Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,682   Posts: 1,482,223   Online: 1058
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424

    Tele lens for Mamiya RB67

    I'm thinking about getting a longer lens for my RB67. The current longest lens I have is the 180 f4.5 . I'm debating on the 250 or the 360 - Will there be enough difference between the 180 and 250 to be worthwhile? My uses for the long lens would be picking out details, either architectural or landscape, and full length as well as close up portraiture, mostly in the environment but maybe in the studio. For the studio, I've got the 180 which I think is plenty long enough. Opinions? Also, which version(s) are best? Is there enough of a difference optically between the original, the C, and the K/L to justify the difference in price?
    Last edited by TheFlyingCamera; 04-06-2012 at 09:37 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,115
    Images
    277
    I'm thinking of the same two lenses, Scott. 250mm or 360mm (I have a 90mm and a 180mm.) My main purpose for the longer lens will be for photographing clouds... =) Interested to hear what others have to say about these lenses.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,542
    I was thinking about the Tele for my RB67. I was thinking that the 360 would be better because the 250 is kinda close to the 180. Going to the other extreme I wouldn't mind the 38 fisheye.

    Jeff

  4. #4
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    I too would love the 38 fisheye, but that's definitely not in the budget right now.

  5. #5
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Dunno. My take is that the format really doesn't do long teles especially well. At or beyond 250, you're looking at small apertures and looooong exposures which depend on rock-solid stability for the sharpness we love from <180mm lenses. Some claim KL build quality isn't a patch on the the old Cs, especially the shutters. I bought a couple of KLs as NOS and doubt I'll ever come close to wearing 'em out. They do sport better coatings than the non-C and C lenses but, as usual, proper lens hoods and watching flare sources levels the field for the oldies.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    BE
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    375
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    28
    Personally, I don't think the difference between the 180mm (20° view) and the 250mm (21° view) merits purchasing the latter. If you want tele, go for the 360mm or the 350mm APO. I don't know if the APO makes a real difference in optical quality, I have neither.

    Just my 2c.
    And the sign said, "long haired freaky people need not apply"

  7. #7
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,577
    Images
    59
    I have a Vivitar 2X teleconverter that satisfies any rare need that I may have to use something substantially longer than my 180mm K/L.

    I swear that the teleconverter must be solid glass - it is heavy enough. I'd be willing to bet, Scott, that you have a tripod or two that can handle the combination. And an f/9 effective aperture probably isn't unknown territory for you either .

    In addition, one of my 6x4.5 backs plus the 180mm lens gives me a result that is fairly close to a 250mm.

    So if you are looking for more data before making decision, there may be some work-arounds that might help.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #8
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Well, here's my use for the thing - I shoot color neg in it, and for the most part I scan the negs. Therefore, I want to take the Detroit option - there's no subsitute for (square) inches. Also, I've seen excellent condition 250s going for $125-200. Not much more than a 645 back for the RB. To me, a lens is a better solution than a back plus a finder mask and/or a teleconverter, because it's only one thing to worry about changing on the camera, as opposed to two or even three things. And it's much easier to set down a teleconverter or a finder mask and forget where you put it than a big honkin' lens.

    As to tripods to handle whatever lens, you're right, I've got that covered. If the Induro wouldn't handle it (which it will), then the big Gitzo 1420 series aluminum legset will. I could probably successfully defend myself against a grizzly with the Gitzo. And yes, small apertures don't concern me in the least, although for someone who shoots mostly large format, I tend to work in the wider open end of my aperture range than many. I'm not an f64 junkie. But yes, f9 is nothing to be afraid of. I've got several lenses that have that as a MAXIMUM, even without teleconverters and the like.

  9. #9
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I'll paste in my response thatI also sent in PM....

    I had an oldie 360 and it was quite decent. I'd definitely look for the 350 KL though, which will be better corrected, for color work. I have the 210 and that thing is *amazing*.... a kenko 2x on that would probably be quite good.

    Don't know about the 250 KL but any of the newer rb or rz lenses are awesome.

    The old 360 wasn't all that huge. Good idea to use a brace but not really necessary for most stuff.

    Yes there is a pretty big difference between new and old, for colour work. The newer ones are much better corrected- much more color neutral. For b&w you probably wouldn't care, but it will affect sharpness.

    Another option would be just to get an apo 210 and use superduper film and crop... you could just use a 645 back and off you go.

    I have a 180 and a 210 apo and I definitely prefer the latter.

    The very best MF longie is probably the mamiya 7 210mm, which is scale focused.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #10
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,577
    Images
    59
    Scott:

    In case you were thinking of something to hand-hold :

    (RB67 Pro S, teleconverter and 180mm K/L lens)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails RB67-TC1.JPG   RB67-TC2.JPG   RB67-TC3.JPG  
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin