Mamiya-Sekor Lenses for RB67
Anyone out there have experience with the 140mm f4.5 Macro and/or the 150mm f4.0 Soft Focus ?
I have an opportunity to purchase for less than $125 each but I can't seem to find much info on either.
What features make the 140mm a macro ? Is the 150mm a better portrait lens than the 180mm ?
Any info or user comments would br greatly appreciated.
Nikon F2, DP-1
Various Nikkor lenses,
20 - 1000mm
Mamiya RB67 Pro S
90 f3.8 C, 180 f4.5 C,
250 f4.5 C
He who laughs last is worth two in the bush.
The 140mm C is a pure macro lens, selling at ebay for around $ 100,- (biddings)
The 150 SF is a lens that comes somewhat close to an Imagon and is a variable soft focus lens.
When you unschrew the front lenspart you can insert special aperture plates (3 come with the lens) à la Imagon.
With these aperture plates you determine the softness of your picture.
On the other hand is this lens with the front section in place sharp at f:11 and above.
It has a flat field of focus, as the Imagon and unlike the Lensbabies that are sold for 35mm.
Basicly if you have the 150SF you don't need the 180mm anymore.
I recently bought the 150SF for my RB and the 180mm went off my list for buying.
That's about it I think, I hope it helps.
I believe that the 150SF was mainly designed for flattering portraiture, and has at its most effective soft focus apertures a very tight depth of focus. I don't do portraits, but find it to have a very attractive soft edged glow in some hard edged subjects, combined with a perceptible sharpness in the focused area. Something of a specialised lens which may or may not appeal to your style. I haven't used it at higher aperture numbers, where it is supposed to be equivalent to any other 150mm Mamiya lens, I prefer the 180mm.
Regards - Ross
I have the 150 SF and have just started trying it out. At its widest (F4) and without the diffusing filters fitted it is still soft. By about F8 it gets fairly crisp and by F11 it is reasonably sharp. Don't have the 180 to compare. It's fine for occasional use if you want SF but it could get tiresome. I'm thinking of getting the 180 or 140 or 127 also. (Also have the 90 and the 250).
I have posted a neg scan on my gallery taken at F4. http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...5&ppuser=24182
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/188.8.131.52 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/184.108.40.206.0)
I have not used the 150 but I must say that I have been against the idea of a soft focus lens forever. Why not buy a regular lens abd a filter instead of investing in glass that will never render a sharp image no matter what you do. I'm not saying 'If it ain't sharp, it ain't a photograph', but someone could get a bum lens abd some 1500grit and have at it for much less. I guess I just always looked on it as a racket.
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The 150 and 180 are different beasts althogether. When using the 150, I tend towards no disks and close to wide open, giving a lovely glow. The 180 is critically sharp from wide open on up, I have and use both, but for different tasks.
Chris, compared to a Softar, the 150 has a different look, hard to describe, but once you've used one, you either like it or hate it. For bridal portraits it's my best tool.
By using aperture disks, which look like a large hole with many small holes around it, the 150 SF produces something considerably finer than a filter with vaseline, something roughed up with sandpaper, or a cheap SF filter. It produces a much more pleasing bokeh. I agree that the 150 SF is pretty much a one-trick pony, but it's worth remembering that this lens was designed for studio portrait work. Make sure you get all three of the aperture discs with the lens. They would probably be somewhat hard to replace.
Originally Posted by Christopher Walrath
The first line says it all. You have never used one but what the hell, let's give an uninformed opinion and trash it anyway.
The 150SF is a difficult lens to use but gives wonderful photos when used in moderation, without a lot of background noise (which gets distracting when thrown that far out of focus and fuzzy), and under controlled lighting conditions. The lens has a tendency to flair with bright back ground illumination. Without the disks, it's a pretty nice medium long lens for your rb. Stop it down past f11 and use the hood. It is different than the 180, not better, not worse.
For 125 bucks? If it comes with the disks, it's a steal. Heck, it's a steal without the disks at that price.
tim (who actually owns these lens) in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
I have both the 150 and 180 and can concur with the comments of others that have used both. The 150 is a fine medium tele also, as long as its stopped down. The only problem is the constraints it puts one you. If you really want shallow DOF outdoors shooting that Elk, it just isn't the lens to use.
As to price, go look at KEH (where I got mine for $99.00, with discs). They have a bgn grade lens there now, with discs and caps for $94, and an EX grade with discs and caps for $133. Mine was bgn grade and looks close to new, that EX grade lens will probably be even better. Based on that I'd guess $125 is an ok price.
I used to have the 150 but sold it. To cumbersome for me. I like sharpness. It did his job very well though if you get to know how to use t.
The 140 I still have and this is a stellar lens. With its floating element it also performs very good at longer distances. Ive used it for portraits.
It's for sale now BTW', as all my other RB67 stuff.