RZ67 -- 90mm or 110mm ?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by whitney_dafoe, Jul 14, 2007.

  1. Hello,
    I couldn't seem to find adequate information on the differences between these
    two lenses in the archives.

    I am looking for a neutral lens to use mostly for environmental portraits.
    Which one is sharper while maintaining neutrality, no distortion?

    you can see 2 examples of my work here www.whitneydafoe.com (it is up and coming)

    Also, on a seperate note, I'll also be getting a wider angle lens later. Does
    anyone know which lens is most similar to a hasselblad (501) 60mm lens in terms
    of perspective?

    Thanks so much for any help!

  2. The 110mm leads with slightly lighter weight, faster aperture and when set at f/3.5 the image edges are in fact sharper than the 90mm which is wide open at f/3.5. But more important is your primary subject/composition style. When I can not justify hauling ALL my RZ67 lenses along, I often grab 75mm and 110mm, skipping over the 90mm. I usually shoot RZ67 a top a tripod, but if handholding the 110mm is slightly easier because the center of gravity closer to the middle of the body. These issues are mostly splitting hairs. The appropriate focal length for suject, price and/or if used, the condition would be main criteria. Both are Great Lenses and Good Luck!
  3. I used the 90mm before but sent it back to KEH for a faulty shutter. In exchange I went with the 110mm because it is smaller and a hair faster. 99% of my shooting is hand held. Check out my gallery. Most images were taken with the 110mm followed by the 65mm.
  4. Oops. Forgot to mention that my images are uncropped so you are seeing the full lens persective.
  5. thanks marc, those samples helped. It would be nice to find some shots taken with the 90 now as well.

    Nice portraits. They did feel a little closed in though for my style of shooting. Maybe the 90 is the way to go.

    So at F 8-22 is there any difference in sharpness between the two lenses?
  6. The 110mm is definitively the better lens (if only by a margin). For environmental portraits, I'd give the 65mm f/4 a try (135 equivalent to 32mm). I don't know about this 60mm Hasselblad lens, but for the RZ there exists a Sekor Z 75mm f/4.5 L SB lens for the shift/tilt adapter. With the spacer it works just like a regular lens, maybe this is the focal length you are looking for.
  7. I like a wide angle for environmental portraits; 65 or 75mm is great. So if you're going to get something in that range later, the 110 might give you a more useful spread. Useful for when there's a bit more yardage between you and the subject, or you want to tighten up the composition a bit.
  8. Bueh, can you explain why you think the 110 is a better lens?
  9. The 110mm has better background blur wide open due to the larger aperture and longer focal length. It is a new design, unlike the older 90mm which is based on a RB67 lens. The 90mm is a bulky retrofocus design, while the 110mm is a high-performance Gauss design with no distortion. It's resolution is unbelievable. Both will take awesome pictures, but the 110mm is the best normal lens for the RZ -- there is no equivalent in the RB67 lens line. But if you want the 90mm focal length, by all means get that lens -- all Sekor lenses are excellent performers!
  10. I loved using my 110 with the RZ for shooting people. The 65 would be a great addition if
    you are going to shoot in smaller spaces.
  11. This is the only image I have up that was shot with the 90mm. It was the first roll I put through my newly aquired RZ. Several frames came out horribly underexposed so back went the lens and the 110 became my most used lens.
  12. thanks Marc. Nice shot. I like the sense of space and depth that lens has.

    But I didnt win the auction tonight, so any other thoughts on the matter would still be appreciated.

    Thanks everyone!
  13. Whitney,

    Have owned both, shot landscapes wth both, printed both to 20x24. The only real difference is about 20mm.


Share This Page