Purchased the 180mm first. The 90mm second. May go for a 110 and 150 next.
For me it's the 50, hands down, but I'm not you.
I "see" wide. If I could have Mamiya design me a new lens, it would be a 35 or even 30 non-fisheye, ultrawide. I like the 14 to 24mm range in 35mm cameras most and would like the same angle of view in 6x7. But that's me.
Don't let my or other folk's preferences in lenses effect your decisions. What lenses to use really should be a reflection of what you shoot and how. Do you tend to use short or long lenses? Normals? Super teles? Do you "see" the world photographically as if through a wide angle or a normal or a long lens?
The 127 is arguably a very very short tele, or a longish normal, or a moderate portrait lens. What task is the next most important task you want to accomplish? If you see the world "wide" then maybe the 65 is a good match for you. Why? The 127 is a very moderate lens - not too long - not too short. The 65 is also a moderate angle of view.
If you tend to long glass, then the 180 or the 250 would be a good next step.
Best to look through some actual lenses and see if they make sense for you.
I have a 50, 90, 127, 180, 250 and a Rodenstock 200mm soft focus. For wide shots and especially wide interiors the 50 is awesome. For portraits and close in work the 180 is the way to go. Look at getting the extension tubes if you do any sort of close or macro work or want to work with narrow DOF.
* Just because your eyes are closed, doesn't mean the lights in the darkroom are off. *
* When the film you put in the camera is worth more than the camera you put the film in... *
* When I started using 8x10, it amazed me how many shots were close to the car. *
These are the two lenses I use the most, although I also have the 90.
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
My first Mamiya RB67 lens was the 127mm, then the 50mm, then the 360mm. Now I have the widest, the middle-est, and the longest. Since I do mainly landscape I figure I can make up for the focal length gaps with some earnest foot-zoom. So far, so good.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Would the 180 be a good lens to photograph my violins? After they are completed I place the on a table with a drop cloth and a stand to hold them and two studio hot lamps.
Here are two examples using my 90mm. Would the 180 be a better choice?
I like the 50, but the 180 is also a good choice.
Your examples look good as they are. The 180mm will allow you to get further away and change the perspective.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
As an experiment, you could take a shot similar to your first, then move the camera so the subject to lens distance doubles and take another shot.
If you crop and enlarge the second shot so the violin is the same size as the first, you should see the effect of the 180mm lens.
Obvious the 180mm lens will allow you to fill the frame from that position.
Medium telephotos are generally my preferred lenses for product shots. I think the 180 or 250 would work quite well for your violins. Then again, you already have a 90mm, which does the job just fine. Maybe I would concentrate more on the setup and lighting quality for now than on getting a new lens. IMO both of these things could be better in the pix. A longer lens would eliminate more of the background, which would be nicer, IMO.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 11-06-2009 at 02:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Cleared the bowel problem, working on the consonants...