How Do My Mamiya RB lenses compare?

[dancqu]

I've the 65mm, 90mm, and 127mm C series RB lenses.
Just wondering how they stack up against other makers MF
offerings as I have have only the 60mm and 75mm Bronica
PE series lenses for comparison. Dan

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I own 90 and 180 mm KL and 50 mm C lenses. I find these give medium contrast and more than adequate resolution. I have never had occasion to complain about flatness of field, but then I've never shot pictures of lens charts at full aperture. The main thing that bugs me is the clear barrel distortion with the 50 mm. Compared with Mamiya TLR, which is what I had before, I'd say the image quality is much the same, the 50 mm RB lens is much better than the 55 mm TLR lens, which I found needed a lot of stopping down to bring the edges in and was prone to flare (I tried 2 examples, both the same).

Compared with Hasselblad, I'd say Hasselblad Zeiss lenses have slightly higher micro contrast (more "bite") and the w/a lenses are free of distortion (as they should be for their eye-watering price). I have been more than satisfied with my RB outfit, as far as I am concerned the only worthwhile trade-up would be to Hasselblad, but I like the 6x7 cm format and don't necessarily feel the Zeiss lenses are worth 4 times the price of Mamiya.

Regards,

David

 

[keithwms]

Some of the newest rb KL lenses are excellent or maybe even as good as it gets, while some of the older non-KL lenses are only soso. I like the newer 180 and 127 and the 65, but didn't like the 50 (sold it) and I don't care much for the 150 but have kept it for soft portraits. I hear that the 210 KL is fantastic, better than the comparable hassie lens. I have the older 360 and it doesn't delight me but comes in handy sometimes.

Given the prices, I would say buy KL glass exclusively, especially if you plan to do landscape. For portraiture, all of the RB lenses are good, even the oldest.

By the way, in my opinion, my mamiya 6 lenses substantially outperform my rb lenses for landscape work. But the rb system is much better for portraiture and all-round versatility. So I keep and use both actively. My rb is slowly being replaced more and more by a 6x9cm mini view camera though.

 

[Pinholemaster]

They're just fine if they help you make the photographs you want.

 

[Drew B.]

I have the 65 and the 127 (used on my RZ body) and are happy with both...but commonly use them in the f11 to f22 range...never wide open.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Just another thought - I used to use the RB and 90 mm KL for, among other things, copying artwork at the city archive, which reveals any distortion - no problems at all, great sharpness right into the corners.

 

[Steve Smith]

As of yesterday, I own the same set of lenses as David (my 180mm turned up in the post).

I have not noticed the barrel distortion of the 50mm which David mentions - possibly my choice of subject makes it less evident.

I have no complaints about the sharpness of the 50mm or the 90mm (my 90mm is the KL version, 50mm and 180mm are C) and I am looking forward to getting out soon with the 180mm.


Steve.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I have not noticed the barrel distortion of the 50mm which David mentions - possibly my choice of subject makes it less evident.

I had a phase of taking landscapes with the horizon line very close to the edge of the frame - as always with barrel distortion, it gets more noticeable towards the edges. Conversely the horizon line will be straight if you put it on or near the center of the picture!

Regards,

David

 

[Steve Smith]

I had a phase of taking landscapes with the horizon line very close to the edge of the frame - as always with barrel distortion, it gets more noticeable towards the edges. Conversely the horizon line will be straight if you put it on or near the center of the picture!

I thought that would be the reason. I don't think I have used my 50mm in this way yet.

I did however use my 90mm lens last weekend with the horizon close to the edge. The horizon looks very straight as I would expect.

Steve.

 

[paul ron]

Here is a fella that posted some of his pics taken with an RB... http://www.nelsonfoto.com/v/showthread.php?t=11323

Contrast a problem?

How about this fellas work... http://www.outdooreyes.com/list/thegallerys.php3?photoid=1178&wh=4

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Contrast a problem?

The [macro]-contrast of RB lenses is indeed not a problem - the fact that they give medium contrast is a decided advantage when shooting landscapes on reversal film, as [presumably] in the second of your examples. The difference in micro-contrast (which most people would call sharpness) between Mamiya RB and Hasselblad is not going to show on screen images - most people would find the results from either optics acceptable and would only be able to see the difference if prints 12x16" or larger were laid side by side (and they might not see it even then!).

Regards,

David

 

[dancqu]

My rb is slowly being replaced more and more by
a 6x9cm mini view camera though.

A 6x9cm view. Some outfit making those? Years ago
I worked with a 4x5 and think now and then a 6x9
would be good to work with. Dan

 

[Nick Zentena]

Dan almost all 4x5 cameras can take 6x9 rollfilm backs. Some can even take RB rollfilm backs IIRC.

Some companies still make pure 6x9 cameras [Ebony I guess] but unless you need the smaller size a 4x5 with a rollfilm back would do the job.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... but unless you need the smaller size a 4x5 with a rollfilm back would do the job.

And is usually a lot cheaper and often not much bigger, the only real exceptions in my experience being 'baby' Linhofs, where the size saving is worth while.

 

[Daniel_OB]

I have Mamiya RZ with

50mmF4.5 ULD
90 mm
140 Macro

They give me nearly twice larger negativ than hasselblad or rolley6000 (after cropping to rectangle), and never would trade it for any of that two. I value Zeiss lenses but these three lenses really suprise me while in studio. Many say that ugly person shot with Zeiss lens appear even and more ugly.

