Landscape lens group for Mamiya RB67?

I have done mostly all landscape with my Mamiya RB67.. with its 90mm, that I got in February of this year, and love it, but need another lens. Now I am trying to differentiate what lens I want to purchase next, a 180, 250 or 360?
Looking in the archives, found that the 35mm equivalents for 180 is 87mm, and 250=118mm.
But what is the equivalent in 35mm for the 360?

The 180's are very available and inexpensive, but it seems that most who have the 180's, use them for portraits. I'm not really interested in portraits, but it sounds like that the 90, 180 and then 360 might be a good progression for landscape shooting. Since what I have read, seems to state that the difference between the 180 and 250 is very little, and should not be considered if one has a 180, for this aspect of shooting.

But what are your thoughts? A 90, 180, 360... or a 90, 250, ... or ... ??
thanks...

Background:
I shoot all three formats, and love my 35mm Nikon 80-200 zoom, and have never needed more than the 200 on the Nikon for what I was trying to capture. I also have a Cannon 35mm, with a fixed 400, that I have yet to get a descent landscape shot from, as its to 'zoom' for the landscapes I do, and to 'short' for wildlife. Birds ect.

For a rough approximation. you can double the FL of the 35mm lens or halve the 6X7 FL lens.
There will be a number of replies that say because the difference in ratio(1.5:1 vs 1.17:1) of the different format you can't do this.
As an example a 200mm lens in 35 will be a very rough approximation to 400mm in 6X7.

For landscapes you might try wideangle like a 65 or a 50. Just a thought.

Jeff

well for portraits I used the 150 soft which was ok.
the problem that made the shorter teles more popular is weight of the longer unless you are working from 4WD vehicle the longs are real difficult I used the two shorter ones.

I got the two wides and the 90 but a 127 might have been a better option for the 90 and 150 or even a 140.

I'm using a 50mm with my RB and I'm happy with the results

I use the 50mm as well. Mine isn't in the best of shape, but its putting out clear results. I have the 50, 90 and 180 "C" lenses, and I find that its a good kit for most things. The 180 is Very Cheap, and a great lens. It has been giving some excellent portrait results.

Get a 180 - they're readily available. Then use it for a bit and look for a deal on a 360 if that's what your "vision" requires. I'm amused that you asked about telephoto lens and several advised getting wide angle.

I own a 500 for my RB. I've gotten limited use from it, but I need to try harder.

Thank you all.. with the availability of the 180, I'm going to go for that now.
Then with its use, it will give me a better handle for the purchase of the next lens.. 250 or 360.
I may not want that much more progression that the 360 would give, time and experience will tell.

A good choice. The 180mm is a great lens and the price is certainly right at the moment. I've had the 90mm and 180mm for a few years now and they make a great pairing. I went the other way with my 3rd lens (65mm).

The 2x Vivitar tele-converters for the Mamiya RBs go silly cheap, and convert the 180mm lenses to a 360mm f/9.

I hardly ever use anything particularly long, so that fulfills my need.

John Koehrer said:

There will be a number of replies that say because the difference in ratio (1.5:1 vs 1.17:1) of the different format you can't do this.

Click to expand...

6x7 has an aspect ratio of 1:1.25 (4:5).

peter k. said:

But what are your thoughts? A 90, 180, 360... or a 90, 250, ... or ... ??
thanks...

Click to expand...

As others have said, halve the MF FL to get rough approximation of the same angle of view of 35mm. The scene will determine the focal length you need. Personally, I generally carry three lenses when hiking with my GS-1; 50mm, 110mm macro and 200mm. I also have the 250mm, but it is substantially longer and heavier than the 200mm for some reason.