What 2nd lens for your RB67???

[stradibarrius]

After going through my RB67 vs. Hasselblad test. I decided that the I could not tell the difference in image quality. Both cameras produce remarkable shots but the viewfinder on my RB is so much brighter and easy for me to use, I sold the Hasselblad. I did like the prism finder in the Hasselblad kit and of course the weight was wonderful. But the RB has 6x7 format which suits my style better, the rotating back, easier to do double exposures and something really simple, a place for the dark slide to go.... That may seem trivial but I liked it.

I have had the RB for a while now and want to expand mt lens collection. I currently have a 127mm Sekor C and a 90mm Sekor C. When I first got the camera I got the 127 because is was available. Later I got the 90 and I think I like the framing with the 90mm better???

So after all that what would be recommendations for a second lens 65 or a 50mm? I will tell you that I find I like my 28mm f/2.8 in 35mm format a lot.

 

[2F/2F]

If you like your 28mm, I think you will like a 50mm lens for the RB. They have similar horizontal angles of view. (A 50mm on an RB has a few more degrees of view). 50 feels noticeably wider to me, however, due to the fact that its vertical AOV is greater than that of a 28mm. The 50 actually feels more similar to a 24mm to me. My favorite wide for the system is a 65mm. It is basically the same as a 35mm lens on 35mm film, but seems a little wider due to the fatter frame.

Do you like long lenses at all? If so, I love the RZ 210mm. For RB, I believe you can get a 250mm very cheaply.

 

[23mjm]

I use my 50mm the most--I am on my second one--the first, shutter died, cheaper to get a new/used lens. I also got a 250mm it is a cool lens but a little long at times, I would prefer a 180mm but never got around to getting one. But in the end it is what you shoot that should dictate what you buy. What works for the rest of the peanut gallery may not work for you. If you like the 28mm on the 135 then find an equivalent on the 67, which would be the 50mm IIRC 50=23 65=35.

 

[keithwms]

I prefer the rb 65 to the 50. My vote would be for the 65. Unfortunately, there is no rb equivalent of the rz 50 uld.

If you want to do portraiture you might consider the 150SF or the zoom.

Also consider a 6x8 back.

Eventually you'll want all the lenses!

 

[Bosaiya]

I'd go with the 50 as well. I use it a lot more than I ever thought I would.

 

[Steve Smith]

I would say either the 50 or the 180. I couldn't decide so I got both!


Steve.

 

[stradibarrius]

Steve I like your thinking!!!

 

[Pumal]

50 mm without a doubt.

 

[Darkroom317]

I would say either the 50 or the 180. I couldn't decide so I got both!


Steve.

Agreed. I bought the 180 first for portraits. But then in a local camera shop I found a 50mm and decided that the wide angle would be nice.

 

[paul ron]

Get the best priced one and worry about whats next when it arrives.

 

[EricO]

Purchased the 180mm first. The 90mm second. May go for a 110 and 150 next.

 

[CBG]

For me it's the 50, hands down, but I'm not you.

I "see" wide. If I could have Mamiya design me a new lens, it would be a 35 or even 30 non-fisheye, ultrawide. I like the 14 to 24mm range in 35mm cameras most and would like the same angle of view in 6x7. But that's me.

Don't let my or other folk's preferences in lenses effect your decisions. What lenses to use really should be a reflection of what you shoot and how. Do you tend to use short or long lenses? Normals? Super teles? Do you "see" the world photographically as if through a wide angle or a normal or a long lens?

The 127 is arguably a very very short tele, or a longish normal, or a moderate portrait lens. What task is the next most important task you want to accomplish? If you see the world "wide" then maybe the 65 is a good match for you. Why? The 127 is a very moderate lens - not too long - not too short. The 65 is also a moderate angle of view.

If you tend to long glass, then the 180 or the 250 would be a good next step.

Best to look through some actual lenses and see if they make sense for you.

 

[Jeff Searust]

I have a 50, 90, 127, 180, 250 and a Rodenstock 200mm soft focus. For wide shots and especially wide interiors the 50 is awesome. For portraits and close in work the 180 is the way to go. Look at getting the extension tubes if you do any sort of close or macro work or want to work with narrow DOF.

 

[David Grenet]

I would say either the 50 or the 180. I couldn't decide so I got both!

