6x7 lens choice

[partitura]

I’m the proud new owner of a Bronica GS-1. It came with a PG100mm. In other formats, I rarely use a “normal” lens, preferring a mid wide, and a portrait tele.

I could save some money if I sell the 100mm, and buy a 65mm and for the portrait work either a 150mm or a 200mm. Or, I could keep the 100, and end up with a three lens kit.

So, I’m torn about 2 or 3 lenses, and definitely torn about which tele to get - the PG150 f 4 or the PG200 f4.5.

I would appreciate anybody’s advice.

 

[jimjm]

I don't have a GS-1, but I shoot an SQ-A (6x6) for a lot of my medium format work. I've found the standard 80mm lens to be very useful in a lot of situations, but I also have the 50mm wide and 150mm and 250mm lenses. I don't use standard lenses often if shooting 35mm format - I'm more of a "moderate-wide" or "short-tele" shooter like you, but for MF the standard lens has been used a lot. I'd keep the 100 until you decide if it's useful to you.
If you keep the 100, the 200 might be a better choice for a telephoto (90-100 equivalent in 35mm?). There may be performance differences between the two teles, but every Bronica lens I've used has been outstanding.
This shot is with the 80mm lens on the SQ-A, so normal lenses can work for portraits too.

 

[btaylor]

I have a GS-1 as well. Personally I don’t use really wide lenses and find the 65mm is what I will usually grab for landscape (or cityscape) although I have the 50 as well. I also have the 150 and 200, and find I tend to use the 150 for portraits. But we’re all different in our preferences. One thing I have noticed in portrait work is that I don’t just scale up from 35mm film equivalent focal lengths when shooting portraits. I like 85-100mm in 35mm, 150mm in 6x6 or 6x7 and 210mm in 4x5.
I agree with jimjm, I actually use the 100mm “normal” most of the time. Keep the 100 and pick up the 65mm and the 150 or 200, it’s a great outfit. All the lenses have been outstanding in terms of image quality.

 

[hsandler]

I too have an SQ-A and the 150mm lens. I would tend to go for something a bit longer for closer than full body portraits, maybe the 200mm in 6x7, so you can be back far enough for pleasing perspective. However, pay attention to the minimum focusing distance on the GS telephotos. In the SQ-A line, both the 150 and 200 lenses don't focus close enough to permit tight headshots without a supplementary extension ring. Here's about the tightest possible portrait with the 150mm -S lens by itself, and I can't check right now if this is cropped or not.
40s pinup style by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

180mm is good for a traditional head and shoulders on 6x7.

I also like 50mm for portraits on 6x7. 50mm also works for architecture and landscape.

Go with your gut. There is no right or wrong answer.

 

[petrk]

Regarding close portraiture: I would probably prefer 150mm to 200mm. I have 100mm, which I use with 1.4 tele converter to make it roughly 140mm. With converter I loose 1 stop in aperture, but can gain a closer look because 100+1.4 converter focuses relatively close to the subject. It works. I have got 200mm also wich I would use with extension tubes to get closer to the subject. This is more classic setup for GS-1 for this type of portraits. Now what makes the difference is the extent of distortion. I think you should see it by yourself and judge after, if possible. For me, the compression I get with 200+extension tube is too much, the face is really flattened. People can like it, but for me it is too much. So, considering that both 150 or 200 will need something to get camera closer to the subject, probably the tube, one should (by my opinion) decide by estetical goals like a distortion.
When I look at the portrait posted by Howard, I would say, the same person would look very different with 200mm. I like his example and I would not use for this particular subject anything longer that 150mm.

 

[Pieter12]

I shoot 6x6, I find the 80mm is quite versatile. An 80 is an 80 and (85mm) is commonly used for portraits on 35mm. The depth of focus is nice for portraits at wide apertures and you can comfortably hand-hold it. Put a 150mm or longer lens on the camera and you find yourself limited to brightly-lit, strobes or fast film if you want to hand-hold the camera.

 

[mark]

No one can make up your mind for you. I shoot with it exclusively for a while and decide if I like it. More often than not you get in a groove and begin to see what that lens can do. I've only sold one lens in my life, and found I needed it a week later because nothing else would do.

 

[narsuitus]

I prefer three-lenses for my 6x7cm camera. The 50/80/180 is my personal preference.

In addition to my 180mm f/4.5, I also have the option of using the following telephoto lenses on my 6x7cm camera for portrait work:
140mm f/4.5 macro
150mm f/4 soft focus
250mm f/4.5

If I were in your position, the 150mm f/4 would be my first choice for portrait work and the 200mm f/4.5 would be my second choice.

The 65mm f/4 would be my first choice for wide work if I were to get rid of the 100mm f/3.5 lens.

The 50mm f/4.5 would be my first choice for wide work if I decided to keep the 100mm f/3.5 lens.



RB67 Portrait Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Alan Gales]

Sometimes, how much room you have makes a difference too. In a studio it may not matter, but in someone's living room a normal lens can make a great portrait lens. You just don't have the room to back up for a longer focal length.

 

[Maris]

My Bronica GS1 set includes the 65mm, 100mm, and 200mm lenses and that covers most bases. I occasionally wish for the huge 50mm wide-angle but that temptation has been resisted...so far.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

The RZ 127mm lens is just superb. Not too long, not too short. Not sure what is available for the Bronica.

 

[MattKing]

I have a 4 lens kit for my RB67: 50mm, 65mm, 140mm macro and 180mm.
I also have a teleconverter.
Mostly I carry the camera with two lenses - the 65mm and the 140mm.
If I add a third lens, it will almost always be the 50mm, but then I tend to prefer wide angle lenses.

 

[itsdoable]

The GS-1 was developed late in the film days, and I do not believe there was a weak lens in the line-up. I have the 50mm, 65mm, 100mm, 150mm and 200mm, and they are all top notch.

I would recommend that you just pick the lenses that fit your style based on field of view. They are all pretty darn good.

 

[mshchem]

I wouldn't sell the normal lens. You should be able to pick up a tele for cheap . If you can find a very short extension ring (12mm or about) that will get you in closer. I think you will be surprised what you can do with the 100. I had a huge SQ-AI mess of stuff at one time, great cameras.
I shoot a RZ67II for 6x7. The standard 110mm f2.8 is what I use the most. 180 for people, I have the soft focus 180 as well, I haven't used it much.

Recently the Hasselblad bug has bit me again, 80, 50, 150, 250. Amazing glass.

 

[craigclu]

The GS-1's 150mm has the advantage of being extremely compact. You might actually tend to have it along with you while the 200 and 250 are much bigger lumps of glass. I'd put them as equal performers, optically.

 

[partitura]

Thanks very much to all for your comments. It really has helped me think through things clearly. I've decided to follow the suggestion that several of you made and keep the 100mm. I've bought a 65mm, and am saving for a tele, probably the 150 because of its size.