RB67 Lens Dilemma - 50mm or 65mm?

[nwilkins]

Pincushion and barrel distortions are not the same thing as perspective distortion. They're just the lack of near total correction of linearity distortions.

old-n-feeble, don't bother with this - it'll just derail the thread. I'm sure most of us here can identify barrel distortion so it's not worth the energy.

as for whether or not it is an acceptable level of distortion, that is for everyone to decide for themselves. I posted the picture simply to give context to my comments about the lens in the hope that it would help the OP make a decision. Judge the distortion however you wish. My point was simply that there is none of that distortion with the 65mm KL lens, and that is one of the reasons why I use the 65 KL more. (It is also sharper and does not suffer from colour fringing, as I said above). This is simply my entirely subjective experience and preference, and I hope it will be helpful to the OP (even if it helps him decide on the 50 over the 65 - it doesn't matter to me).

 

[TheToadMen]

There is a Mamiya RB67 group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/166020020119888/
You can view several posted images from both lenses there. It might help you decide.

 

[Kirks518]

There is a Mamiya RB67 group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/166020020119888/
You can view several posted images from both lenses there. It might help you decide.

Seems to be a closed group.

 

[TheToadMen]

Seems to be a closed group.

You have to be a member to post, but apparently also to see the posts. Sorry about that, didn't know.
You could become a member and unsubscribe in due time.

Edit: here a few from the group with with external links (outside facebook). I hope these work:
http://rafalrozalski.tumblr.com (some 50 mm)
https://www.facebook.com/RRphoto.eu...41838.143220655734849/809884255735149/?type=1
https://www.facebook.com/RRphoto.eu...3220655734849/806138162776425/?type=1&theater

 

[M Carter]

The used price of that glass - compared to the film days - is so cheap that tough decisions generally mean "just get both".

If you shop around, the quality you get for the money is just absurd these days for older film gear. Buy both, do some tests and spend some time with 'em - you can always sell one if you find you never choose it.

 

[mihalich]

Get 50. While i had rb67 it was "the one" for me


Отправлено с моего iPhone используя Tapatalk

 

[Alan Gales]

The used price of that glass - compared to the film days - is so cheap that tough decisions generally mean "just get both".

If you shop around, the quality you get for the money is just absurd these days for older film gear. Buy both, do some tests and spend some time with 'em - you can always sell one if you find you never choose it.

Great point!

 

[tkamiya]

I have 65, 90, 127, 150SF, and 180.

65 isn't quite wide enough for me to call it a WIDE. I tend to think of it as normal-wide. I wouldn't give up 65 but I also want a 50.

I think, this is strictly a matter of personal choice and preference though. It really doesn't matter if 100 people vote for 50. You might like 65 better then that's all it counts. At the price of these lenses today, why don't you get both and sell the one you don't like?

 

[Kirks518]

Thanks everyone. I think I probably couldn't go wrong with either, but for some of the images I have planned, I think the 50mm will serve me better, so I grabbed a 50mm from KEH. Should be here on Wednesday, and when I get out and use it, I'll let you all know how I like it.

 

[TheToadMen]

Thanks everyone. I think I probably couldn't go wrong with either, but for some of the images I have planned, I think the 50mm will serve me better, so I grabbed a 50mm from KEH. Should be here on Wednesday, and when I get out and use it, I'll let you all know how I like it.

Good choice, and ......

SHOW US THE PICTURES !!!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks everyone. I think I probably couldn't go wrong with either, but for some of the images I have planned, I think the 50mm will serve me better, so I grabbed a 50mm from KEH. Should be here on Wednesday, and when I get out and use it, I'll let you all know how I like it.

I agree that you made a wise choice. I have always maintained that people who follow my advice are wise. If they would only let people who think like I do vote there would be no problems in the world.

 

[M Carter]

Great point!

As sad as I am to see analog goods disappearing (RIGHT when I get into lith printing Foma becomes un-lithable?!?!? Sheesh!!!) it's really something to buy an amazing lens almost on a whim.

When I shot commercially in the 90's, I always rented the RB 50, it was still a very pricey lens (and I did mostly fashion with the RB). Now you can find one for under $200 if you shop around.

