Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,957   Posts: 1,586,083   Online: 969
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    USA, Pac/NW
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    368
    Of the three (3) aforementioned lenses, each one requires their own lens-specific bracket.

    The outside physical dimensions vary between the RB and RZ bodies, with RB bodies being slightly larger, IIRC.
    If you were to place both a RB body, and a RZ body on a flat surface, then measure the distance from that flat surface, up to the center line of the lens opening, (on the face of the lens board), the RB measurement would be greater, by about 3/16 of an inch, (4mm) (aprox).

    Therefore, using a RZ dedicated bracket on a RB, would result in forcing the lens to far upwards, actually bending the focusing rails in the opposite direction than what the bracket was designed for in the first place,
    (stopping undue stress from sag).
    In the reverse, using a RB bracket on a RZ, the support stanchions on the bracket would not even contact the lens barrel, missing the lens barrel by about 3/16 of an inch.

    It appears that only the bracket for the 350/360mm lenses is now offered with dual body adaptability;
    RB and/or RZ, facilitated via a machined-step at the stanchion end; upper step for RZ, lower step for RB, IIRC.

    The 100-200mm Zoom's, and the 500mm Telephoto's, require not only their own lens-specific bracket,
    but a body-specific bracket as well.


    http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/de...mamiya+rz%2frb
    Last edited by Marc B.; 02-08-2011 at 08:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    Congrats...you will become an addict very soon!!
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    122
    I use a 90mm C and a 250 C with my Pro-S, but also have a 2x converter, so actually have available 90, 180, 250, and 500mm focal lengths. This grouping has worked out well for me and I have been pleasantly surprised by the sharpness obtained using the big 2x converter, especially considering the poor performance I've experienced in the past using converters in smaller formats such as 35mm. I do want to add something shorter one of these days for occasional gigantic scenery shots, and have been looking for a good deal on a clean 50 C. FWIW, I shoot only outdoors in available light, and mostly in B&W.

    Unless you're on retainer with National Geographic, I'd go with the 250 C and maybe look for a 1.4x converter for it, and forget the hassles and expense of the 360.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by picker77 View Post
    I use a 90mm C and a 250 C with my Pro-S, but also have a 2x converter, so actually have available 90, 180, 250, and 500mm focal lengths. This grouping has worked out well for me and I have been pleasantly surprised by the sharpness obtained using the big 2x converter, especially considering the poor performance I've experienced in the past using converters in smaller formats such as 35mm. I do want to add something shorter one of these days for occasional gigantic scenery shots, and have been looking for a good deal on a clean 50 C. FWIW, I shoot only outdoors in available light, and mostly in B&W.

    Unless you're on retainer with National Geographic, I'd go with the 250 C and maybe look for a 1.4x converter for it, and forget the hassles and expense of the 360.
    That's a really interesting suggestion, I just might do that. I see that there are converters from few different brands available. Is there a brand I should look out for? Any I should avoid? Did Mamiya ever make their own?
    Thanks,
    Augie

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    122
    Augie, I realize you can't tell much about sharpness from an online image, but for object size comparison here are some images without and with the converter from last summer. First one is 90mm, second is 90mm + converter, third is 250mm, fourth is 250mm + converter. The white birdhouse in the center was the focal point. Even from this online image if you jack up the size of the 250+2x shot you will see that sharpness is not really a major issue with this converter, at least for my purposes. Maybe I just got lucky and got a good one? Last photo is my "road kit" to show the relative size of the converter vs other lenses.

    FWIW, this 2x converter is branded "RB Super Cambron 2X Auto Teleconverter". It's a heavy sucker, about the size of a 90mm lens, and weighs 1 lb 5 oz. Locks up tight on both ends. The white label on it is a reminder to my feeble brain to add 2 stops when I use it, which BTW makes my 250mm an f/8 lens, the only real drawback. Doesn't bother me, might be a problem for some folks. More convenient to use and FAR cheaper than a big super tele, though, and gives me 500mm vs 360. Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!

    I have no idea whether Mamiya ever made RB converters. There are none shown on my Pro-S system chart.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 90mm.jpg   90mm + 2x.jpg   250mm.jpg   250mm + 2x.jpg   RB67 Pro-S Kit.JPG  

    Last edited by picker77; 02-14-2011 at 12:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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