Anyone Using the RZ 150 AND 180 Lenses?

[moses_sparks]

God help me, I am considering another lens purchase...

 

Didn't see anything really relative in the archives.

 

My question is really whether anyone uses both of these lenses, or if

you feel the focal lengths are just too close together for that?

 

It would seem that way in theory, but I have done several jobs lately

where the 180 was just a little too long for the set up, and the 110

(my next focal length down) a little too wide. I found myself wishing

for something in between.

 

I've rented the 150, and really liked it. Again, in theory, it sounds

like it's a bit short for many applications, but in use I found it to

be a very "intimate" lens for portrait and beauty type work, which is

what I would use it for.

 

It just has a different feel than the 180, which has been my bread

and butter tele for a long time.

 

The other option in this range is the 140 Macro, but I'm just not

nearly as fond of that lens. It's much bigger, heavier, and slower,

plus I hate that floating element thing. I have it on my 65mm. The

lens is great in every way, but that's a pain in the ass to deal with

for fast paced shoots.

 

My only real hesitation about the 150 comes from the fact that it's

going to be hard to shoehorn another lens into my case! I have the

biggest Rolling Strongbox that Tamrac makes, and it's full. (I

currently carry 2 bodies, 4 backs, prism, winder, Pola back, L-grip,

and 50,65, 110, 180, and 250 lenses).

 

Opinions?

 

thanks.

[eric friedemann]

Moses, I have the 150mm and love it. It is a bit too short to use for head shots (73mm in 35mm format). However, for everything from waist-up portraits to full-length group shots the 150mm is swell. I particularly like the 150mm for full-length individual portraits. The DOF is a hair more forgiving than the 180mm and longer lenses. Two suggestions:

 

1. If you decide to get the 150mm and want to lighten your load, perhaps you could leave the 110mm at the studio or dump it altogether.

 

2. Not caring for the Mamiya rubber hood (I think its the same for the 150mm, 180mms, 210mm and 250mm?), I found that the metal screw-in hood for my 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor is perfect (HN-31). (Though, you probably use a bellows hood.)

 

BTW, is there any website where I could see some of your pix?

[moses_sparks]

Eric,

 

I agree that the 150 is too short for headshots, which I do tons of, so that makes the 180 indispensable. Likewise the 110, which is the only lens I will attempt to handhold with the RZ.

 

(Yeah, I know, you have to be nuts to handhold an RZ, but I am and I do, it just works out that way sometimes.)

 

My site is mosessparks.com, although I will caution you that you won't see any of the celebrity work I do there, that stuff is all controlled as though it were a matter of national security.

 

Publicists and executives decide where that imagery gets seen, and it's not on the internet!

 

Regarding hoods, I do use a Lee bellows hood sometimes, unless I'm changing lenses a lot, and then I just use the screw on rubber hoods on each lens. They ARE a bit wimpy, but adequate for my purposes.

 

Thanks for your input.

[eric friedemann]

Or, for storage, you could get a little bigger case. I believe that the Pelican 1620 is the biggest, baddest rolling footlocker around:

 

http://www.pelican-cases-flashlights.com/store/p13.html

[_____133]

Try the obvious : www.mosessparks.com .

[moses_sparks]

RE: Pelican 1620

 

Yeah, I keep one of my assistants in one. The deal is I only pay him if we open the case and take him out, otherwise he's on "stand-by".

[eric friedemann]

Moses, thanks for the site. For "handholding" the RZ, I love the Bogen monopod 3320/3321:

 

http://www.bogenphoto.com/

 

It has three little feet, making it mobile, and with the mirror-lock-up cable release, I can quite often get away without using a tripod when I mainly need to balance the RZ.

[victor_lioce]

but isn't using a monopod, NOT "hand holding?"

[eric friedemann]

Moses, you have a terrific site. I have a cousin who does design work out there:

 

http://www.johncoulterdesign.com/

[moses_sparks]

Eric, thanks for the kind words.

 

Check back in a couple of months, the entire site will be revamped with all new photos, especially the Commercial page. I have just begun shooting a whole new portfolio, incorporating Beauty and Advertising work for some great new clients I landed, as well as some celebrity portraits, and even a couple of Playboy centerfolds.

 

It's got me excited about shooting again.

 

BUT ISN'T ANYONE GOING TO TALK ME OUT OF BUYING THIS DAMN LENS? That's what I came here for! Don't you know a cry for help when you hear it?!

