Question for RB or RZ users

[thefizz]

I have an RZ with 50mm and 90mm lenses. I am looking for a lens to do portrait work but I am not sure which of the 150 or 180mm lenses is best suited. Has anyone got experience shooting head and shoulder portraits with either of these lenses?

I also saw a 100-200mm f5.2W on line. How would this compare to one of the fixed focal length lenses?

Thanks,
Peter

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have an RZ with 50mm and 90mm lenses. I am looking for a lens to do portrait work but I am not sure which of the 150 or 180mm lenses is best suited. Has anyone got experience shooting head and shoulder portraits with either of these lenses?

I also saw a 100-200mm f5.2W on line. How would this compare to one of the fixed focal length lenses?

Thanks,
Peter

All of those lenses would be a good choice. I have a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with a 110mm lens and a 180mm lens and I am very pleased with the 180mm for portrait subjects.
I haven`t used a 100-200mm f/5.2 lens, but it is only a 2X zoom and should be optically very good in terms of sharpness and resolution and will allow you to crop the image more conveniently.

 

[Dave Miller]

I use a 180mm for head & shoulder portrait work. It allows me to give the model breathing space. The 150mm is a slightly faster, and lighter lens, but not so readily available second-hand, you should also consider the 150mm soft-focus lens for additional creativity. The 100/200 zoom is a bit of a lump at twice the weight of the 180mm, that may be a consideration.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I have an RZ with 50mm and 90mm lenses. I am looking for a lens to do portrait work but I am not sure which of the 150 or 180mm lenses is best suited. Has anyone got experience shooting head and shoulder portraits with either of these lenses?

I also saw a 100-200mm f5.2W on line. How would this compare to one of the fixed focal length lenses?

Thanks,
Peter

Agree with other posters. It's really a question of whether you prefer portraits with the conventional flatter modeling (-> 180 mm lens) or with slightly more rounding (in which case choose the 150 mm). If working distance is limited (e.g. you're shooting portraits in your spare bedroom), the 180 may be too long, otherwise not much difference.

Regards,

David

 

[thefizz]

Thanks for the info. Any idea what distance would be needed for a head & shoulders portrait using the 180mm lens?

Peter

 

[Steve Smith]

Thanks for the info. Any idea what distance would be needed for a head & shoulders portrait using the 180mm lens?

You can work it out using simple maths.

Assuming portrait format so 70mm of film height. The ratio of distance to subject size is focal length to film height which, in this case, is 180 : 70

This means that for every 70mm of subject height, the distance from the subject to camera will be 180mm. Or 180/70 = 2.57 x the subject height.

So for a head and shoulders shot which may be about 500mmm high, the distance is 500 x 2.57 which is 1285mm or 1.285 metres (4' 2").

This is a simplified version which does not take bellows extension into account but it should give a rough guide.


Steve.

 

[thefizz]

Thanks Steve.

 

[Xmas]

The 150mm has variable soft focus for the fair sex?

Noel

 

[thefizz]

Is there much difference between the lenses with W, WN or no letter after them?

 

[Xmas]

Try and get one with little machanical damage and no optical. It does not have to be pristine mechanically, just not badly bent, and able to take filters.

Check the shutter is ok slow and fast speeds.

Noel

P.S. Use a hood.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Try and get one with little machanical damage and no optical. It does not have to be pristine mechanically, just not badly bent, and able to take filters.

Check the shutter is ok slow and fast speeds.

Noel

P.S. Use a hood.

I can't say I agree. A lens with a little WEAR on the paint finish of the barrel may be OK, but any signs of damage indicate a probability that the lens in question has been dropped, in which case all bets are off regarding optical performance!

 

[catem]

Is there much difference between the lenses with W, WN or no letter after them?

I believe there's no difference - it just refers to when the lenses were produced/coated (& it's sequential rather than a precise date).

 

[Nick Zentena]

I think some design changes happened to. But in some cases multiple types were sold at the same time.

I think they are selling the APO and the earlier line still at this moment.

 

[catem]

When I recently bought a lens from ffordes photography (reputable dealers in the UK) and asked this very question they explained they and other dealers had tried to clarify exactly what the letters meant and found Mamiya unforthcoming - except to say it referred to the period in which the lenses were coated.

 

[thefizz]

Thank you all.

 

[panastasia]

The 140 macro and the 150 are good general purpose portrait lenses, IMO. For close portraits the 180 and 250 are best, allowing better control of background focus and more pleasing perspective.

Softening filters are easy to make using various materials such as nylon stocking in matboard frame held in front of lens.

The 180 is relatively cheap in price these days - my first choice.

 

[silverliner]

180 is my all time favourite not only for portraits but also equally good on landscapes!!!!!

 

[silverliner]

And 250 K/L is really sharp with nice bokeh. It was tuned to take excellent pictures for both near and far distant objects.

 

[max_ebb]

A while back I was reading someone's ebay listing, and it said that the W indicates that there is a wider aperture range between the click stops. I believe this might be true because I have a 110mm non-W and a 180mm W-N and the 180 definitely has a wider range between stops (just like the K/L L and K/L L-A lenses for the RB). I don't know what the difference is between the W and the W-N though.

Anybody got any experience with the Sekor Z 150mm f3.5? I'm thinking about getting one. Also, I can't decide between the 65mm Z lens or the 75mm. Any recommendations on that?