I have a Mamiya RB67 with a 50mm and 180mm lens. What in your opinion would be the best intermediate lens to go with these. My main type of photography is landscape and macro. Would it be the 90mm or the 127mm. Thanks for your input in advance.
90mm or 127mm
-
A
- Thread starter dande
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
Forum statistics
127 milimeter is in the middle between 50 and 180.
But MF cameras are great with their 80 , 90 mm lenses. You can use 90 mm as a 1 to 1 magnification lens and up to 3 meters range , they are really great. You will want to close and close to the close distance subject when it magnifies .
May be you buy both of them.
Did you look to the lens galleries , do you have diagrams of these lenses ? May be knowledge about lens design would help to you to select one .
Look to the diagrams of zeiss , pentax , kiev , rollei and compare with yours. It would be open new doors to your selection.
I think compressing a distant object in to flat perspective is great fun but your 180 do this.
Edit : Look herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/nelsonfoto/2499851616/
I think 90 is not sharp and midtones lost , skin texture is lost. Not anatomic quality is presented , even hairs are not sharp.
Look at here :http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashebert/688906780/in/set-72157602828405555/
I think 127 is excellent , MY ADVISE is 127.
Umut
But MF cameras are great with their 80 , 90 mm lenses. You can use 90 mm as a 1 to 1 magnification lens and up to 3 meters range , they are really great. You will want to close and close to the close distance subject when it magnifies .
May be you buy both of them.
Did you look to the lens galleries , do you have diagrams of these lenses ? May be knowledge about lens design would help to you to select one .
Look to the diagrams of zeiss , pentax , kiev , rollei and compare with yours. It would be open new doors to your selection.
I think compressing a distant object in to flat perspective is great fun but your 180 do this.
Edit : Look herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/nelsonfoto/2499851616/
I think 90 is not sharp and midtones lost , skin texture is lost. Not anatomic quality is presented , even hairs are not sharp.
Look at here :http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashebert/688906780/in/set-72157602828405555/
I think 127 is excellent , MY ADVISE is 127.
Umut
I would go for the 90 myself.
Jeff
Jeff
I recently bought an RB that came with the 127mm. Then I bought an old 180, and my third purchase was the 90. I think I'm set now! In your case I think the 90 might be more useful... But at the current prices why not just get both!
I have both the 127 and the 90mm. Both of mine are razor sharp and the only real world difference is the 37mm of focal length. I think it is a personal preference. The 127mm is a bit smaller if that makes any difference. In a 35mm camera it is like the difference between shooting with a 45mm or a 60mm lens.
I have a RZ that came with the 110mm, wonderfully sharp lens but I don't think they make one for the RB. Predominately a landscape shooter, the next lenses I bought were the 50mm and the 65mm, gives me a choice of wide angles. Then I bought the 180mm.
The 90mm is exactly inbetween your 50 and 180. That, to me, makes it the logical choice if you are only looking at one more lens. But I would probably go for two more lensese to round out the outfit, the 65mm and 127mm. That way you would have a little more spread of focal lengths.
As far as macro, shooting my RZ with the 110 at full extension the other day, I could not get any where near enough to a pepper to fill the frame (I'm reading Weston's Daybooks so it was a homage to him). Just received from KEH a #1 extension tube (for a mere $29 that doesn't have a mark on it eventhough it was listed as BGN). Now I can fill the frame. Instead of the 90 or 127, you might want to look into the macro lens at that focal length.
The 90mm is exactly inbetween your 50 and 180. That, to me, makes it the logical choice if you are only looking at one more lens. But I would probably go for two more lensese to round out the outfit, the 65mm and 127mm. That way you would have a little more spread of focal lengths.
As far as macro, shooting my RZ with the 110 at full extension the other day, I could not get any where near enough to a pepper to fill the frame (I'm reading Weston's Daybooks so it was a homage to him). Just received from KEH a #1 extension tube (for a mere $29 that doesn't have a mark on it eventhough it was listed as BGN). Now I can fill the frame. Instead of the 90 or 127, you might want to look into the macro lens at that focal length.
Last edited by a moderator:
At the prices KEH.com is selling them for--get both! That's what I did.
Mine are also both razor sharp. Shortly after getting the 90 (I got the 127 first), I took a full-length portrait of a friend with it, leaving a fair bit of room beneath his feet and above his head. On the negative (FP4+ in Rodinal) I could clearly and sharply read the lettering on the button holding his jeans up.
I don't know exactly how much these lenses resolve, but at 12x16 print sizes they render superb detail, and it is obvious there's even more there that would be revealed at larger sizes.
As I use mine in the studio, and as my space is a bit small, I do find them both useful despite the relatively minor difference in focal length. I use the 127 most often for mid-body and upper-body portraits. The 90 is just right to do full-lengths in the space I have available.
If you decided on only one, I'd probably vote for the 127. I think it could do what the 90 does--if you can back up a bit--but won't give quite as much wide-angle exaggeration as the 90 if you get up close to people. And it is physically smaller, so you can tote it around a little easier. Otherwise, they're both fantastic in my opinion.
Mine are also both razor sharp. Shortly after getting the 90 (I got the 127 first), I took a full-length portrait of a friend with it, leaving a fair bit of room beneath his feet and above his head. On the negative (FP4+ in Rodinal) I could clearly and sharply read the lettering on the button holding his jeans up.
I don't know exactly how much these lenses resolve, but at 12x16 print sizes they render superb detail, and it is obvious there's even more there that would be revealed at larger sizes.
As I use mine in the studio, and as my space is a bit small, I do find them both useful despite the relatively minor difference in focal length. I use the 127 most often for mid-body and upper-body portraits. The 90 is just right to do full-lengths in the space I have available.
If you decided on only one, I'd probably vote for the 127. I think it could do what the 90 does--if you can back up a bit--but won't give quite as much wide-angle exaggeration as the 90 if you get up close to people. And it is physically smaller, so you can tote it around a little easier. Otherwise, they're both fantastic in my opinion.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |