Rz67 lens advice

[Bigdaddyg]

I currently have the RZ with the 3.8 127 lens. I am taking a lot of urban landscape pictures to include frontal shots of older homes. Almost in the style of a Walker Evans. I am looking at the 90mm or the 65mm lens as I feel the 110 (although I have heard it is a great lens) is too close to the 127 to see a major difference in my field of view. My constraints are usually distance from the subject. I can only get so far away before I am in the middle of a busy street which I have done far too many times. So my main focus for now is suburban and urban architecture and urban lifestyle. I am shooting a lot of shotgun style southern homes. Any suggestions. Have I provided enough information for you to give advice.

Greg H.

 

[noacronym]

A 90 would be the so-called normal lens. And it is certainly comfortably far from 127 at to be more useful. Remember as you go down, perspective comes into play and you may not like it down there at 65 on account of that. Getting it all in comes with a heavy price. Usually makes a mess of your picture. So, 90 is where I'd be looking. All you can do is all you can do, and you can't do any more. With a digital camera you can go back and let the telephone poles in front of your building and just photoshop them away. Then you would be a person with no morals at all.

 

[agfarapid]

The 50mm 4.5 would be an excellent complement to your kit. Used effectively, there is very little distortion and will take in a large field of view. It's a very sharp lens and fairly inexpensive.

 

[MattKing]

My experience is with the RB lenses.

I have a four lens kit: 50mm, 65mm, 140mm, 180mm.

They are all very sharp.

I wouldn't discount the 65mm lens as a choice, but I really do like the 50mm and the 140mm pair.

 

[Alan Gales]

I had the 110 and loved it. It is a great lens but like you said it is pretty close to what you have all ready.

I had the 180, 110 and 50 ULD in my kit. Doing what you are doing I would have preferred using my 110 if I could so I recommend the 90 to you. Of course this recommendation is only if you won't be in the middle of traffic using it!

Of course if you start doing interiors then the 50 would be nice to have also. There is nothing wrong with the 65 but shotgun houses usually have small rooms.

 

[Kyon Thinh]

For you I think 50, 90, 127 is suited, that's what I was planning to get until I got 110 f2.8 for cheap price....

 

[polyglot]

I have the 37, 65, 110 and 250. The 65 is a fantastic lens that I find is nicely wide but not problematically so in terms of introducing annoying perspective effects. And if you get the M-LA, it's extremely sharp.

However if you have a habit of shooting the front of buildings from street, you might want to consider the 75-shift as it would allow you to get everything in with both a straight perspective and without half the image being road.

 

[dynachrome]

My 6X7 cameras are Bronicas. I have the 50, 65, 100 and 150. The 65 is a good general purpose wide angle and adequate of you don't often need anything wider. There was an 80 wide angle made for the Bronica but I don't have that one yet. Prices for medium format equipment are, for the most part, reasonable. If you try a 65 and it isn't wide enough, sell it and get a 50.

 

[EdSawyer]

All the RZ lenses are good, but some are better than others. I'd sell the 127 and get the 110 and either the 65 M/L-A or the 50-ULD. Both are superb, just depends on how wide you want. The 75 shift is nice, but really requires a tripod to maximize it, and it only shifts 20mm at most, so maybe 1/3 of the frame, if you can picture that. Not a ton of shift but probably enough to correct a 2-story house converging verticals. It's heavy and somewhat long so can be unweildy hand-held (though doable in a pinch). 50 and 65 (and of course 110) are really pretty easy to handhold.

-Ed

 

[Bigdaddyg]

Thanks for the input. Going to get the 65mm to start then maybe get the 90 or 110. If I get the 110 I will sell the 127 and then get the 150.

Greg

 

[Alan Gales]

Thanks for the input. Going to get the 65mm to start then maybe get the 90 or 110. If I get the 110 I will sell the 127 and then get the 150.

Greg

I don't know what the 150's are going for but I paid just over $100.00 for my 180 and later sold it for less than $100.00. That's dirt cheap!

 

[polyglot]

Yeah, I was gonna chime in with the 180/4.5 being by far the best price/performance for a short tele. Heaps were made, so v. cheap yet very good lens.