Portraits with RB67.......250mm C or not to C ?

[harlequin]

Dear Apug Members,

Have an older Rb67 with 127mm C lens good all around performance, but I would like double the
focal length for a tight portrait.

a) Is the 250mm C lens vastly superior to the non C lens?
b) Since its for portraiture only, would the added coatings and contrast be a good thing?
c) Still a large difference in price for these lenses in the used market C versus Non C.
d) I know the 150sf and the 180 are probably the preferred option, however I like the longer lens for
portraits, would this approximate a 135mm lens on 35mm?
e) Do any of you recommend the extension tube 1 with this lens, as it would even get closer for
tighter framing.?
f) Only shooting FP4 and TRI-x so no color, is that where the C series shines??

Many Thanks for your opinions on this....

Harlequin

 

[tedr1]

The actual size of the RB67 camera negative is a frame diagonal of 85mm. For the 35mm system I believe the frame diagonal is 43mm. This means that the 135mm lens focal length is about 3 times the diagonal. Now for the RB67 case, the diagonal is 85mm and the proposed lens is 250mm, which is almost exactly the same 3 times ratio. So yes, 250mm on the RB67 is equivalent to 135mm on the 35mm camera.

I have no experience of the difference between C and non C lenses, however in principal you are correct, the coating of the C lens should give lower flare. Also consider that a non-C lens may be older than a C lens and therefore have more wear.

An extension tube is a good idea, this situation calls for the longest available.

 

[Questor84]

Robert's Camera has one ( 250mm Mamiya Sekor C lens for RB67 )on Ebay for $85.00 with shipping. It is not pristine but does not sound or look too bad for the price with warranty and 30 day money back. Might be worth investigating. The others listed today don't look too good. Hope this helps. Not trying to advertise for them.

 

[John Koehrer]

I've bought a couple of things from Robert's and had very good experiences.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

I regularly use the 180 C lens for head and shoulders portraits. I like it, and do not feel like it is too long. To me the 250 would be a nice lens for face-only framing and a comfortable camera to subject distance. I have no experience with C vs. non-C lenses.

 

[Neil Grant]

Dear Apug Members,

Have an older Rb67 with 127mm C lens good all around performance, but I would like double the
focal length for a tight portrait.

a) Is the 250mm C lens vastly superior to the non C lens?
b) Since its for portraiture only, would the added coatings and contrast be a good thing?
c) Still a large difference in price for these lenses in the used market C versus Non C.
d) I know the 150sf and the 180 are probably the preferred option, however I like the longer lens for
portraits, would this approximate a 135mm lens on 35mm?
e) Do any of you recommend the extension tube 1 with this lens, as it would even get closer for
tighter framing.?
f) Only shooting FP4 and TRI-x so no color, is that where the C series shines??

Many Thanks for your opinions on this....

Harlequin

answer some:
a) yes, the C lens is much lighter. The non-C is bulky and clumsy in comparison.
b) the C lens will hold contrast better in 'against the light' conditions
e) number1 tube + non-C 250 - sounds scarey!
f) No. The non-C 250 is a massive bulky thing. It's heavier and more clumsy than even the 360 C. It's size and bulk have a considerable effect on the camera's handling. Tripod work for portraits with this one!

 

[paul ron]

I like the 180mm for portraits. The 250 is a monster.

 

[M Carter]

I regularly use the 180 C lens for head and shoulders portraits. I like it, and do not feel like it is too long. To me the 250 would be a nice lens for face-only framing and a comfortable camera to subject distance. I have no experience with C vs. non-C lenses.

I have the 180 and the 250. But I got the 250 for getting a more flat and compressed look. The 180 doesn't deliver that as strongly, and I'm keeping my eye out for the 360. Yeah, I'll need to rent studio space for that one.

I shot tons of catalog work with the RB in the 90's and had a mix of lenses, all color E6. Never could tell C vs. non-C, but it was controlled lighting so flare or backlighting wasn't a worry, even if it was designed into the shot. Always felt the "C" designation was over rated, but again - mostly controlled lighting.

For those gigs though, the 180 was on 90% of the time, it's really a special piece of glass with just lovely rendering. But if someone wants the 250 look, I would not dissuade them. Shooting 35mm fashion with Nikon, I was generally 200mm at 2.8 or F4 - just such a punchy, flat and "cut out" look. The Rb 250 isn't as extreme, but its a special look of its own.

 

[Neil Grant]

...studio conditions should be low-flare. I've compared colour on C lenses and it's much better than non-C. Truer, my non-C 250 is quite green. It's my only non-C. But I've used others too including the 180 and 50. The 360 won't go all that close - and a tube makes it clumsy. A very 'mild' cu lens might help. I think Nikon used to do some for their extreme tele's - but his is going back a long, long way. Altertively the 'cine' guys refered to them as dioptres (same as cu) but for a powerful zoom lens. The 360 lens is quite OK on the camera - more manegeable than the non-C 250, and depth-of-field is very narrow.

 

[harlequin]

That's what I am talking about....
Real life experiences.....where your .02 cents is worth much more!!!

Looks like I am purchasing the 250C lens based on your help/opinions and assistance.
After that I will be looking at either 150SF or 180mm C lens, a 360C that's a whole different kettle of fish....

Thanks again APUG Members!!

Harlequin

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

In my opinion, the 250mm is not an advisable option for portraiture with the Mamiya RB system. I bougth one at first, but soon realized that the bellows had to be almost fully extended for portraiture use, the camera was a nightmare to hold and unbalanced towards the front, and exposure compensation figures had to be taken in consideration slowing down the whole process. All of this will be worsened by the extension tube, and the groundglass will also get pretty dark and hard to focus.

I understand that for some reason you seem to appreciate over-flattened portraits, but the focal difference between 180mm and 250mm doesn't justify all these extra difficulties in my opinion. However, I see you've already taken your decision, so this will remain a hint for future readers.

 

[paul ron]

I hope the op comes back with a review and some pictures from his 250mm experiace.

 

[Neil Grant]

In my opinion, the 250mm is not an advisable option for portraiture with the Mamiya RB system. I bougth one at first, but soon realized that the bellows had to be almost fully extended for portraiture use, the camera was a nightmare to hold and unbalanced towards the front, and exposure compensation figures had to be taken in consideration slowing down the whole process. All of this will be worsened by the extension tube, and the groundglass will also get pretty dark and hard to focus.

.

- shouldn't be much of an extension factor, there isn't that much mag if you're doing a portrait. Your points about balance though are correct. It's another RB optic that would do well with a very 'mild' cu lens 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 diopter if one could be found. Mamiya wisely shrunk the 250 lens when they did the C-update, and considering the camera format it's relatively fast.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

If my memory doesn't fail, a close-up portrait was just barely feasible at full bellows extension. This picture of the RB focusing scale shows that this condition happens just across the +0.5 and +1 correction. Wether this is or isn't an annoyance may depend on the photographer, of course. For me, all considered, everything conjured against the 250mm as a convenient lens for portraiture.

I agree that it's a good lens and that it's pretty fast for its focal length, however in my opinion there are other lenses of the Mamiya RB system that are more portrait-oriented. Of course a portrait can be taken with a 250mm, but I wouldn't suggest it as a portrait lens for this system.