These are the two lenses I use the most, although I also have the 90.

 

[Maris]

My first Mamiya RB67 lens was the 127mm, then the 50mm, then the 360mm. Now I have the widest, the middle-est, and the longest. Since I do mainly landscape I figure I can make up for the focal length gaps with some earnest foot-zoom. So far, so good.

 

[stradibarrius]

Would the 180 be a good lens to photograph my violins? After they are completed I place the on a table with a drop cloth and a stand to hold them and two studio hot lamps.

Here are two examples using my 90mm. Would the 180 be a better choice?

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like the 50, but the 180 is also a good choice.

Jeff

 

[Steve Smith]

Here are two examples using my 90mm. Would the 180 be a better choice?

Your examples look good as they are. The 180mm will allow you to get further away and change the perspective.

As an experiment, you could take a shot similar to your first, then move the camera so the subject to lens distance doubles and take another shot.

If you crop and enlarge the second shot so the violin is the same size as the first, you should see the effect of the 180mm lens.

Obvious the 180mm lens will allow you to fill the frame from that position.


Steve.

 

[2F/2F]

Medium telephotos are generally my preferred lenses for product shots. I think the 180 or 250 would work quite well for your violins. Then again, you already have a 90mm, which does the job just fine. Maybe I would concentrate more on the setup and lighting quality for now than on getting a new lens. IMO both of these things could be better in the pix. A longer lens would eliminate more of the background, which would be nicer, IMO.

 

[nick mulder]

50mm

 

[stradibarrius]

Well I found a great deal on a 180mm "C" from Adorama so got it. I still have my eye out for a 50 or 65mm

 

[k_jupiter]

Would the 180 be a good lens to photograph my violins? After they are completed I place the on a table with a drop cloth and a stand to hold them and two studio hot lamps.

Here are two examples using my 90mm. Would the 180 be a better choice?

Probably your best choice would be the 127. But.. all three lens will do the job, the film format will allow you to enlarge to whatever you need with little decrease in quality.

My favorite rb lens? the 65. then the 127 (so damned sharp) The 50 never quite does it justice, and all others are too tele for my likeness. But then again, I have always been a 35/105 shooter in 135 format.

tim in sanjose

 

[stradibarrius]

I have a 127mm and actually like the framing with the 90mm better when trying to get the entire violin in the shot. If I am just trying to get a shot of the body the 127 is excellent.
the price on everything with the RB67 seems to be increasing a bit. I guess at this point in time there is a bit more demand for the camera and lenses. The 65mm seems to be a better bargain right now and I also like the 35mm lens in the 35mm format.

 

[keithwms]

Barry this will be an unconventional suggestion but... you can de-pin an rz 110/2.8 and that makes a very fun little lens on the rb. The depinning is extremely easy.

Here are the downsides:

1) You won't be able to focus past ~20 ft or so (you lose infinity focus)... maybe not a big deal if you are mostly doing macro etc.

2) You'll only have the mechanical override speed on the lens, which I never use, I just hand shutter. Again if you are doing macro then you're easily into 1-2 sec exposures so it's not a problem. It would be a problem if you were shooting slide IMHO.

3) To stop the lens down per the aperture dial, you need to rig a way to hold the DOF preview lever down. I do this with a paper clip.

The pros are numerous though: it's very fast, which makes critical focusing that much easier. It's a real pleasure to focus, and if you are like me, you will feel great temptation simply to shoot it wide open.

Concerning the overall lens characteristics of the 110/2.8, I'd say it's pretty dreamy, with all the pros/cons that this implies. It's not super incisive, and I don't get the feeling that it sharpens up especially when you stop down... it is best suited for gentle / portrait renditions. The tonality is nice, as is the bokeh. It is not to be compared to the 140 macro though, no way. Nor the 127. If you want critical sharpness at 1:1 the 110 is not the right choice. But if you like the OOF rendering and dimensionality...

One other pro: it's very inexpensive. Probably the lowest cost of the rz lenses. That said, it was so inexpensive that I just picked up an rz body specifically for this lens and the 50 uld (which, as I mentioned, is lacking in the rb lineup).

 

[stradibarrius]

I have been looking at tat RZ body but the lenses are so expensive I will have to wait for the economy to improve and business to return.