Are Mamiya KL lenses for the RB67 worth the extra $$ versus Sekor-C?
I'm once again jumping in to the purchase of an RB67 and am wondering if the KL lenses are worth the extra cost versus the Sekor-C lenses? Is there a distinct improvement in sharpness and resolution when comparing prints/transparencies, or would it only be of concern to nitpickers?
I'll probably get a Pro-SD body sinced they're not much more than a Pro-S at KEH. One thing that remains unclear to me is if the Pro-SD body requires an adapter for the KL lenses, or just the C. I've heard it can use all the KL lenses w/o adapter, while others have said only the 500mm and 75mm shift lenses work without it.
Thanks for the help!
Only the C lenses need the adaptor for the Pro SD body (I think).
I have an SD body and both C and KL lenses. If there is a difference in sharpness, I can't see it.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Got a ProS rb67 with 50C, 80C and 180C and a 127KL. I can definitely see better colour saturation and contrast with the 127.
But I *am* a nitpicker!
That is also my experience with K/L lenses vs C lenses.
Originally Posted by nsouto
The K/L lenses need adapter rings just as much as the older lenses. The K/L lenses came with adapter rings when they were new, but many used ones don't have the adapter included. You don't necessarily HAVE to use the adapter ring. Lenses can be mounted and will function on the Pro SD without the adapter ring. The RZ67 has the same size opening as the Pro SD, and I have used RB lenses on an RZ without the adapter and didn't have any problems. In direct sun light, with the mirror up and dark slide out for an extended period of time, there might be a light leak without the adapter ring, but I didn't have any problems with normal use.
The KLs are superior. How superior and whether it matters depends on you. My feeling is that if the price difference is as small as it is, go for the KLs.
If you do go with pre-KL lenses, be sure to hood them judiciously.
The real standout KLs, in my opinion, are the 127 and the 210 apo. Worth every penny, brand new.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm not convinced about C vs KL lenses -- they all seem equally sharp to me. However, the coatings are better on the newer lenses. That being said, I have an older non-C 250mm RB lens and as long as I have a long lens hood on it and I'm not shooting into any sun, I get great images with this lens (which I picked up for a song).
The key thing for me is getting a great price on an older-style, mint-shape lens is a no-brainer: just do it.
J Michael Sullivan
...SOMETIMES I SEE THINGS...
what I want to ask RB users is, beside mentioned coatings, are there any improvements in KLS over Cs?
I borrowed RB Pro-S from a friend along with 50/4.5 and 90/3.8 and I liked the camera pretty much but I noticed both lenses have a lot of barrel distortions and I think it's something I can't get used to, coming from other mF systems such as SQ-A, m645 and P6. I like the format very much and I like the handling and other things but this distortions are something that really puts me off from jumping into RB/RZ systems.
"borrowed RB Pro-S from a friend along with 50/4.5 and 90/3.8 and I liked the camera pretty much but I noticed both lenses have a lot of barrel distortions"
Have never seen any distortion from the 90/3.8--ever.
I have a 150/3.5KL and love it as a short portrait lens. I do see a slight sharpness and colour fidelity edge over C lenses. Mileage is another consideration, especially in terms of shutters, so it's possible that lightly used C lenses will have more life left in them than smoked KLs. Overall, the differences are usually minor provided you're down with how and where flare can affect your shot.
The RB 50 is not on the same level as the RZ 50 uld. The RB 50 was the only lens in the family that disappointed me. The new RB 90 has worked well for me, although I have a very specialized purpose for it and don't use it as much for general shooting as the 127 KL.
Originally Posted by NJS
I have a 90mm C lens and yes, it does have some barrel distortion.