And I've just joined the RB67 group here. Hello from Edinburgh.

I've been using the RB67 Pro SD on and off for a year now, with the 90mm lens. But lately I've decided to try to make it my go-to camera, and have invested in the 180mm portrait lens (K/L), and the 140mm Macro C.

The 180mm arrived yesterday, and is in perfect condition. It is great to look through. I have the regular waist-level finder.

The macro arrived today. The glass looks in excellent condition, though there are a few small marks on the casing. No problem. I was surprised, though, that it didn't seem like a macro when I looked through it. I guess it will give better images when used close. But I have now picked up a extension tube No.1, and that should arrive on saturday or Monday.

The only thing I don't have at the moment is film! But that is on its way too. Some HP5 and some Velvia.

One thing I'd like your advice about. The macro lens, not being a K/L lens, proved a little stiff when trying to lock into the camera body. The K/L lenses lock in easily. Is this common?

Rob

Rob, I just saw this message and was curious as to whether you'd resolved the issue with the Macro being a tight fit or not. I have all three of these sized lenses and find they are all about the same fit per se. I do not have ANY KL's however. I do use the ProSD body and I do also have the lens collar or adapter sleeve on all of my earlier lenses. It might just be a matter of the collar on the lens being tighter then the KL fitting unit maybe?

Hi Trail. Since putting the extension tube no.1 on, I've not taken it off. There is no problem with the tube acting as an intermediary. But, you are right, I must resolve the problem somehow. But in the meantime, here's a shot I took without the tube. Velvia 50 film.

Rob wrote "The macro lens, not being a K/L lens, proved a little stiff when trying to lock into the camera body".

Try removing the collar from the macro lens (if it has one; I am not familiar with that lens but assume it uses a collar on a SD body) and try the fit. If the fit is better, the collar is the problem and you could use some sandpaper around the outer diameter to loosen the fit. If removing the collar does not make a difference the issue is with the outer diameter of the lens itself.

Rob, I like the image and find the contrast between the dark blue and the golden stalks appealing. To date, all I've used for the last 20+ years is V-50 too. Hopefully they will keep it going in all the roll films, I already miss it not being in 4x5 sheet film....

I also agree with houdel on the simple test with removing the collar. If it's still too tight something is not right with that lens if the KL slips on OK. Those collars are made to keep the lens tight when going on for a snug light tight fit. But, it surely should not be binding either. I have a lot of RB older lenses all using the collars and have never had one be too tight going on and off.
When you say tight, is it the lens fit or the ring when you try to lock the lens in place? Just another thought on what is actually too tight here.
Good luck with further tests.

Removing the collar - not sure what that is. Is it the part with the AK sticker on it? I can't see how to remove anything else.

Your lens does not have the spacer collar. If you look at the photo below you can see one lens with the collar on the left; the one on the right does not have a collar. The collars are not immediately apparent; just look just below the "RD" and "DE" stickers and you can see the difference.

http://www.apug.org/forums/groups/m...s-showing-spacer-ring-left-without-right.html

Your lens does not have the spacer collar. If you look at the photo below you can see one lens with the collar on the left; the one on the right does not have a collar. The collars are not immediately apparent; just look just below the "RD" and "DE" stickers and you can see the difference.

http://www.apug.org/forums/groups/m...s-showing-spacer-ring-left-without-right.html

Is your issue inserting the lens into the camera body or tightening the locking ring on the lens?

If you're using a Mamiya RB67 ProSD with the earlier lenses it is highly recommended to use the collar or spacer as it is also referred to. Typically, you would not have a tight feel of slipping the lens on and off without the collar, the collar just makes a more snug fit for the larger opening the SD body has over the Pro and ProS. The opening was increased on the SD body to accept the 75mm S/T lens and the 500mm as I recall. So to keep the newer SD body backward compatable with the earlier lenses the workaround was to add the spacer listed here..... ADAPTER RING

Another thought about the collar usage is the fact that without the collar usage there might be a bit more movement on the lens, ever so slightly, every time you cock the lever. The pins that actually cock the shutters do have a fair amount of tension when turning them off the camera. So, I would think the lens might actually be a bit under strain and might rock back and forth, again, very slightly without the collar. Just another thought.

OK, guys. Thanks very much for that. i really appreciate it. Clearly I need to buy the collar. I'll get onto it! Many thanks for your help.

I've ordered the collar, though on reflection I'm not sure if it will help the problem with the ring being very tight and hard to move. I don't have this problem with my other lenses, the 180mm K/L and the 90mm K/L. Could be a ring problem with the 140mm-C. I'll let you know.

Is your issue fitting the lens into the body or tightening the locking ring once the lens is in place???

Rob, there is no negative to ordering the spacer IMO, I have one on each and every one of my lenses. They're a bit pricey, but it makes things right when using the lenses on the SD body.

To me it it sounds like you're having a mounting issue with the ring being too tight. At which point the next question is, is the ring tight when twisting it around while OFF the camera? Or, is it only tight when twisting into place while ON the camera? That should at least give you some idea as to what might be the issue. I've never encountered this issue myself, so not too sure what could be the causes either way.

Obviously if the lens ring is tight OFF camera it would also be too tight trying to install it on the camera. But again, just some thought as to what and where the tightness starts.

Looking at your photo the locking ring plate looks fairly flat, but hard to tell unless it was a 3D visual. You might check to make sure none of those areas or tabs along that plate are turned up or down. Those could be damaged if a prior user tried to pry things apart at anytime. That would be about all I could suggest at this point.

The lens ring moves quite freely, which leads to the conclusion that the problem is with the body - but the other lenses and extension tube fit without the slightest problem...

I can't see anything amiss with the ring plate.

Rob, to me it sounds like you've isolated things pretty well. If all lenses and extension tube are OK, and the Macro lens ring turns freely OFF camera, it has to be when things are joined together as you've pointed out.
Again, not ever having the issue before myself I suspect things are a miss with the ring plate then. It might be worth placing the lenses face down on a flat surface side by side and using a good LED flashlight to see if you can detect any slight distortions on the tight fitting lens rotating ring plate. I would think the plate surface that mates with the body or the ring itself is contacting the body differently at the mating point of contact. Maybe by rotating the ring and using the LED light you can see the ring or plate move a bit oddly from the others.

I can't see anything. I might take it to this old-fashioned film camera repair shop in Edinburgh. They'll charge me too much, but I would like to get it working properly. But I'll wait until after installing the adapter ring. Many thanks for your help and time, which has been meaningful to me.

Because your other lenses go on & off properly, it's not likely that it's the body mount but the collar on the lens.
It should rotate freely when unmounted. OK. If it binds, it's very likely that one of the mounting ears on the lens is slightly bent.
Similar to a brake disc being fractions of mm out of true.
The old Canon FD lenses would also have this problem. The deformity may not actually be visible but will be measureable.

"The macro arrived today... I was surprised, though, that it didn't seem like a macro when I looked through it."

Well, from the outside you wouldn't expect to see any difference from a normal lens, really. It doesn't, by itself, give you any more magnification than a normal lens of the same focal length. The thing about a "macro" design is that the corrections are optimised for close focusing, rather than for focus at infinity (as a normal lens is). Also, with ordinary cameras, the focusing helicoids on their macro lenses usually offer greater extension (for closer focusing), which of course is not so much a issue with the rack-and-pinion focusing on the RB67.