The longer and wider side of RB67

[olleorama]

So, tele lenses. I own the 50, 90 and 180, all C. Thinking of going longer, for tight head shots, the 180 is a bit to close sometimes, I think sometimes both me and the subject would be more at ease if we get a bit more distance, also the tele flattening effect might be larger. I have looked at the prices of new and used lenses. New aren't so bad. Used they're very low.

What is the opinion of the different tele lenses? How much is the apo formulas worth?

I'm thinking about 210, 250 and 350 in different versions. What say you?

I also sometimes think the 50 is just too wide. How big difference is it between 65 KL and C? Which is better, the 65 or 75? What do you prefer?

 

[CGW]

The old C 180 and 250 are the usual choices. The KL 210 APO and 250 APO are newer, pricier and sharper. The KL 180 might also be worth a look. Most C series 180s I've seen have been heavily used.

 

[olleorama]

Yeah, my 180 is well used. It has some light cleaning marks. But I would still rate it as sharp and the times seems to be good and consistent. I would feel a bit stupid buying the same lens in a different version though. How much difference can there be? Isn't it the same number of Elements and groups?

 

[hpulley]

I have a 180 and am thinking that 210 or 250 are too similar in focal length so I'm seriously thinking about the 360.

I have an old non-C 65 and love it though the new KL 65 is so cheap that its tempting. I got a new KL 90 to replace my loose overused C 90 and the KL is sharper and has better contrast. My 65 is old but still solid so thus far I haven't replaced it.

 

[MattKing]

Yeah, my 180 is well used. It has some light cleaning marks. But I would still rate it as sharp and the times seems to be good and consistent. I would feel a bit stupid buying the same lens in a different version though. How much difference can there be? Isn't it the same number of Elements and groups?

Nope - one fewer element in the newer one.

Surprisingly enough the newer one is also 170 gm heavier and 17 mm longer.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

You might try the 360.

Jeff

 

[olleorama]

How shallow DoF can you get with the 360 with portraits?

 

[Ian C]

How shallow DoF can you get with the 360 with portraits?

For a given format and focal length, depth of field depends on magnification and aperture.

At f/6.3 a 360mm lens on the 6 x 7cm format has the following subject distance (lens-to-subject) and DOF combinations at typical portrait distances:

(3m, 45mm), (3.5m, 63mm), (4m, 84mm), (4.5m, 107mm), (5m, 133mm)


At f/8: (3m, 58mm), (3.5m, 80mm), (4m, 106mm), (4.5m, 138mm), (5m, 169mm)