I wouldn't consider the 180mm a heavy lens. The 500mm is heavy. The 360mm is pretty heavy. The 75mm shift lens is heavy (but it doesn't needs the adapter because it requires the full opening of the Pro-SD). I have a 180mm C lens and haven't had a problem using it adapter-less. Disclaimer: I don't use it that often.
To be fair, those are probably not that easy to find.
... Do you think a 180mm is too heavy to mount without the adapter?
Both are in fact easy to find, one just needs to look them up.
I meant for a retailer to include them (body caps) when selling a body. You can find almost any old thing on ebay....
The C lenses are very good.
In a couple of cases the K/L lenses reflect some improvements in coatings, and of course they may be substantially newer.
And the 220 backs are much cheaper than 120, but works just fine (despite what some will have you believe).
They give really consistent results on frames 11 through 20 when using 120 film
For me, that is the major reason to be leery.
They give really consistent results on frames 11 through 20 when using 120 film
For me, that is the major reason to be leery.
I own a few 220 ProSD backs but only use them for 220 film or 35mm panoramas.
I use my 120 backs for 120, as God intended.
That said, at the beginning of COVID 19 lockdowns I did some somewhat scientific testing in the back yard between 120 and 220 backs and there was no noticeable difference in sharpness between either when using 35mm film with no backing. At least not when stopped down a bit. There may be a difference in close-up images shot wide open, but most people don't shoot that way. So using the "wrong" back is probably fine for most.
Jeremy
FWIW, it probably isn't an issue with 35mm and sharpness, because the film rails are on the camera, not in the back.
It is wear of the back where there is concern.
Hmm.
Last I checked, the film was held flat by the pressure plate against the film gate, which are both located in the backs. There are no film rails in an RB67 body that I know of.
Jeremy
And it is the 220 inserts that will have increased wear if you use a lot of 35mm film or 120 film.
Not trying to argue further here, but 35mm film and 220 film are similar thicknesses due to not having backing paper. It's the thicker combo of the backing paper and film in 120 that are detrimental to the 220 backs as it creates more drag and thus wear.
So I don't think the "35mm" belongs in your statement above.
Jeremy
But 35mm was historically thicker than 220 - e.g. 220 Plus-X was on 3.6 mil acetate while 35mm Plus-X was on 5 mil acetate.
I'm not sure whether the sprocket holes in 35mm would create more of a risk for wear.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?