140mm Macro Lens on Rb67 or Rz67, are they the same optically?

[harlequin]

Dear APUG Members,

Have a close friend with Mamiya Rz67 and 140 Macro LA (don't know what that means?) version and it really is a
contrasty and sharp setup for tabletops and close ups....

Several years ago I borrowed a 140mm Macro Lens for my RB and did some portraits with it, almost too sharp
but still pleasing....

Questions:
1) Are they the same optical lens just different mounts?
2) They seem to carry a much higher price tag in the used marketplace even for well used specimens?
3) the version for the RZ does it have a floating element?
4) Stopped down, at 8 feet the image looks as sharp as 127mm at same aperture.
5) What is the largest blow up from this combo with good results 20x24 30x40?
6) Any pros/cons and any sample imagery with these lenses would be appreciated....

Many Thanks!!

Harelquin

 

[MattKing]

I use my RB67 140mm Macro as my short telephoto. It serves me well, particularly in my small (???) kit bag - 65mm and 140mm lenses.
I don't know if the optical formulas for the RB and RZ versions are the same. You might be able to glean some idea of the answer by looking at the lens diagrams in the respective RB and RZ lens brochures. It probably doesn't matter, as both lines of lenses are excellent.
I haven't shopped for a new RB lens for a while, and don't have any RZ equipment, so can't comment on current prices.
The RZ interchangeable lens brochure indicates that the RZ 140mm Macro lens has a floating element.
All of the RB and RZ lenses are excellent. You aren't going to be able to differentiate the "sharpness" of the results between 127mm and 140mm lenses except under the situations where the Macro lens excels (close focus work where flat field performance matters)
I don't know that there is an RB or RZ lens that is going to serve as the limiting factor when it comes to enlargement size. Photographic technique, lighting conditions and the resolving power of the film are more likely to be the limiting factors - that and the most important: viewing distance.
There are some practical differences to keep in mind. The 140mm lens are slower than the 127mm and 150mm RB lenses and 127mm (and 110mm!) and 150mm RZ lenses, and are also bigger than those lenses.
While the Macro versions give excellent flat field performance at a variety of focus distances (due to the floating element), they actually require extension tubes to achieve the same higher magnification as an unadorned 65mm (and other moderately short lenses) at the closest distances. The 65mm (and other moderately short lenses) don't offer the same close up performance in the corners.
I'm not sure you can glean much from a scanned and highly re-sized version of a slide, but this one involved RB67 140mm macro:

 

[wiltw]

The Mamiya Macro-C has 7 elements in 4 groups

The Mamiya 140mm f/4.5 M/L-A has 6 elements in 4 groups, is a Gauss-type lens that incorporates a floating-lens system. The floating system moves elements within the lens back and forth to adjust the appropriate focusing distance.

 

[EdSawyer]

there's 2 versions of the RZ 140 macro, so probably not identical between RB and RZ. The M/L-A versions have the floating elements, which is both of them for the RZ I believe. It's a very sharp lens, symmetrical (or nearly so) with a nice optical design, 6 or 8 elements I think. It was the preferred lens that Annie Leibowitz (sp?) used for her portraits. Price-wise they are a steal compared to what they sold for new, I think the most you would have to pay these days might be $200-300, but when new they were $2k or so. It should easily do 30x40" prints no problem.

-Ed

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Yes Annie used the 140 with an RZ. She commented in her recent Masterclass how she loved that lens.

 

[MattKing]

I note that the original 140mm Z lens was also 7 elements in 4 groups, so there is a good chance that it is the same optical formula as the RB C version.

 

[yeolde]

I heard that the C version have the better optical performance that the KL
Can anyone confirm?

 

[Augied]

I heard that the C version have the better optical performance that the KL
Can anyone confirm?

I've used the 140 C for many years, but just recently purchased a KL. I have not done any in depth testing, but my impression is that the KL is a bit sharper. Not enough to make a major difference in a print (I have always been incredibly happy with the C) but if you scan and pixel-peep, you can see a difference. If you want to save some money, the C is absolutely worthwhile. On the other hand, I love the improved mirror-up/long exposure implementation of the KL lenses.

 

[rulnacco]

I wish I could be more specific in comparing the two. However, having owned both the RB67 (C version) and RZ67 140mm, I think you will be very happy with either and would notice little difference. If I was permitted to have only *one* lens to work with either system, it would be the 140.

 

[John Earley]

The Mamiya Macro-C has 7 elements in 4 groups

The Mamiya 140mm f/4.5 M/L-A has 6 elements in 4 groups, is a Gauss-type lens that incorporates a floating-lens system. The floating system moves elements within the lens back and forth to adjust the appropriate focusing distance.

Mamiya-Sekor Macro C 140mm F/4.5

Macro lens. Announced: 1976. Production status: Discontinued. Maximum format: Medium format 6x7. Mount: Mamiya RB67. Floating element system. Magnification ratio 1:3 at the closest focusing distance. Automatic diaphragm. Heavy. Built-in leaf shutter. Manual focus only.

lens-db.com