Funny, the rental I used for several years slowly turned yellow... from "my film seems a little off" to "this glass is freaking yellow!" Rental place had to buy a new one. No idea what caused that.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Do one or more of the RB lenses have thorium glass?

 

[TheToadMen]

As sad as I am to see analog goods disappearing (RIGHT when I get into lith printing Foma becomes un-lithable?!?!? Sheesh!!!)

A bit OT, but (according to Tim Rudman) Foma is changing the emulsions back to lithable again. See other thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists).

 

[M Carter]

A bit OT, but (according to Tim Rudman) Foma is changing the emulsions back to lithable again. See other thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Thanks - been following that news, I think the dust is still settling... fingers crossed!

 

[j-dogg]

my rule of thumb for all formats says:get half and double the normal focal length.I think you are half -way thgere with your 90 and 180.Now get the 50mm to complete a great set.

This is exactly the setup I'm using, 50, 90 and 180. The 180 is the best portrait lens probably ever made, and it has enough reach to capture far away subjects in detail.

 

[elekm]

For what it's worth, a "dilemma" is when all outcomes are undesirable. What is being described in this thread is simply a choice between A and B.

By the way, I'd go for the 50, because 65 is simply too close to the standard lens.

 

[Alan Gales]

As sad as I am to see analog goods disappearing (RIGHT when I get into lith printing Foma becomes un-lithable?!?!? Sheesh!!!) it's really something to buy an amazing lens almost on a whim.

When I shot commercially in the 90's, I always rented the RB 50, it was still a very pricey lens (and I did mostly fashion with the RB). Now you can find one for under $200 if you shop around.

Funny, the rental I used for several years slowly turned yellow... from "my film seems a little off" to "this glass is freaking yellow!" Rental place had to buy a new one. No idea what caused that.

I don't know what would turn the glass yellow besides a ton of cigarette smoke. I used to do HVAC work and I occasionally had to clean plastic return air grills in drop ceilings. When running a hose over them the water would turn yellow. It was a good reminder to never take up smoking!

I used to have an RZ with 50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm. I bought it all cheap after digital arrived. I would have added the 65mm but I sold it all to fund my large format kit. I do miss the RZ kit sometimes but unfortunately I can't afford everything I like.

 

[EdColorado]

I could not decide so I got both.

Your my kind of photographer Xmas...

I did the same thing.

 

[EdColorado]

Seems to be a closed group.

Go ahead and click the join button. Its an open group but you need to be approved. Took about 10 minutes for me to be allowed in.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would not want to be a member of a closed group that would have me.

 

[alanrockwood]

I don't know what would turn the glass yellow besides a ton of cigarette smoke

Some lenses contain radioactive elements and can turn glass yellow after a period of time. Perhaps that is the case here.

I understand that exposure to UV can sometimes clear up the color. It's not an instantaneous fix.

 

[Alan Gales]

Some lenses contain radioactive elements and can turn glass yellow after a period of time. Perhaps that is the case here.

I understand that exposure to UV can sometimes clear up the color. It's not an instantaneous fix.

That's interesting! I have never heard of the RB or RZ lenses having radioactive elements though. Of course I am no lens expert either.

 

[M Carter]

That's interesting! I have never heard of the RB or RZ lenses having radioactive elements though. Of course I am no lens expert either.

Nor have I, or why the 50 would be different. And this place - at the time - was the big rental place for the Dallas market, Light Tec. They had high dollar super angulons for 4x5 & 8x10, 300 2.8's for Nikon & canon, even a 400 2.8 as I recall, tons of packs & heads. And just that one lens went yellow of all the stuff I rented over the years.

I actually had to bring it in, grab a desk lamp, and project light through it onto a sheet of paper - it was like having a straw gel. The guys there had no idea why either.

But arguing over 50 or 65 is pointless - one or the other (or both) will make you happy, if you have both you may find one is your go-to or that you're really glad to have a choice on-set or out in the field. If I had to choose, I'd still take the 180! But I'm not a wide-guy. (OK, I'd take the 50 in a heartbeat...)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Once upon a time, I had the 37, 50, 65, 90, 127, 180 and 250 plus the 140 macro. I used them all to some degree but the 50, 90 and 180 were always at my side. The 37 was used far less than all but the 250 which I used the least. This was my wedding photo kit.