90mm or 127mm for RB67 as standard lens?

[Monday317]

Very nice case! Care to bend our ears on it?

 

[narsuitus]

Very nice case! Care to bend our ears on it?

I purchased it used many years ago.

There is no label on the case to identify the manufacturer or model number.

It has external dimensions of 14 x 19 x 8 inches (h w d).

It has internal dimensions of 13 x 16 x 7 inches (h w d).

It has a handle that allows me to carry it in landscape orientation.

There a second handle that allows me to carry the case in portrait orientation.

It also has two wheels and a retractable handle that allow me to roll the case over flat surfaces.

There are two zippered pockets on the outside of the case.

There are two combination locks that prevent unwelcomed entry to the inside of the case.

 

[Monday317]

It's always the way... The coolest stuff, built through and through with Unobtainium. Thank you for the information, though!

 

[Tim Stapp]

That's true with most of the best things in life. You acquire them from some unknown source and they become "unobtainium".

I believe that is what makes them so special. I do have very few of those photographically. Work wise, I know where each and every tool has been acquired and what it's use is, much to the dismay of our Sigma Six coordinator. I love that part

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Pros used the 127 a lot for portraiture, weddings etc. so they usually have more use than a 90mm.

 

[Thesecondone]

Had to do a little digging for opinions on the 127mm . I currently have a sekor c 90mm but im curious to try something different.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Had to do a little digging for opinions on the 127mm . I currently have a sekor c 90mm but im curious to try something different.

Try a 50mm or 180mm. Or both.

 

[John Earley]

Try a 50mm or 180mm. Or both.

I skipped the 127 and added the 50mm and 180mm to my 90mm

 

[Arthurwg]

I just bought a 50 Sekor C from Japan, said to be MINT. We'll see.

 

[MattKing]

The 127mm has the advantage of being the smallest lens available for the RB67, which makes it the easiest to have in your bag.

 

[wiltw]

Angle of View preference could drive your decision...

• 48mm FL is to 24mm frame height (150 format) as 112mm FL is to 56mm frame height (RB67/RZ67) identical vertical framing for both formats.
• Some folks prefer 35mm FL for 135, those same people would like 84mm on the 6x7.
• 55mm FL on 135 is like 127mm FL on 6x6

 

[Hassasin]

127 was first one I bought, and probably last one I would sell. Size wise it beats the rest, and to me just the right "normal" for 67.

 

[rulnacco]

I had both the 90mm and the 127mm, as well as several other lenses. All of mine were the C versions. I mainly used my RB67 for studio portraiture, I only rarely took it outside.

I generally used the 127 more, as it was almost perfect for mid-body shots--when shooting film, I only rarely shot full lengths. Which one was sharper? That's hard to say, I never did a critical comparison. *But* I can assure you my 90mm was *extremely* sharp. One time I shot a full-length B&W portrait of a friend who was just a little under six feet tall. I left a bit of room above his head and below his feet, so basically the image area was probably around 7.5 feet vertically, maybe just slightly less. I was shocked when I looked at the negative through a loupe to find that I was *very clearly* able to read the lettering on the button holding up his jeans. I thought it was incredible that given the small area that feature occupied on the negative, that the writing was so sharply legible. (It wasn't just stamped brass, like Levi's; the writing was engraved and paint-filled. But on the negative, it looked like it was *etched*, and every letter was clearly and fully resolved.)

I personally prefer a slightly wider "standard" lens. If I was going to walk around with an RB67, I'd likely choose the 90--and as I mentioned above, I would have no worries at all about how sharp it was. It really is hard to argue against the compact and also very good 127, though. And if you prefer a slightly longer standard lens, the 127 will probably do it for you. I don't know the strict relationship between 35mm and 6x7 focal lengths, but to me the 90 felt about like a 40mm on 35mm film, and the 127 felt more like 55-58mm.

So that's what it comes down to in your thought process: do you prefer a smaller or slightly longer/heavier lens? (Remember, the 90mm is larger and heavier than the 127, despite being a shorter focal length.) Do you prefer a wide-ish or long-ish normal lens? Those would be my only two considerations, I think the sharpness is pretty much, for all practical purposes, an absolute toss up.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I had both the 90mm and the 127mm, as well as several other lenses. All of mine were the C versions. I mainly used my RB67 for studio portraiture, I only rarely took it outside.

I generally used the 127 more, as it was almost perfect for mid-body shots--when shooting film, I only rarely shot full lengths. Which one was sharper? That's hard to say, I never did a critical comparison. *But* I can assure you my 90mm was *extremely* sharp. One time I shot a full-length B&W portrait of a friend who was just a little under six feet tall. I left a bit of room above his head and below his feet, so basically the image area was probably around 7.5 feet vertically, maybe just slightly less. I was shocked when I looked at the negative through a loupe to find that I was *very clearly* able to read the lettering on the button holding up his jeans. I thought it was incredible that given the small area that feature occupied on the negative, that the writing was so sharply legible. (It wasn't just stamped brass, like Levi's; the writing was engraved and paint-filled. But on the negative, it looked like it was *etched*, and every letter was clearly and fully resolved.)

I personally prefer a slightly wider "standard" lens. If I was going to walk around with an RB67, I'd likely choose the 90--and as I mentioned above, I would have no worries at all about how sharp it was. It really is hard to argue against the compact and also very good 127, though. And if you prefer a slightly longer standard lens, the 127 will probably do it for you. I don't know the strict relationship between 35mm and 6x7 focal lengths, but to me the 90 felt about like a 40mm on 35mm film, and the 127 felt more like 55-58mm.

So that's what it comes down to in your thought process: do you prefer a smaller or slightly longer/heavier lens? (Remember, the 90mm is larger and heavier than the 127, despite being a shorter focal length.) Do you prefer a wide-ish or long-ish normal lens? Those would be my only two considerations, I think the sharpness is pretty much, for all practical purposes, an absolute toss up.

Your heavy use of the 127mm professionally reminded me I once read that many 127mm lenses are really worked to death by wedding and other portrait photographers. So a 90mm would probably be less used in general and in better shape.

 

[eggen]

I used a combination 50mm and 127 mm.