Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,935   Posts: 1,557,045   Online: 1269
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    Well I found a great deal on a 180mm "C" from Adorama so got it. I still have my eye out for a 50 or 65mm
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,550
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
    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?
    Probably your best choice would be the 127. But.. all three lens will do the job, the film format will allow you to enlarge to whatever you need with little decrease in quality.

    My favorite rb lens? the 65. then the 127 (so damned sharp) The 50 never quite does it justice, and all others are too tele for my likeness. But then again, I have always been a 35/105 shooter in 135 format.

    tim in sanjose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  3. #23
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    I have a 127mm and actually like the framing with the 90mm better when trying to get the entire violin in the shot. If I am just trying to get a shot of the body the 127 is excellent.
    the price on everything with the RB67 seems to be increasing a bit. I guess at this point in time there is a bit more demand for the camera and lenses. The 65mm seems to be a better bargain right now and I also like the 35mm lens in the 35mm format.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  4. #24
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Barry this will be an unconventional suggestion but... you can de-pin an rz 110/2.8 and that makes a very fun little lens on the rb. The depinning is extremely easy.

    Here are the downsides:

    1) You won't be able to focus past ~20 ft or so (you lose infinity focus)... maybe not a big deal if you are mostly doing macro etc.

    2) You'll only have the mechanical override speed on the lens, which I never use, I just hand shutter. Again if you are doing macro then you're easily into 1-2 sec exposures so it's not a problem. It would be a problem if you were shooting slide IMHO.

    3) To stop the lens down per the aperture dial, you need to rig a way to hold the DOF preview lever down. I do this with a paper clip.

    The pros are numerous though: it's very fast, which makes critical focusing that much easier. It's a real pleasure to focus, and if you are like me, you will feel great temptation simply to shoot it wide open.

    Concerning the overall lens characteristics of the 110/2.8, I'd say it's pretty dreamy, with all the pros/cons that this implies. It's not super incisive, and I don't get the feeling that it sharpens up especially when you stop down... it is best suited for gentle / portrait renditions. The tonality is nice, as is the bokeh. It is not to be compared to the 140 macro though, no way. Nor the 127. If you want critical sharpness at 1:1 the 110 is not the right choice. But if you like the OOF rendering and dimensionality...

    One other pro: it's very inexpensive. Probably the lowest cost of the rz lenses. That said, it was so inexpensive that I just picked up an rz body specifically for this lens and the 50 uld (which, as I mentioned, is lacking in the rb lineup).
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #25
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    I have been looking at tat RZ body but the lenses are so expensive I will have to wait for the economy to improve and business to return.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    72
    Well, it depends. I bought my RZ67 + 120 back + WLF + 90/3.5 for 350 euros last summer. I thought it was pretty decent price. Recently I bought a 250/4.5 for 115 euros, so you just need to keep looking if you find the prices high.

  7. #27
    photoncatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    173
    Huge fan of the 50mm. I'm a wide angle slut. I also have the 250mm, and love it. The only other lens that I jones for is the 37mm (I think that's right) fish eye. Like I said I'm a WA slut.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    224
    My most used lens on my RB67 is my 50mm C, and my second most used lens is my 250mm C. I also have a 90mm non-C, a 127mm C, and a 180mm C for portraits. I borrowed my friend's 65mm C, but I didn't like the AOV as much as I do with a 35mm lens on 135 format (the 35mm f/2 in 135 format is one of my favorite lenses).

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by EricO View Post
    Purchased the 180mm first. The 90mm second. May go for a 110 and 150 next.
    I too, started with the 180mm first and purchased the 90mm second (bought at retail prices) and used them for portraits mostly. A few years later when used lens prices were a bargain I bought a few more in this order: 65mm, 250mm, 360mm (w/2x converter), 140 macro, 100-200 zoom. The 50mm never attracted me because I don't like image distortion (when I go for a wider view I prefer a 6x8 view camera w/65mm and 47mm lenses - for more control).

    My favorites, and most used, are the 65mm, 180mm and 360mm. The 180 is the sharpest of all (KL lenses). The 250mm and zoom are hardly ever used because they add too much weight to my backpack.

    If I was to choose only two lenses it would be the 65mm and 180mm (lightest of all) and maybe an extension tube. Very useful focal lengths for general shooting.
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    594
    I am actually looking for a 4th lens for my system. Currently I have 50mm, 90mm and 180mm. I am looking at the 65mm but I'm also looking into the 250mm. At the moment I mainly use my RB for landscape work, however, I will soon be doing more studio work. Which one do you find more useful overall?
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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