How Do My Mamiya RB lenses compare?

[Roger Hicks]

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?

Well, that's the point, really, isn't it? I have a KowaSIX inherited from my father-in-law and (currently, on loan) a 503CX and three Zeiss lenses. Yes, the Hasselblad is better. Does it make me a better photographer? No. Does the Kowa give me usable pictures? Yes. Would I prefer a Hasselblad if price were no object? Of course. The bigger size of a 6x7/6x8 also makes up for some deficiencies in lens quality, which is why I also use 6x7, 6x8, 6x9.

But above all, I use what I have and can afford, without worrying too much about what might be. Some of the best prints I've ever seen were taken by a retired Soviet Navy submarine commander, using an old Mamiya Press with the early lenses (famously among the worst sold for MF on a reasonably modern camera -- later ones were better) and printed on outdated paper in dev laced with benzotriazole. The reason I don't make pics as good as Rustam's is that I'm not as good a photographer, not that I don't have the kit.

My own view for many years has been that there is a 'quality plateau' above which the photographer's skill matters a lot more than the equipment. Sure, a brilliant photographer like Rustam can get superb pics from kit below the 'plateau', but the RB is well above the plateau and at this point it's a matter of personal preference, affordability and (perhaps) pride of ownership: if you feel you have to live up to a particular camera, maybe it'll make you a better photographer. Or maybe not...

 

[eddie gunks]

i have the 50, 90 and 250 all "C" lenses. they all perform perfectly. i am very very satisfied with my results. i use C41, E6 and B&W film. my E6 results are almost exact to the guy in the link that paul posted (maybe he was standing next to me:) ) BUT, i have never tried a hassy.....they are so expensive i am afraid to even hold one. my RB perfoms very well for me. the price is very cheap...especially when you compare them to the mamiya 6&7, and the hassy. i am keeping my RB and iu will continue to bring it on all my overseas trips.

eddie

 

[David Brown]

I have a KowaSIX (and) a 503CX and three Zeiss lenses. Yes, the Hasselblad is better. Does it make me a better photographer? No. Does the Kowa give me usable pictures? Yes.

My own view for many years has been that there is a 'quality plateau' above which the photographer's skill matters a lot more than the equipment. ...

Couldn't agree more. I have also owned Kowa. Replaced it with the Mamiya RB to get a larger neg, interchangeble backs and bellows focusing (for close-ups). I suppose I could possibly see a difference if I took identical pictures and studied the negs side by side under a loupe, but why would I do that? Both cameras have more than satisified me from a quality standpoint.

I also have a Fuji 645. The lens is noticebly "sharper" (more contrast?) than anything else I've got, but then, how much and so what?

If some people are satisfied with Holgas, I'm more than satisfied with Mamiya!

 

[keithwms]

Normally I would happily agree that there isn't that much difference and that one shouldn't obsess over MTF and all that, but when you look at how inexpensive the KL glass is right now... well check this out:

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/mamiya.htm#LabelRB67Lenses

At these kinds of prices, KL is definitely worthwhile in the long run. My reasoning is that this is especially true if you have thoughts of eventually using these lenses with a digital back on an rb or rz. KL/non-KL may not matter much on film, but my expectation is that it definitely will matter with a ~645 digital back.

[disclaimer]
I am not saying that you have to buy a digital back, I am just saying, as a longer term investment...
[end of disclaimer]

 

[Dave Miller]

Mamiya have now stopped making the RB, although they continue with the RZ. The result is that they seem to have dumped their RB stock so, at least here in merry England the prices have been sharply depressed. Ffordes Photographic have a good stock as well.

 

[panastasia]

How do they compare with Zeiss/Hassy lenses? Different, not better or worse, just different...

I've heard this before from another person who owned both, with special emphasis on the out-of-focus background image.

He stated that he preferred the out-of-focus images of some RB KL lenses as more desirable, and with other focal lengths the Hassy lenses were. It sounded like the biggest difference was in the out-of-focus background images.

 

[skahde]

It sounded like the biggest difference was in the out-of-focus background images.

The usual picture in MF-land. For me this sums up to: If you feel comfortable with what you have, never start comparing or you may find small differences which you may mistake for big advantages.

There are valid reasons to choose one system or another but average lens-performance obviously isn't among them.

best

Stefan

 

[Roger Hicks]

The usual picture in MF-land. For me this sums up to: If you feel comfortable with what you have, never start comparing or you may find small differences which you may mistake for big advantages.

There are valid reasons to choose one system or another but average lens-performance obviously isn't among them.

best

Stefan

Dear Stefan,

A brilliant analysis!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Steve Smith]

My 'exceptional lens performance' far outweighs my 'average photographer performance'.


Steve.

 

[epatsellis]

My only concern with the KL lenses is one of repairability, or lack thereof. My understanding is that the shutters are not nearly as durable or repairable as the C/Non C shutters.


erie

 

[eddie gunks]

My 'exceptional lens performance' far outweighs my 'average photographer performance'.


Steve.

well said.....that applies to me as well......

 

[panastasia]

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.

I've added more second hand KL lenses to the two that I purchased new (90, 180) ranging from 65-360. I've found that anything wider than 65mm has too much linear distortion away from the horizontal shooting position. Because of this fact, I use a mini 6x9 view camera to eliminate/reduce distortion w/WA lenses.

I use newer Schneider optics with the mini view and can see (by visual inspection of enlargements - the only sure way to compare lens performance IMO) that the KL lenses are sharper for MF, to put it simply. The 180 KL appears to be ultra sharp when comparing it with all others.

The difference in lens performance (sharpness) is a minor factor in my view, compared to compositional aspects (distortion).

 

[epatsellis]

So true. I've been using primarily C lenses, and find them adequate. If one takes a systemic approach, the lenses tend not to be the limiting factor, by any stretch of the imagination. If I require larger enlargement ratios, I move up to a larger negative.


erie

 

[keithwms]

I use a mini 6x9 view camera to eliminate/reduce distortion w/WA lenses.

Yep, me too. I also much prefer the 50mm on my mamiya 6 to the 50 on the rb. Night and day difference in terms of field distortion.

The difference in lens performance (sharpness) is a minor factor in my view, compared to compositional aspects (distortion).

Amen.