Mamiya RB67 Portrait Lens

[M Carter]

Finding a decent shape RB lens used is pretty easy - and they're really cheap.

There's no reason not to have both of them if you live where there's access (US, UK, Japan, anywhere KEH ships, anywhere a well-rated eBay seller ships).

If you were a 35mm portraitist, chances are you'd have an 80mm 1.8, maybe a 100mm, likely a 28-70 2.8 zoom and maybe an 80-200 (nothing like a portrait at 200mm 2.8 or f4 or so when that look is called for). And as a 35mm portraitist, you'd pay 3 to ten times per lens more than a current RB lens price. Yet most 35 shooters couldn't imagine having only the 80mm in their bag.

I just got a gorgeous 180 for about a hundred bucks (as a backup - because I do love the 180).

The 180 is just a really sweet lens that renders with a really special look. I also got the 250 for an upcoming project but haven't used it extensively yet. But it's got a real "wow" factor, nice compression and DOF.

 

[Nerotheroman]

@M Carter:

Thanks for your reply.
I live in Germany, things are a bit pricier here,
but still acceptable. Maybe the US and Japanese markets are buying options, too.
Well you are 100% right for my digital working kit I payed at least 30x the price of a 180mm Mamiya.(Meaning digital camera plus lenses)
For my 35mm digi I own primes from 35mm to 200mm plus 3 zoom lenses. So I why not taking analogue as serious working gear, as I do with digital and get all the choice I have. Well at least step by step


Thanks for sharing your experiences with those lenses, too!

 

[film_man]

Since you have the 127 I would look for at least 180mm as you will not see any perspective difference with the 140 or 150. I have the 127, have owned the 180 but sold it as it was a bit close to the 127 and I'm not really into the tele look anyway. I also owned the 250 and that would give you a distinctly different look to the 127 so personally I'd say either look for a 210 or 250 purely from a focal length point of view.

By the way, I bought the 180 and 250 as KL version from Japanese sellers on ebay. With shipping and tax and all they were still around £100-150 so if you don't like them you can still sell them in Europe for that much or ever a bit more.

 

[k_jupiter]

I have the 150SF, it's nice but a pain to be changing softness levels in mid shoot, but still a nice lens. Never found it sharp enough for general shooting, even without the inner lens.

I have tried the pantyhose thing with a 180 but got into all sorts of trouble taking them off my subject. They didn't quite understand.

tim in san jose

 

[Nerotheroman]

@film_ man:

Thank you for your advice. As you have used both lenses,
would you say there is a difference in optical abilities?
Is one lens sharper? Did you favour one lens over the other when it came to Bokeh or flairs?

Yes Japan seems to be a good market for second hand camera stuff. But I need to call German customs first, to see what costs I have to add.

@tim: Thank you for your answer. Can you elaborate why exactly it's a pain? Because of the softener disks?
Interesting so you say even using higher f stops like 11 or so it can't compete in sharpness?

Well that's something I also know^^ My gf is always a bit pi...ed, when she can't find her pantyhose anymore xD

Oh well ^^

 

[k_jupiter]

@tim: Thank you for your answer. Can you elaborate why exactly it's a pain? Because of the softener disks?
Interesting so you say even using higher f stops like 11 or so it can't compete in sharpness?

Well that's something I also know^^ My gf is always a bit pi...ed, when she can't find her pantyhose anymore xD

Oh well ^^

When you are out in the field, you need three hands to change disks. And no, not even at f11 plus is it as sharp as the 127 or 180 lenses. Those be sharp lens.

tim

 

[Nerotheroman]

Thank you for the answer Tim.
That makes one thinking.

 

[film_man]

@film_ man:

Thank you for your advice. As you have used both lenses,
would you say there is a difference in optical abilities?
Is one lens sharper? Did you favour one lens over the other when it came to Bokeh or flairs?

Yes Japan seems to be a good market for second hand camera stuff. But I need to call German customs first, to see what costs I have to add.

In the UK you have to add roughly 25% to cover duty and VAT.

With regards to the lenses, I prefer the 127 because I prefer the shorter focal length and also the lens is much smaller compared to the 180. From a performance point of view, they are both fantastic, the 180 will obviously get you a more blurred background as it is longer. They are both very sharp, I think the 180 is probably the sharper of the two but that's just an impression. Flare resistance is excellent on both.

