RB67 "C" lenses and Regular Lenses?

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Travis Nunn, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. Travis Nunn

    Travis Nunn Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Henrico, Vir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I'm looking to buy another lens for my RB67 and, other than age, I'm not clear on what the differences are in the "c" and non "c" lenses are. I've read numerous posts here on APUG where someone will say the "C" lenses are better, but there is never a reason given as to why they are better. Can anyone shed some light on this?
     
  2. bohica

    bohica Member

    Messages:
    152
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Location:
    Carolina Bea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not sure about the 67, in the 645 line the C only designated multi coating from back when it wasn't the norm, new lenses are designated N, but from what I've read, it's only a cosmetic change in the lens barrel and the optics are still the same.
     
  3. Travis Nunn

    Travis Nunn Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Henrico, Vir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Is it worth the extra money for the multi coating?
     
  4. rogueish

    rogueish Member

    Messages:
    877
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    3rd Rock
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've read arguements that say always go with coating and others that say coatings are no longer needed as much now since everyone shoots with filters that are already coated.
    If I remember correctly, the non C had problems with light flares. The coating it supposed to almost eliminate (or at least reduce) this.
    After looking at a lot of lens for my other camera (Nikon 35mm), and they were ALL coated, I figured, you can't go wrong with it. I doubt it would hurt the final image, and the $ difference isn't really all that much anyway.
    Myself, I bought the "C" lenses.
     
  5. Travis Nunn

    Travis Nunn Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Henrico, Vir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    you're right, its not that much of a difference in money. i just wanted to reassure myself that my money was being spent wisely. thanks.
     
  6. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    16,820
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Another thing to think about ...

    In general, the "C" lenses are newer than the non "C" versions.

    Given that the RB67 lenses include shutters, it may be an advantage to buy a newer lens, as compared to an older one.
     
  7. Marco Gilardetti

    Marco Gilardetti Member

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Location:
    Torino, Ital
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    That's not correct with the RB67: some lens' design has been radically changed from non-C to C type. I'll be glad to check on my tables at home if you need some specific information.

    I hope it's clear for everyone that non-C lenses are coated as well. C are "multi-coated". It's on the end user to decide wether "multi-coating" makes such a big difference compared to "normal coating", but both are coated.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2006
  8. TCrowe

    TCrowe Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Another potential problem of the non "C" lenses that I have read about. The older lens diapragm may cause a problem with the pro s and sd as, it was related by the photographer, these lens diapragms are stiffer than the s and sd's causing stress on the lens mechanics and possible premature failure.

    I have a 65mm non "C" and have had no probs in the year I have used it. I merely had to attach a spacer ring (friction fit) and voila. Works fine. (The spacer ring is required to stop potential light leaks on the SD.