RZ67 lenses with good bokeh

[Rudeofus]

I'm currently in the research stage for diving into the MF arena, up until now I've shot with my EOS 3 and some decent lenses and develop slide film myself. The EOS 3 will continue to be my camera for more candid shots or whenever size&weight is an issue. Since I am still stuck in rectangular image format thinking and want the slides to be noticably larger than what I get from 135 film, I pretty much settled with Mamiya RZ67, possible RB67.

Now my concern is lenses. My preferred shots will be landscapes in which I would like to somehow integrate my family. Think of these shots as examples of Dead Link Removed have in mind. Sometimes I'd want everything in focus, on other occasions I'd like the back ground to disappear into a beutiful blur. I'm pretty spoiled from my 85L ...

I've seen very nice bokeh from the standard Sekor 110 F/2.8 and heard few and mostly contradicting things about all other lenses in the lineup. Could you share some comments about the bokeh of other lenses for the RZ67? Can I assume that they are all excellent since they're professional lenses where nobody would bother with a poor compromise? Or are there noticable differences? There was a posting about the (there was a url link here which no longer exists), where the bokeh was ok, but not comparable to the 85L bokeh I'm used to. My primary interest would be the 50mm ULD, possibly the 65mm, and one of the longer portrait lenses (180, 210, 250, 360), the 140mm macro would of course also be interesting. I don't have much need for the 180VSF, since I already have that feature covered with the 135SF for my EOS 3.

Any insights would be appeciated ...

 

[PVia]

As you mentioned, the 110mm is amazing in this respect and on occasion, esp when backlit, has an almost swirly Petzval-like quality.

 

[keithwms]

Most of the rz/rb lenses have exceptionally nice bokeh, very smooth. But I think one has to be careful about blanket statements, and generally speaking, a lens might show nice OOF transitions for near subjects and less nice transitions for far, and vice versa. So... the proof is in the pudding, as usual.

The winners, in my book, are the 65 (I have the rb version), the rz 110, the 127 (rb), the 150 SF (rb) and the 210 KL apo (rb). The 110 can indeed give some dreamy results. I don't know if I ever shoot the thing stopped down!

I don't have the 140 macro but overall my experience with macro lenses ...across the board from 35mm to LF... is that because they were intended for ~1:1 they will show optimal transitions there, and not necessarily under "normal" shooting conditions. I have gotten edgy results from several macro lenses when shooting non-macro subjects.

I don't know about the 50 uld, I never looked at it from a bokeh standpoint, when using it I was mostly concerned with getting the corners sharp. But generally I'd expect it to be en par with the 65, which gives nice, smooth bokeh. but neither the 50s nor the 65s are fast, so... whether bokeh is an issue will depend on your working distance. The 110 is so fast that you'll notice the bokeh right away at almost any working distance.

 

[David R Munson]

I adore the KL 127mm for this reason (and the fact that it's just fantastic in general). The KL-L 180mm is also great. Really, I think you would have a hard time going wrong with any of them.

 

[MattKing]

What do you do with your slides?

If you project them, it may not be the best idea to shoot 6x7, because 6x7 projectors are rare and very expensive when located.

I'd look at 6x4.5 if I was expecting to project, because although projectors that can project them aren't generally inexpensive, or common, they are certainly less expensive, and more common, than the larger versions.

Matt

 

[Tom Nutter]

The 65 ( Ihave the FLE version for the RZ) is awesome at close-focus and wide apertures---a telephoto look while still having a wide-angle feel. I was blown away the first time I shot a portrait with this lens in Philadelphia at maximum aperture with available light. The feel is very unique. Very little distortion...even as close as a couple of feet.

I just added that photo to my site. Here is a link:

http://www.tomnutterphotos.com/location9.html

 

[Rudeofus]

Thanks to all who replied!

I don't have the 140 macro but overall my experience with macro lenses ...across the board from 35mm to LF... is that because they were intended for ~1:1 they will show optimal transitions there, and not necessarily under "normal" shooting conditions. I have gotten edgy results from several macro lenses when shooting non-macro subjects.

The reason I still consider the 140 is because my wife expects a baby in two months and one thing I've noticed with our previous baby: babies are macro subjects. All my fancy portrait lenses stayed in the bag because I could not get close enough to capture the face or the tiny little hands/feet.

But from what I've read so far, this way of thinking must not be applied to the RB/RZ67 system. The camera integrated bellows makes any lens of short to moderate focal length a macro lens, and the main advantage of the 140 are its floating elements which yield sharper images at very close distance. But I've seen incredible close up shots done with the 110.

The 65 ( Ihave the FLE version for the RZ) is awesome at close-focus and wide apertures---a telephoto look while still having a wide-angle feel. I was blown away the first time I shot a portrait with this lens in Philadelphia at maximum aperture with available light. The feel is very unique. Very little distortion...even as close as a couple of feet.

I just added that photo to my site. Here is a link:

http://www.tomnutterphotos.com/location9.html

Wow, that really is impressive! Initially I was more drawn to the 50 ULD, thinking that a landscape lens must be as wide as possible. But since I plan to include family members in my shots, the 65 may indeed be the way to go ...

What do you do with your slides?

I've seen that slide projectors for 6x7 are expensive and rare. Initially I plan to either scan them myself (flat bed scanner) or have them scanned by a pro lab (only the really good shots). If a Pro-Cabin slide projector crosses my path for a reasonable price I'd obviously try to get it, the same applies to a reasonably priced Coolscan 9000. I guess I'll focus on producing decent shots first and decide the scanning/projecting question later, and hope that the continuing price decline for analog equipment works my way.

I'd look at 6x4.5 if I was expecting to project, because although projectors that can project them aren't generally inexpensive, or common, they are certainly less expensive, and more common, than the larger versions.

A lot of things speak for a Mamiya 645, including the fact that I could adapt 645 lenses as T&S lenses for my EOS 3 with the mirex adaptor. The reason I would like to go 6x7 is the greater difference in slide size compared to my EOS 3. I would continue to use the Canon, whenever size, weight or speed is an issue, it's a wonderful camera! The MF camera should be for the really slow and composed shots and should yield results which look noticably different from 135 slides.

 

[PVia]

The 110 works great with the bellows extension of the RZ...

The 140 is a very nice focal length portrait lens as well, and a favorite of Annie Leibovitz (not that that matters...)