Lens choice

Hey guys I've got the bronica gs-1 medium format camera.

 

I'm looking to add a lens for portraits. There is a 200 mm F4 lens that has a focusing distance of 6 feet or 2 meters. There is a 250 mm lens F 5.6 with a minimum focusing distance of 10 feet.

 

My question is if I'm trying to fill the frame up for like a headshot am I gaining anything by getting the 250 mm lens versus the 200 ?. Since one has a minimum of 60 and one has a minimum of 10 ft don't they kind of just wipe each other out aren't I better off with a 200 mm ?

 

Thank you

If it were me, I'd go with the 200 over the 250 for portraits in this case since 10' is a lot further from your subject, and f/4 should be brighter and easier to focus than f/5.6.

If it were me, I'd go with the 200 over the 250 for portraits in this case since 10' is a lot further from your subject, and f/4 should be brighter and easier to focus than f/5.6.

 

+1

If it were me, I'd go with the 200 over the 250 for portraits in this case since 10' is a lot further from your subject, and f/4 should be brighter and easier to focus than f/5.6.

 

+2

That's what I thought the only benefit I see to having the 250 would be if I'm trying to compress the landscape scene or something like that.

 

200mm it is, but I have heard from other people that the 200 millimeter lens will not fill the frame with a head and shoulder shot you cannot get close enough to the person you need a extension tube.

 

With a 2-meter focusing distance on a 200 mm you can't get close enough to fill the frame.

Lack of close focusing is usually a compromise that you accept for the benefit of having the higher sync speeds of a leaf shutter . With the large negative you'll get with the GS1, a little cropping shouldn't result in too much of a loss in quality.

Get the 200mm + extension tubes.

Bellowsless MF SLRs are a pain in the butt, when it comes to tight headshots. - But even my Mamiya TLRs can only focus as close as a bit less than 2.5m with their 250mms <- Not ideal!

If the formula: "Subject height by focal length divided through neg height = subject distance" is true a close focusing option around 1.25m would be desirable.

The 200 would be nearly ideal for head and shoulders portraits. A 2x factor over the normal (90mm) lens is an accepted standard.

 

From a distortion perspective, you may get faces which aren't quite so flattering. Above 2x and you get a bit of flattening of noses, not always noticeable, but why risk it. Below 2x, and you risk a "wide angle" view of the face. A 150mm lens yields very nice waist-up portraits.

 

My favorite RB67 lenses were the 180mm and 150mm for near portraiture.

I would go with the 200mm as well. Over time, it has proven the best focal length for general-purpose medium format portraiture for most photographers. The jump from 200mm to 250mm isn't quite as significant with 6 x 7 as it is with smaller MF sizes, so a number of photographers did choose 250mm instead as a single, compromise portrait/landscape lens. But 250mm is somewhat trickier to exploit for portraits: if you aren't particularly drawn to it, go for the 200mm. At todays prices, if you need a longer lens later for landscapes you can just add it to your kit.

 

At the risk of offending the purists, I'd suggest you consider a +2 close-up lens that quickly screws into the front filter threads. This is much faster and less disruptive to deploy during a session with a portrait subject than the traditional extension tubes. Also, extension tubes for the GS-1 aren't widely available: you'd probably need to order from a Japanese dealer for approx $60. Often, they sell only in a set of two (G18 + G36), which doubles that cost. Back in the day when Hasselblad ruled MF, its extension tubes were crazy expensive and a giant pain to use. The most popular option for head shots was the Zeiss Proxar closeup filter.

 

Since the GS-1 lenses have standard filter threads, you can use any good-quality closeup filter you like: Nikon and Pentax made some nice two-element versions but typical generic ones are often OK for portraits. While they do reduce ultimate picture sharpness slightly, the penalty is not nearly as harsh as you might think and is usually welcome for portraits anyway. The huge advantage is that you can attach and remove the filter as needed without looking at the camera or disrupting your flow with your portrait model. Mounting extension tubes will stop a session dead, so once attached tend to limit you to head shots only, stifling spontaneity. Also, tubes suck up light and will drop your shutter speed or open your aperture, which can affect sharpness as much or more than the slight hit from a +2 or +1 filter.

Edited June 12, 2018 by orsetto

Thanks guys I appreciate all the input I'm definitely going for the 200 mm thanks again for all the input.

 

The fact that Mamiya rz67 Pro 2 focuses way closer than mine does cuz it has bellows is awfully tempting.

 

The RZ has a rotating back bellows to focus closer I'm just in too deep into my bronica gs-1 to turn back at this point.

The 180mm lens on an RB67 gives a head and shoulders framing at about 4.5 feet subject to lens distance. This is a bellows type focusing camera. So with the 200mm and 6 feet minimum focus distance, it will be close. Possibly a loose head and shoulders composition.

The 180mm lens on an RB67 gives a head and shoulders framing at about 4.5 feet subject to lens distance. This is a bellows type focusing camera. So with the 200mm and 6 feet minimum focus distance, it will be close. Possibly a loose head and shoulders composition.

 

Yeah I think it will be a little loose with the 200 mm it won't be a tight headshot I think if you add the extension tube then and get closer I don't know how much the G18 how much closer it would allow you to get butt from my reading around the internet most people that are using this camera for portraits 10 to use the G18 extension tube.

 

I thought the RB in the RZ what allow you to get closer than 4.5 ft with the Bellows I don't feel so bad at 6 feet.

Michael, the RB67/180mm combination can focus closer than 4.5 feet. This is the distance I use for head and shoulders framing, not a tight headshot.

 

The closest focusing distance for the 180mm C lens is 33 inches with full bellows extension.

Wow I am so jealous 33 in that's one of the drawbacks to my camera that's probably the biggest drawback is the focusing distance of the lenses are not good adding the extension tube definitely helps but it's kind of hassle.

 

Guess I just have to live with it for now and make the best of it