90mm or 127mm for RB67 as standard lens?

houstonphotographics · Feb 17, 2016

Hi, I recently re-acquired an RB67Pro S body, back and wlf. Got a good deal on these from KEH. Was not able to get a lens as they did not have the standard focal lengths in stock at the time. Been checking online on the 'bay. Trying to decide if I want the 90mm or a 127mm lens. Just for general photography. Have read online that some thought the 90 was not sharp really. Would like some opinions. thanks

Alan Gales · Feb 17, 2016

I have never heard of the 90mm not being sharp. Hopefully some 90mm users will respond.

The normal answer is that if you favor landscape then go for the 90 and if you favor portraiture then go for the 127.

Since it doesn't seem to matter to you then think about any additional lenses you want and pick the one that fits in best with them. It's nice to have a somewhat equal spacing between focal lengths.

I owned an RZ and split the difference between the 90 and 127 with a 110mm lens. I also owned a 180 and 50mm ULD.

Sirius Glass · Feb 17, 2016

I think that you will be happy with the 90mm lens as your normal lens.

MattKing · Feb 17, 2016

The 127mm lens is the smallest lens in the line.

Most frequently I work with a 65mm and 140mm macro pair, but if I had had to choose between the 127mm and 140mm, it would have been a tough choice. I also have 55mm and 180mm lenses to choose from.

If I was faced with your choice, I would be making it with my intended eventual lens kit in mind. And a 127mm lens would be a better complement to the wider lenses I use more often.

I tend toward the wider end of the spectrum - 35mm is my "standard" lens in 135, 55mm is my "standard" lens in 6x4.5 and 65mm is my "standard" lens in 6x7.

Alan Gales · Feb 17, 2016

Matt brings up a good point. I liked the fact that the 110mm was the smallest and lightest lens available for the RZ. If you shoot a lot hand held you may prefer the smaller and lighter 127mm.

paul ron · Feb 17, 2016

I personally prefer the 127mm as my normal lens. Its got a nice look for general photography and not a tele by any means. It is physically the smallest lens of the line n lightest making it perfect as a walk around lens.

Theo Sulphate · Feb 17, 2016

In my RB67 Pro S experience, the 90mm lens is definitely sharp. It is considered the normal lens in terms of angle of view for 6x7.

For me 90mm is a bit too wide - I actually prefer the 140mm Macro over the 90mm in my style of shooting. I don't have a 127mm (yet), but that may be perfect.

Your style is likely different, depending on what angle of view appeals to you in most situations.

Maris · Feb 17, 2016

When I got my Mamiya RB67 I planned for a three lens kit: wide, medium, and long. So I picked the 127mm as a "middle" focal length to go with the 50mm and 360mm that I eventually acquired. And, unlike the 90mm, the 127mm doesn't have a floating element to manually set (fuss with) on nearly every shot.

Trail Images · Feb 17, 2016

+1 for the 127mm. I have both and seem to like the lighter 127 over the 90 more often then not. I do not have big issue with the weight differences, just like the 127mm better.

Alan Gales · Feb 17, 2016

Trail Images said:
+1 for the 127mm. I have both and seem to like the lighter 127 over the 90 more often then not. I do not have big issue with the weight differences, just like the 127mm better.

Since you own both, have you noticed any sharpness differences between the two?

David Brown · Feb 17, 2016

Maris said:
... unlike the 90mm, the 127mm doesn't have a floating element to manually set (fuss with) on nearly every shot.

My 90mm does not have a floating element. Mamiya made 4 versions. http://rb67.helluin.org/lenses/

The 90mm is perfect sharp. Whether you want a 90 or 127 is your decision - can't make it for you.

Wayne · Feb 17, 2016

I only own a 90 and 127 (so far) and I heavily favor the latter. I don't even bring the 90 with me.

Trail Images · Feb 17, 2016

Alan Gales said:
Since you own both, have you noticed any sharpness differences between the two?

No I cannot say I saw any difference in sharpness. I thought the 90 was a bit faster at f3.8, but looking at the one document I have it shows both are f3.8. I'll need to verify that the next time I look at them.

Alan Gales · Feb 17, 2016

Trail Images said:
No I cannot say I saw any difference in sharpness. I thought the 90 was a bit faster at f3.8, but looking at the one document I have it shows both are f3.8. I'll need to verify that the next time I look at them.