I think from a purely technical point of view the 180 is probably the better lens but, as I said, I prefer the 127 focal length. In any case, these are just overall impressions looking at photos, I have not done a side-by-side test checking sharpness at 100% on Photoshop and all that stuff.

My experience was with the KL lenses, I do not know if the same is true for the C lenses you are looking at.

 

[Nerotheroman]

@film_man:

That's really valuable information for me.
I'm not interested in 100% Photoshop sharpness testing.
Rather in real life usage. So your answer was really helpful
Thank you!
Now I will watch the electronic bay closely and see what I can get

 

[flavio81]

In the UK you have to add roughly 25% to cover duty and VAT.

With regards to the lenses, I prefer the 127 because I prefer the shorter focal length and also the lens is much smaller compared to the 180. From a performance point of view, they are both fantastic, the 180 will obviously get you a more blurred background as it is longer. They are both very sharp, I think the 180 is probably the sharper of the two but that's just an impression. Flare resistance is excellent on both.

I think from a purely technical point of view the 180 is probably the better lens but, as I said, I prefer the 127 focal length. In any case, these are just overall impressions looking at photos, I have not done a side-by-side test checking sharpness at 100% on Photoshop and all that stuff.

My experience was with the KL lenses, I do not know if the same is true for the C lenses you are looking at.

Glad to see the 127 was good for you over the 180 since I bought the former instead of the latter.

As for sharpness, the 127 is a 5 element 3 group similar to the 90/2.8 Leitz Elmar in design, with the aperture stop in it's "correct" place.
While the 180 is a 5 element 3 group of Heliar design, a long focus lens, in which, for reducing the dimensions, the aperture stop has been moved way beyond the lens element. This is not ideal, but allows for a compact design. (See design -- attached file):

Mamiya did exactly the same strategy with the 135/4.5 lens for the TLR (aperture stop behind the lens), while the design of the standard 80/2.8 TLR lens is identical to the 127/3.8 RB lens.

In comparison of the TLR lenses the 135mm has very good blur charactersitics but resolution tests inferior to the 80mm lens. It appears that locating the aperture in that place prevents the lens to improve too much when the aperture is closed down. It's still sharp enough, it seems (i don't own it, i own the 180mm TLR lens, which is superb)

I was afraid that could happen with the 180mm RB lens, but since I saw your post, now i'm glad the 180 is well-performing.

PS: I just realized you were speaking about the KL lenses. My comparison is regarding the C-series lenses. Sorry.

 

[Nerotheroman]

Thank you for your post Flavio!
Really interesting read. Regarding the C and K/L versions: I always thought the only difference between them lies in a different coating. Does that really have an impact that big on the image quality? I thought of getting C-lenses, they are a lot easier to get here.

 

[flavio81]

Thank you for your post Flavio!
Really interesting read. Regarding the C and K/L versions: I always thought the only difference between them lies in a different coating. Does that really have an impact that big on the image quality? I thought of getting C-lenses, they are a lot easier to get here.

Not exactly, let me summarize:

First version (non-C) lenses are single-coated (perhaps the 50mm or 65mm was multicoated since the beginning... perhaps).

When the C-generation came, one lens design was changed (in particular the 90mm f3.8C is a different design), don't know if the rest were changed, though; it appears they were not. But now they are all multicoated.

Multicoating a design with few lens elements (which is the case with the 127, 180, 250 mm lenses) will make very little impact on flare resistance and contrast. On wideangles (particularly the 50mm) it is a benefit. And if the lens design stays the same, adding multicoting should have zero influence in the sharpness or resolution that reaches the film plane. But, on the other hand, if better contrast is achieved on backlit or high-contrast scenes due to multicoating, this would end up in better resolution on the film itself since film resolves better when image contrast is higher.

Now, the KL series is a much more modern series. The C lenses are very sharp and honestly, at least for black and white, i'm very satisfied with the 90mm, and with the 50mm. The KL series has modern mid-80s designs that are state of the art, using techniques like for example anomalous dispersion glasses to correct for chromatic abberations. I would expect the new tele lenses to be better in that regard.

The KL lenses introduces new lenses and new designs. For example the 90/3.5 KL lens is a very different design from the previous 90mm lenses. And bigger.
I think all the KL lenses are new designs.

I haven't tried the KL lenses myself but from glancing at the designs and the technology, i would be safe to say that these are as sharp and as good as they could be. I'd guess that 2014 technology can make them smaller, but not much better.

Mamiya-Sekor has a reputation for very good lenses and the bottom line is -- just use the system and be happy; great results are guaranteed if you have good technique.

 

[Xmas]

If you decide to keep the 127 then a 140, 150 or even 180 on 6x7 are too close if you use 200 or more with 35mm.

A 250mm on 6x7 is shorter than you normally use, but this may be ok on 6x7.

I don't have troubles with sharpness on prints with my 90, 150 or 250mm. On 6x7 the enlargement factor for 16x20 inch is 'small' so grain or lens artifice is vestigial even with nose on print.

If I'm shooting out of doors I dont take the case with the variable soft focus rings out with me most of the time Im using f/11 or smaller and juggling the lens front and rings not nice to think about.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/mamiyarb/discuss/72157632873655931/

Out doors I rarely need a ND filter to get /5.6 or below with 400 ISO I live in dark ages here. I do have PanF in gbag but never used it yet although it is my fav film, I always carry an empty insert.

 

[flavio81]

Because I love this forum, and I think that the RB is God's gift to photographers, i have just made a collage of the difference in FOV between the 127-360 lenses, straight from the original RB67 owner manual. This will be of help to some forumers in the future. Also, i haven't included the 90mm but let me say that the difference in 'look' from 90 to 127mm is very noticeable, which corresponds with my experience of switching between 80mm versus 105mm in 6x6 format.

I'd say the difference between 127, 180, and 250mm is marked in terms of background separation from the subject.
While the difference between the 250mm and the 360mm is not so big.

Also, my comment on lens designs:
127 - 5/3 type commented before, a proven design used by Mamiya and Leitz
180 - Heliar design with the aperture behind the lens, to keep the lens short and the weight balanced close to the body. Long focus design (it is not a telephoto). Heliar design is renowned for optimal out-of-focus rendering.
250 - Telephoto design practically identical to the 180mm "super" lens on the Mamiya 6x6 TLR series, which I own and which is universally aclaimed for it's killing sharpness at all apertures.
360 - Telephoto design, of a more complex type, no doubt because of the need to increase the telephoto ratio to shorten the lens as much as possible.

If you decide to keep the 127 then a 140, 150 or even 180 on 6x7 are too close if you use 200 or more with 35mm.

200mm is one of my favorite focal lengths for portraits in 35mm, in fact my lab has right now to print a very nice pic i shot using that FL last week.
However, it requires a lot of working distance. This was a full body portrait of my girlfriend (she is tall) and i had to be what it seemed like 20 meters away from her... (!) No need to say, I was outdoors.

 

[Nerotheroman]

@Flavio: Thanks a lot for all the work you did!
Really nice to see the direct comparison of the lenses I really like the look of the 180mm.
Also your explanation about the different series and coatings was really helpful!
I will have a look for the C series!

@Xmas: I figured that I will first purchase the 180mm and then the 200+mm lens. Then I will see which one I like more
Well the softfocus lens sounds intriguing, but it will be to close to the 127mm, so maybe later down the road.
It's dark here to lots of times, that's why I love the HP5.so much

 

[mrred]

I read through this thread and didn't see much attention to depth compression.

I have a 645 with an 80 and a 200. I do not like the 200 because it flattens the face too much. If you were to shoot those skinny models in the pro world, life would be fine. The person i bought my kit from was a fashion photographer, so I guess it worked well for him.

I shoot real people, so i prefer the look I get from a 150 or 120. You can always move a little closer.

In the 35 world, I find myself using the 60 macro over my 90.

I just think depth compression is more of a deciding factor than framing, in portrait lenses.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[benjiboy]

I read through this thread and didn't see much attention to depth compression.

I have a 645 with an 80 and a 200. I do not like the 200 because it flattens the face too much. If you were to shoot those skinny models in the pro world, life would be fine. The person i bought my kit from was a fashion photographer, so I guess it worked well for him.

I shoot real people, so i prefer the look I get from a 150 or 120. You can always move a little closer.

In the 35 world, I find myself using the 60 macro over my 90.

I just think depth compression is more of a deciding factor than framing, in portrait lenses.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

He's shooting 6X7 not 6X4.5 so 180mm would be an ideal portrait lens for that format it will render the spatial relationships of the human face correctly with the minimum distortion.

 

[Nerotheroman]

@mrred: Good point. Well I guess one could say, that
some of my images (job related) have this flat look.
Because sadfully the clients do want it that way. When I do my personal stuff, more artsy, I like to play with this flatness more. Comprehension can give you incredible pictures, if you know just how to use it. At least that was what I experienced the last years. I like longer lenses because of two simple facts: 1. I'm "far" away from the person I'm shooting, so a more natural behavior and facial behavior (is there such a word as mimic in English? ? ) often times is the result. 2. I love to play around with fore- and background distances.

Anyway, your point still remains important and I will think about it, when testing the lenses!

Thank you!

@Ben: Good to know
Thanks!

 

[GarageBoy]

I thought the flattening was more flattering to the subject?

 

[DcAnalogue]

Just made a test shot (not a portrait) with my (almost) new Sekor C 180 mm.
Here's a shot wide open on Tmax 100 @ 64 - 1/400 sec. f/4,5
I like very much the bokeh and it seems to me very sharp also if wide open http://theanalogicphotoblog.tumblr.com/image/104351289275

Here is instead a portrait made with Sekor C 90mm & duplicator... just to evaluate the rendering of a 180mm lenght on a portrait http://theanalogicphotoblog.tumblr.com/image/101572760855

Hope it helps....

 

[M Carter]

Couple thoughts -

My commercial background was fashion, so... the longer, the better! As I and Flavio81 mentioned, 200mm in the 35 realm can be really luscious.

Others mention the compression... I think for editorial work, street work, etc - too much compression is not a good thing. But when a lady friend wants a nice portrait, compression and bokeh (along with good lighting and composition) are sometimes the factors that make them say "wow, you know what you're doing, don't ya?".

But foremost, compression is a compositional tool that can help with the feel and message of the final shot - it's good to have some choices.

Regarding pantyhose... I would really urge anyone considering mesh over the lens to drop by a well equipped camera store and see what's going on with diffusion these days. ProMist, Black ProMist, Glimmerglass... there's some really tasty stuff out there, especially in the 1/4, 1/2 and 1 ranges. Not that 70's fairy-tale look, but well-designed diffusion that can soften wrinkles while keeping catch lights and eyes popping, and work wonders with hot spots in the BG and enhancing bokeh.

The warm promists and the like are designed for color work, but there's a lot of stuff that's been designed for or adopted by people trying to get the "digital" edge in digital cinema cameras to look a bit more organic without losing scene detail. They're pretty badass tools for your kit. Cinema guys need a huge pile of them (a 1/2 diffusion can look markedly different between a closeup and a wide, and matching the look for a multi-angle scene gets difficult) but for portraiture, one or two choices can be very handy. And the 77's you'd need for an RB are much cheaper than the 4x4's in my cinema bag...

 

[Nerotheroman]

@GarageBoy: Well it certainly can be. For example a couple of weeks ago I had to take pictures for a producer of make up articles. So in this case flattering was a must be for the customer.

DcAnalogue: Thanks for the images and your time to make them. Good to see a wider selection, to base my decision on that!

M Carter: Thank you for your answer! There is much in it, which really helps me forward.
Would you mind if I shoot you a PM to talk a bit further about those tools? I have loads of questions and would love to talk a bit further about that


To all of you guys: I'm active in many forums. But rarely did I get so much help
Thank you all! This is an incredible helpful place with incredible knowledgeable people

 

[flavio81]

@Flavio: Thanks a lot for all the work you did!
Really nice to see the direct comparison of the lenses I really like the look of the 180mm.
Also your explanation about the different series and coatings was really helpful!
I will have a look for the C series!

I reviewed the documentation again, to complement my earlier post on the lenses generations:

Lenses that changed in lens design from "non-C" to "C".

65mm lens: Earlier lens has no floating system, new lens has floating system (with floating system ring). Design is radically different in the new version.
90mm lens: As noted, lens design is different on the C version.
250mm lens: Lens design changed between the earlier "megaphone-mouth" version and the next, more streamlined-looking version. The C-version is the modern version, as well, of course.

 

[Nerotheroman]

Thanks for the addition!

 

[miha]

Benjiboy, what do you mean by the spatial relationships?