiyans value.
Now, I am not one to shoot test charts at home or whatever, but I have for some years been willing to loan out lenses to local colleagues to try and so forth. I think that is the best way to put one's money where one's mouth is. Anybody within driving distance of me should know that they can come over and see for themselves. I did not keep the rb 50 though, so you'll have to try that somewhere else!
I would not dispute that different people will pick different lenses. As I say, the only lens I ever had issues with was the 50; I researched it and discovered that there is a broad consensus that the rz 50 uld is better, so I don't think my findings were unusual.
Well first I shoot 6X7, not 6X8 on my RB. The 50mm gives a wonderful perspective and my copy is sharp as a tack corner to corner. It is just as sharp as my 90mm. I have read that people have trouble with edge/corner sharpness, but I have not seen this in either of my copies. They are just wonderful. The 50mm has the floating element and you have to be mindful of your focus distance and adjust the ring accordingly.
I have a 50mm and a 180mm. I love them both.
I kinda have the same outfit as keith, except for the 37 and I have a 250 not the apo 210, but I can count on one hand the times I've used the 50, but the 65 sits on one body constantly, and is used for nearly any wide shots.
The image circle on the 50 FLE is quite a bit smaller than the 65, that might explain the issues with the 6x8 image Keith. Used for 6x7, the copy I have has been well cared for, and performs flawlessly, but except for a few specialized uses, it doesn't get much play.
If I had to choose 2 and only two, it'd be the 65 and either the 150 or 180 (yes, I know the 150 is a soft focus, but once you play with it and get used to it's qurks, it can be an amazing lens, stopped down to f8-f11, it's razor sharp and has the most incredibly smooth OOF highlights of any lens I've ever seen)
90 or 127 and the 180, those are my favs, i have the 65 also but dont use it much, and for a special effect the 150 sf,
65 and 180. Those are the only two I have now. I have owned a 90, 127 and have used a 50. The 127 decided it wanted to jump off a rock and go swimming one day and the 90 was bought from a less than reputable dealer near where I live and the shutter died within a few months of buying it. The 50 just seemed too wide for me and I just couldn't get used to it. The 90 felt awkward, probably because it was too close to my 65. The 127 seemed fine to me, but my shooting style seems to favor either wide angle or telephoto. Normal lenses just don't really do it for me.
Started with the 50C and the 180C. They lasted for a loooong time.
Now got an extra 127KL, which I reckon is just about the most amazing lens in their lineup.
But the other two still see a lot of use, so I can't really pick two only.
I have 50mm, 90mm and 180mm so to pick two I would say 50mm and 180mm (which are the two I use most). If I want a standard angle of view on medium format I will use my Rolleicord instead.
Hmmmm.... I have the 50, 65C, 90C, 127C, 150SFC, and 180C. I shoot mostly with the 65 and the 150 SF. Now reading this thread, perhaps I need to investigate the potential of the 127. I keep the 90 for macro work (It's a natural with both the #1 and #2 extension tubes.
tim in san jose
Oh man...this is harsh...only two...I have used the 50C, 65C, 90C, 127C, 180C, and 250C. All are stellar lenses.
Ummmm...I would say definitely the 250mm C (such a fantastic lens), and the 127mm C for macro (with extension tubes #1 and #2).
Question about 50mm lens
I currently have the 65 and the 127. I was considering a wider lens; why do you not recommend the 50? Thanks in advance!
Never mind - I just saw your followup.
Have the 90 KL-L; it's remarkable. Also the 180 C. It was KEH ugly, but is also remarkable. It took a good bit of surface cleaning, but is nearly perfect with just a few pinprick sized coating imperfections on the front element. Shutter seems fine. Results are wow!
So I broke down and bought a 65 C. It's soft, but gives a very neat softness across most of the frame. Could be a non-visible fungus or something, but I like the coverage.
have an RB67 Pro S, I have a 50mm C lens and a 90mm C lens, and just got a 2x teleconverter (2 stops open for light loss but still useable got it for 24.00 on Ebay so cost is a song and dance), now I can get 180mm and 100mm!!
On my Mamiya RB67 Pro-S I run the 37mm, 50mm, 127mm, and the 360mm. The 50mm is a favourite because it is sharp and I can crop a 65mm or 90mm view out of it and keep more than acceptable image quality. Similarly the 127mm can be cropped nicely to mimic the 180mm. As for the 37mm and the 360mm they are just indulgences rather than work-horses.
Two lenses?Two 50's,just in case anything happened to one of 'em.
I bought a new RB67 that came with a 127, and I augmented that lens with a 65 and a 250. I chose those two simply because they offer a good range of moderately wide to moderately telephoto (and I heard good things about them). All three are very nice lenses, and I love the RB67 "system".
After lots 'o research i choose the 65mm C and a 180mm C.
Now i'm giving some thought to a 210mm K/L APO. Maybe a little extra reach and photo's with it look amazing.
I should probably just spend more $ on film and learn how to use what i have. I'm certain the lenses i have are capable of making images the quality of which i've yet to attain to.
Love the two I have: a 90/3.8C and the killer 150/3.5 K/L.
You won't regret replacing the 180 with the 210APO. I did it in RZ land for $350 shipped - was a great move!
Not long ago I got a 90C which is a really good lens for me.