Thanks for your reply. The OP read that the 90mm may not be as sharp. I've never heard that but you can read just about anything on the internet.

cb1 · Feb 18, 2016

I just bought a RB67 ProS, it came with a 90mm.
Here is a sample with it. Portra160

Willow by Chris Barzyz, on Flickr

Trail Images · Feb 18, 2016

I just bought a RB67 ProS, it came with a 90mm.
Here is a sample with it. Portra160

Obviously nothing wrong with that 90mm.......

David T T · Feb 21, 2016

My 90mm is my sharpest lens. Aside from that it's a matter of shooting style, but I guess I would err on the side of "too wide" even for people photography. I took a lighting workshop (with model) with my RB's 127mm and 180mm and for some of the things he asked us to do I was very tight on space. I wished I had brought the 90mm, and this was for fashion!

film_man · Feb 23, 2016

I had an RB with the 90 and 127 (both KL, both f/3.5) for a couple of years. I shot many frames with them and often agonised about selling one or the other. In the end the 90 was my preferred focal length as I like the slightly wider perspective but the 127 is also amazing and if you have a bit of a distance to not be restricted (like indoors but then indoors even the 90 can be tight) then you can't even really tell the difference between the two. The 127 has the size going for it too but in the end if I was to pick one it would have to be the 90. They are both equally sharp (as said, I had the KL versions) and on a blind test outdoors I probably wouldn't be able to tell which is which. Once you start getting closer (eg a portrait) then the perspective gives it away but that's about it.

Xmas · Feb 25, 2016

A 65 and either 127, 140, or 150 might be better kit set... But that is well heavy in a g bag...

Depends how big your studio is?

Soeren · Feb 26, 2016

I just purchased the RZ67PROII with a 127mm. It feels a bit "tight" at times but i kind of like it for close ups and it might be good for some portraits + the Canon 500D fits in the 77mm thread making it almost a makroland too. Gotta do some shots with that combo to see if it's any good at all. Im certainly keeping the 127 and will get a wide and a tele to complet my 6x7 kit.

Monday317 · Jan 21, 2020

I've used both the 90 & 127, and can't see a difference between them as far as sharpness is concerned. The 127 might be a good bet for someone moving to MF from 35mm, as it looks to have that 50mm FOV you get used to in that format.

That said, my own go-to is the K/L 90mm. I own a 250, 180, and 50 C as well, but the 90 is the lens mounted on the camera nearly all the time. As the ”perfect” normal lens for 6 x 7 is an 89, the 90 reflects what I see at the moment of exposure. A Cartier-Bresson Decisive Moment sort of thing.

With MF--especially with the superb Mamiya glass--you have an opportunity to not only capture that special instant in time, but to do it wonderfully.

Deleted member 88956 · Jan 22, 2020

No idea who could bad mouth any of the RB lenses. 90 &127 are far apart enough to see a difference, 127 is smaller/lighter, but I don't see that being that much of a factor in real life, given overall size/weight of the whole rig. Both are great optically (speaking for KL). I'd look for KL versions which is not always reflected in higher price.

And if you do go for KL check for presence of adapter ring on its back. While you do not need it for the S, in fact you would have to remove it (easy enough slip-off job), but to me this ring does make it more valuable for resale market. By now I have a spare, so no longer a sticking point for me, but they are not cheap by themselves for what they are and good to have for SD body.

narsuitus · Jan 22, 2020

houstonphotographics said:
Trying to decide if I want the 90mm or a 127mm lens. Just for general photography.

For my shooting style, the 127mm is too telephoto for me to use as a lens for general photography and not telephoto enough for me to use as a portrait lens.

My personal preference is to use the 90mm lens for general photography and a 140, 150, or 180mm for portraits.

Mamiya RB67 Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

CropDusterMan · Jan 22, 2020

On that body, the 90mm would be considered "normal". On the RZ ProII, it's the 110mm.
THe 90 on the RZ is sharp as hell...I had one. The 140mm is a beautiful portrait lens, especially
with the tilt-shift bellows, but that may just be an RZ item.

J

Monday317 · Jan 22, 2020

Witold said:
No idea who could bad mouth any of the RB lenses. 90 &127 are far apart enough to see a difference, 127 is smaller/lighter, but I don't see that being that much of a factor in real life, given overall size/weight of the whole rig. Both are great optically (speaking for KL). I'd look for KL versions which is not always reflected in higher price.

And if you do go for KL check for presence of adapter ring on its back. While you do not need it for the S, in fact you would have to remove it (easy enough slip-off job), but to me this ring does make it more valuable for resale market. By now I have a spare, so no longer a sticking point for me, but they are not cheap by themselves for what they are and good to have for SD body.

+1!

90mm or 127mm for RB67 as standard lens?

Moderator

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency