Which to choose? 180 or 250?

Having recently acquired an RZ with 127mm lens and an RB 90mm lens I am going to add a wide and a tele. I have decided on the

65mm wide, but which tele? The 180 and 250 look best to me (the 210 apo is out of my price range). I mainly shoot landscape but want

to do more portraits. Is the 180 too close to the 127? Advice and help please from those with the experience.

<p>RB 180 C lenses are common and usually very affordable. I like the newer updated mechanical KL RB lenses which are identical to electronically controlled RZ series--the 180 is, again, common, and reasonably priced especially in the RZ series. I skipped the 180 for the RB150/3.5KL which might be a bit short and too close to your 127.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that there's quite a bit of difference in minimum focus distance between the 127(408mm), 180(830mm) and 250(1.6m).</p>

<p>The 35mm equivalents might help: 180=87mm; 250=118mm.</p>

<p>To me, 180 mm would make more sense for two reasons:<br /> 1) 180 mm is a very good focal length for portraits,<br /> 2) 180 mm would nicely fit into your lens range, with focal lengths evenly spaced by factor 1.4x.<br /> In this respect, 180 mm is as close to 127 as 127 to 90 and 90 to 65 (and 250 to 180) - so not too close.<br /> Again, my opinion.</p>

<p>If you have a smaller studio, (spare bedroom in your home, corner in the basement, etc...),<br>

you may find the 250mm a bit too long, limiting many of your portraits to only close-cropped head shots.</p>

<p>Most 250's, even the non APO's, will usually cost more than any of the various 180's.<br>

There are a 'gazillion' 180's out there for the RZ. It's a good lens, popular MF portrait focal length...many were produced.<br>

I think I'd opt for the 180mm, maybe even the soft focus 'portrait' version of the RZ, 180mm.</p>

<p>There is also a RB, 150mm soft focus 'portrait' lens, but they are usually priced higher then the RZ, 180 lenses,<br>

and 150 would be so very close to the 127 you already have.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

 

<p>Portraits are done with a lens 2x the normal focal length so 2x90=180.</p>

<p>"<em>Portraits are done with a lens 2x the normal focal length so 2x90=180."</em><br /> <br />Where's that carved in stone? I've used everything from a 65mm to a 250mm Mamiya lens for "portraits."</p>

<p>With no idea which lens(es) would be better for the kinds of landscapes you want to shoot; putting aside questions of availability, affordability, and lens performance; and turning to portraits--<em>generally speaking, for relatively standard portraits and most people's tastes</em>--the 90mm is about right for standing / full-length portraits, the 180mm is about right for head-and-shoulders or half-length portraits, and the 250mm is about right for head shots.</p>

<p>I base this on my personal opinion, but which I think many share, that most standard 'pure' (i.e., not 'environmental' or 'action') portraits are rendered most pleasingly with the camera about 6 to 10 ft (1.8 to 3.0 m) from the subject. (An aside: with such distances, the above-quoted minimum-focus distances are not an issue, since all are less than 1.8 m.) As you get much closer, there is a increasing general tendency for noses to get more prominent and bulbous, ears to recede, etc.; and as you get much farther, to me people start to look 'flat'. At the distances of 6 to 10 ft, a 6x7 in portrait orientation will give you a field of view with a 90mm lens 4.6 to 7.7 ft tall; the 180mm will give a FoV 2.3 to 3.9 ft tall; and the 250mm will give a FoV 1.7 to 2.8 ft tall.</p>

<p>IMO, no doubt that effective and even pleasing portraits have been made with 6x7's and 65mm lenses etc., and I don't subscribe to any supposed twice-normal standard or rule (which at a minimum seems to ignore the question of how much of the subject is to appear in the portrait). But someone asking this question would probably be better served with advice geared toward typical portraits and typical tastes, at least as a starting point. Or at least, that's my $0.02.</p>

 

<p>I'd recommend the 180mm. I used to have a 250 mm but to be honest it was too long a focal legth.</p>

Sounds like the 180 is getting the big nod here. Thank you all for your advice, I know it is really a very subjective matter,

but lots of different subject responses do help. I think I will get the 180 and later if I need, the 250.

<blockquote>

<p>Watson said: "Where's that carved in stone? I've used everything from a 65mm to a 250mm Mamiya lens for "portraits."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a "rule of thumb" taught in nearly every photography book. But, certainly portraits can be made with nearly any focal length. For instance, the Sports Illustrated photog.s use 600mm lens on their Nikons to do their photos. That would be about a 1200mm on an RB67.</p>