Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,075   Online: 918
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop View Post
    Jeff - Your what?


    Jeff

  2. #12
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,053
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Very nice!

    Question, what is the point of the macro lens, I do a lot of macro work but always just use any lens with the extension tubes and the bellows of the camera body... So, what's the lens do differently?

    Thanks!
    The correction of spherical aberration depends on the distance at which you're focusing. Lenses without floating elements are usually optimised somewhere around hyperfocus or at portrait distances depending on their expected usage whereas a good macro lens will have a floating (moving) element that allows it to be corrected for nearly any distance. For 35mm systems it happens automatically (there are different groups of elements in the lens on separate helicals, you can often see them moving independently when you wind the focus ring) but for Mamiya M-LA lenses, you need to manually set the floating element with an extra ring on the lens because the lens doesn't know how far out on the bellows/tubes it is.

    If you stick a normal lens on a long bellows, you will get a high magnification but also a very soft image with a curved focal plane and some crazy aberrations. If you use a proper macro lens, it will be sharp throughout the image with a flat focal plane, so you can actually reproduce a flat image accurately. You can focus near the corner of the frame and actually achieve some sharpness.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,292
    The handbooks that came with the camera itemized caveats for each lens type used close up.

    Only the macro was perfect if you floated the ring ok

    The 127 might just vignette with both tubes the others worse

    the 65 and 55 needed f/16 or smaller and only short tube

    Etc.

    too difficult to remember think mamiya have ecopys on their site the soft focus is bad enough...

    I resisted the temptation to buy either tube.

  4. #14
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,924
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    The handbooks that came with the camera itemized caveats for each lens type used close up.

    Only the macro was perfect if you floated the ring ok

    The 127 might just vignette with both tubes the others worse

    the 65 and 55 needed f/16 or smaller and only short tube

    Etc.

    too difficult to remember think mamiya have ecopys on their site the soft focus is bad enough...

    I resisted the temptation to buy either tube.
    Hmm I tend to use the 180mm with #2 tube or both tubes. Sometimes the 90mm but never the 50mm

    Anyway I haven't noticed any bad CA actually, but I have the RZ W lenses? Maybe those are better?

    I would Consider a trade of a macro for one of my RZ lenses since I mostly use it for macro anyway. But probably wouldn't want to invest $ into it.

    I can understand the flattening the scene part though.

    If anyone is interested let me know, in the mean time congrats again OP looks like you have something spectacular
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #15
    Trail Images's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Corona CA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    227
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop View Post
    Lugged my RB67 Pro SD up the hill to do a few test shots with the 140mm f/4.5 Macro C, with extension tube no.1, and some Velvia 50. I love this lens! The Velvia is easy on the eye too. Hope you like them... If only I could put this camera in my pocket.

    Attachment 78207

    Attachment 78208

    Attachment 78209
    Very nice work with the ProSD and 140 macro here. Took me a couple outings to use the floating element correctly with or without tube(s). But, once I used it for awhile it became a bit more automatic overall. Great setup IMO. Again, images are very nice here with the Velvia too.

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    The thing I like the best about using that lens is that the working distance is very practical even when shooting at 1/3 life-size.
    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

  7. #17
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,053
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Anyway I haven't noticed any bad CA actually,
    CA is not the problem, it's usually coma and SA. Optical aberrations reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    but I have the RZ W lenses? Maybe those are better?
    Nope. RZ W are generally optically identical to RB lenses. Some (KL) RB lenses are even newer than the older RZ lenses, for example:
    - RZ 180 W is a Tessar and I think identical to an RB 180 C
    - RZ 180 W-N is a Sonnar and identical to an RB 180 KL

    So the RB 180 KL is in fact a newer, slightly sharper-wide-open lens than an RZ 180 W. Slightly different look, some prefer the older.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    If anyone is interested let me know, in the mean time congrats again OP looks like you have something spectacular
    KEH and eBay have plenty make sure you get the M-LA version. It's a spectacular lens for sure.

  8. #18
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,924
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    CA is not the problem, it's usually coma and SA. Optical aberrations reference.



    Nope. RZ W are generally optically identical to RB lenses. Some (KL) RB lenses are even newer than the older RZ lenses, for example:
    - RZ 180 W is a Tessar and I think identical to an RB 180 C
    - RZ 180 W-N is a Sonnar and identical to an RB 180 KL

    So the RB 180 KL is in fact a newer, slightly sharper-wide-open lens than an RZ 180 W. Slightly different look, some prefer the older.



    KEH and eBay have plenty make sure you get the M-LA version. It's a spectacular lens for sure.
    Interesting thanks, hadn't realized, if I could change anything I would simply wish that the RB backs would not have foam rubber but simply like traps like the RC Pro II do, I would probably switch to the Arby anyway because I like the fact that you don't need a battery with them. But I do like the interlock cocking the shutter and the mirror and rotating the film to advance it all in one movement option that the RZ has that the RB does not.

    I wasn't looking to purchase though as I said I am only interested in trading so KEH won't work for me since it's a purchase site isn't it? (Never used it).
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Interesting thanks, hadn't realized, if I could change anything I would simply wish that the RB backs would not have foam rubber but simply like traps like the RC Pro II do, I would probably switch to the Arby anyway because I like the fact that you don't need a battery with them. But I do like the interlock cocking the shutter and the mirror and rotating the film to advance it all in one movement option that the RZ has that the RB does not.

    I wasn't looking to purchase though as I said I am only interested in trading so KEH won't work for me since it's a purchase site isn't it? (Never used it).
    The Pro-SD backs for the RB have light traps, while the earlier backs use foam.

    And if you don't like having to wind the film, buy one of the "cheap as chips" power backs .
    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

  10. #20
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,924
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    The Pro-SD backs for the RB have light traps, while the earlier backs use foam.

    And if you don't like having to wind the film, buy one of the "cheap as chips" power backs .
    Wait, so why do the RZ Pro (non- II) backs have foam?
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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