Some mamiya RZ lenses are the first choice, ahead of Zeiss, to many studio photographers. I think (not sure) that RB lenses are of no less photo-quality than RZ.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[keithwms]

A 6x9cm view. Some outfit making those? Years ago
I worked with a 4x5 and think now and then a 6x9
would be good to work with. Dan

I have a horseman VH. It has the advantage that it takes all my rb backs as well as the Horseman 6x9 backs. Overall, the VH is far more compact and suitable for field work than the rb, and more movements are available than, say, a fuji gx680.

Indeed you can of course put a 6x9 or 6x12 back on a 4x5, and it is nice to be able to see around the markings on your groundglass. But the VH is extremely compact and light. It's no Linhof but it is well-made and the movements are adequate for almost anything I do.

Anyway, none of this ^^^ is meant to detract from the rb; you get a lot of bang for your buck with the rb lenses, even the older ones.

 

[dancqu]

Overall, the VH is far more compact and suitable
for field work than the rb,and more movements
are available than, say, a fuji gx680.

Anyway, none of this ^^^ is meant to detract from
the rb; you get a lot of bang for your buck with
the rb lenses, even the older ones.

At this time I'm bidding on a RB Cd Chimney Finder;
now at $81. With combined metering I'd think it a big
improvement over the waist level. Any opinions? Dan

 

[David H. Bebbington]

At this time I'm bidding on a RB Cd Chimney Finder;
now at $81. With combined metering I'd think it a big
improvement over the waist level. Any opinions? Dan

I have found in certain situations out of doors that too much extraneous light falls on the focusing screen with a waist-level finder. Anything that stops this happening is good, particularly when using a polariser. IIRC both the chimney and the metered prism offer integrating metering only, the reading of which will need some interpretation. This is why I bought a non-metered prism. The chimney finder offers magnification, which should make focusing easier, the image is still reversed right to left but it should be lighter than a prism, which will be a benefit, since the prism is quite heavy.

Regards,

David

 

[keithwms]

I use a metering "PD" prism finder which has spot and average modes. It is handy to be able to work a little more quickly and avoid bellows factor corrections. Note that you will still have to take the meter readings and dial in your speed and aperture on the lens, so it isn't quite as fast an operation as one might hope. But a built-in meter is still very handy.

I usually prefer my metering prism to the waistlevel. I still go back to the waistlevel sometimes, e.g. if I want to use the flip-up magnifier, but I generally prefer looking toward my subject and having my camera fairly high up on a tripod, rather than slouching down at the waistlevel... others preferences may differ.

Anyway, it will be handy to have a metering chimney, or perhaps try getting the metering PD prism finder instead, if that suits you better. Unfortunately, these things do add a bit more weight.

 

[epatsellis]

I don't know, never had a metering prism and never had a need. But then again, most of my subjects (landscape, still life, portraiture) don't move around much, or I have total control of lighting. As to the lenses, I have a full set of RB lenses, sans the 37 and 140 macro. All are C lenses with the exception of the 250 and 360. How do they compare with Zeiss/Hassy lenses? Different, not better or worse, just different. this was shot with the hassy and the 50mm CF FLE Distagon:

This with the 80 CF T* Planar

Prints look stunning of both images, photos taken with the RB look equally good. The single biggest difference I see is simply one of difference in the out of focus areas, with the nod going to the Mamiya for creaminess and smoothness. I hope to get the time (and some cooler weather) to do side by side comparisons, and when I do, I'll post them here, with links to high res images.


erie

 

[dancqu]

IIRC both the chimney and the metered prism offer
integrating metering only, ... Regards, David

I don't know about the prism but it is likely the RB chimney
has spot metering. I've an RZ and checked the instruction book.
The pictured RB meter was described as having spot metering.
At least at publication of my RZ instructions all RB finders
could be used on the RZ. Actually I can't see how an
averaging meter could work with a chimney finder.

My RB manual does not mention any metering mode.
I likely should confirm with the eBay seller. Any body
know; spot or averaging? Dan

 

[keithwms]

Well I don't know about the chimney- there may be more than one version. But the prism finder for my rb definitely is version 1 and it has spot and average, and I always use spot. Prism version 2 does not have built in metering; I guess that was done to preserve maximum VF brightness.

Can't you just ask the seller if this particular chimney has spot? Otherwise you'll need model/serial numbers and then you can phone Mamiya.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Well I don't know about the chimney- there may be more than one version. But the prism finder for my rb definitely is version 1 and it has spot and average, and I always use spot. Prism version 2 does not have built in metering; I guess that was done to preserve maximum VF brightness.

Can't you just ask the seller if this particular chimney has spot? Otherwise you'll need model/serial numbers and then you can phone Mamiya.

To avoid confusion - I have just the WLF and a meterless prism for my RB67. I have never handled any other viewfinder and may well be wrong in my belief that only averaging metering is available!

Regards,

David

 

[dancqu]

To avoid confusion - I have just the WLF and a meterless
prism for my RB67. I have never handled any other viewfinder
and may well be wrong in my belief that only averaging
metering is available! Regards, David

I saw some further evidence of spot metering in a photo
of the metering chimney; A small sensor near the screen.

Well I quite bidding on the item; went for $96 complete
with case and instructions. Real nice. I recalled just in
time that I do not care for on camera metering. Now
I'm bidding on a non-metering chimney. Dan

 

[Ray Heath]

I've the 65mm, 90mm, and 127mm C series RB lenses.
Just wondering how they stack up against other makers MF
offerings as I have have only the 60mm and 75mm Bronica
PE series lenses for comparison. Dan

how do you think they compare?

do they allow you to create images at a quality you are satisfied with?

can/could you see a difference?