Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,740   Posts: 1,515,553   Online: 1039
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 90mm or 127mm

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    1

    90mm or 127mm

    I have a Mamiya RB67 with a 50mm and 180mm lens. What in your opinion would be the best intermediate lens to go with these. My main type of photography is landscape and macro. Would it be the 90mm or the 127mm. Thanks for your input in advance.

  2. #2
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,674
    Images
    108
    127 milimeter is in the middle between 50 and 180.
    But MF cameras are great with their 80 , 90 mm lenses. You can use 90 mm as a 1 to 1 magnification lens and up to 3 meters range , they are really great. You will want to close and close to the close distance subject when it magnifies .
    May be you buy both of them.
    Did you look to the lens galleries , do you have diagrams of these lenses ? May be knowledge about lens design would help to you to select one .
    Look to the diagrams of zeiss , pentax , kiev , rollei and compare with yours. It would be open new doors to your selection.
    I think compressing a distant object in to flat perspective is great fun but your 180 do this.

    Edit : Look herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/nelsonfoto/2499851616/

    I think 90 is not sharp and midtones lost , skin texture is lost. Not anatomic quality is presented , even hairs are not sharp.

    Look at here :http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomash...7602828405555/
    I think 127 is excellent , MY ADVISE is 127.

    Umut

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,181
    The 127 has the advantage of being a physically smaller lens. It feels more normal than the 90mm.

    Personally, I enjoy using my 127 more than the 90mm for both sharpenss n size.
    Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,701
    I would go for the 90 myself.

    Jeff

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    344
    I recently bought an RB that came with the 127mm. Then I bought an old 180, and my third purchase was the 90. I think I'm set now! In your case I think the 90 might be more useful... But at the current prices why not just get both!

  6. #6
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    I have both the 127 and the 90mm. Both of mine are razor sharp and the only real world difference is the 37mm of focal length. I think it is a personal preference. The 127mm is a bit smaller if that makes any difference. In a 35mm camera it is like the difference between shooting with a 45mm or a 60mm lens.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    577
    Images
    18
    I have a RZ that came with the 110mm, wonderfully sharp lens but I don't think they make one for the RB. Predominately a landscape shooter, the next lenses I bought were the 50mm and the 65mm, gives me a choice of wide angles. Then I bought the 180mm.

    The 90mm is exactly inbetween your 50 and 180. That, to me, makes it the logical choice if you are only looking at one more lens. But I would probably go for two more lensese to round out the outfit, the 65mm and 127mm. That way you would have a little more spread of focal lengths.

    As far as macro, shooting my RZ with the 110 at full extension the other day, I could not get any where near enough to a pepper to fill the frame (I'm reading Weston's Daybooks so it was a homage to him). Just received from KEH a #1 extension tube (for a mere $29 that doesn't have a mark on it eventhough it was listed as BGN). Now I can fill the frame. Instead of the 90 or 127, you might want to look into the macro lens at that focal length.
    Last edited by r-brian; 12-10-2010 at 09:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    At the prices KEH.com is selling them for--get both! That's what I did.

    Mine are also both razor sharp. Shortly after getting the 90 (I got the 127 first), I took a full-length portrait of a friend with it, leaving a fair bit of room beneath his feet and above his head. On the negative (FP4+ in Rodinal) I could clearly and sharply read the lettering on the button holding his jeans up.

    I don't know exactly how much these lenses resolve, but at 12x16 print sizes they render superb detail, and it is obvious there's even more there that would be revealed at larger sizes.

    As I use mine in the studio, and as my space is a bit small, I do find them both useful despite the relatively minor difference in focal length. I use the 127 most often for mid-body and upper-body portraits. The 90 is just right to do full-lengths in the space I have available.


    If you decided on only one, I'd probably vote for the 127. I think it could do what the 90 does--if you can back up a bit--but won't give quite as much wide-angle exaggeration as the 90 if you get up close to people. And it is physically smaller, so you can tote it around a little easier. Otherwise, they're both fantastic in my opinion.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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