[moses_sparks]

Uh, just to clarify a point someone e-mailed me about...I am NOT shooting the centerfolds for Playboy (that damn Arny Freytag pretty much has a lock on that gig).

 

I recently did a shoot with a centerfold MODEL, and hopefully have another one coming up soon.

 

I would love to shoot for Playboy, but haven't been asked.

 

So if you're not going to help me with my lens binge maybe you can tell me how to crack the code at Hef's house.

 

Peace my brethren...

[jackflesher]

When I had my RZ, I bit the bullet and bought the 100-200 zoom... It was really good -- So good, I sold my 180 and my 90. So, what I'm saying is that if you're considering both the 150 AND the 180, you should take a hard look at the zoom instead... as a plus, it was a blessing in the studio as I had all of the focal-lengths I needed for most shoots in one lens. Very convenient!

 

:-),

[moses_sparks]

Hey Jack!

 

Interesting idea, and one I hadn't considered.

 

I have a couple of questions for you:

 

Did you find the zoom cumbersome to work with as far as focusing or general handling?

 

Does it focus close enough for a tight headshot at 200mm?

 

How about the speed? I do a lot of location work where I balance strobes to the ambient light, and that's a big concern. Did you find that to be a problem?

 

Big pluses for the 150 are that it's small, light, and fast (by RZ standards).

 

But like I said, the thought of carrying 3 telephotos is a bit daunting...

[desmond_kidman]

Hello,

 

I looked at your website, very nice. But I'm not going to talk you out of the 150, sorry!

 

For your type of work, I would find the jump from 110 to 180 a bit big. I certainly found the jump in Hasselblad from 100 to 180 too big. For some focal length ranges, being covered every doubling of focal length is OK, but for covering people, not having something in the 140-150 range for a 6 x 7 camera would cramp my style a bit.

 

For me, in the RZ line, it's the 140. Then I jump to 210. OK, you don't like the size of the 140 and the floating element, then the 150 must be the choice.

 

From the amount and type of work you do I would think that this lens purchase reasonably falls into the "plausibly rationalizable tool" category more than the "just want another toy I'll never use" category.

 

If you don't like the size of the 140 then I don't think you're going to like the zoom, it changes the balance of the camera in a negative way compared to the 150 or 140.

[moses_sparks]

Hi Armando,

 

I think you're probably right about the zoom, I just dug up my RZ brochure, and man! that thing is huge, needs a steel girder under it to keep from wrenching the bellows out. I also think the speed would be a problem.

 

The money is not really an issue (although since baby # 2 came along it's certainly more of an issue!), but I only like to carry what I really need.

 

I already know I like the 150 because I've rented it a number of times, so I think my next step is to putter around with my 250 and see if it will cover the headshot thing adequately, and if so MAYBE I will swap the 180 for the 150...but 150 to 250 is a pretty big jump, so I'm not sure about that.

 

It just never ends, does it!?

 

Thanks for the input guys...

[edsel_adams]

Id agree 110-180 is a big gap.The 150 is a bread & butter lens for wedding & portrait work.I shoot 6x7 at weddings,(not a light weight proposition.)The 150 does fine for head & shoulders too BTW,it is great for single or couple shots.

[bill_dewberry]

I had the 150 & sold it, I did not like the lens. In theory, it should have been an ideal mid lens, infact, I just did not like the images produced with it. I have the 140, and yes, it can be a bear, that was the appeal of the 150, smaller, lighter, brighter. I rented one last month to try again, and I still did not like it. I did buy a 127 and love it, a WONDERFUL lens, that can be used all the way just short of a head shot. Marc Hauser does use his 127 for headshots though. DO NOT get the 150, its mediocre and dissapointing.

[jackflesher]

Moses asked:<p>

 

<i>Did you find the zoom cumbersome to work with as far as focusing or general handling?</i><p>

 

Well focus is no problem, but the camera is so d&*n big anyway that the zoom really didn't make that much difference in handling either. It's about the same size/convenience as using the 360 if you have one of those.<p>

 

<i>Does it focus close enough for a tight headshot at 200mm?</i><p>

 

As I recall, I had no problems there. FWIW, I used it with a tube and it worked so well I also ended up selling my 140 Macro.<p>

 

<i>How about the speed? I do a lot of location work where I balance strobes to the ambient light, and that's a big concern. Did you find that to be a problem?</i><p>

 

This was the one point that concerned me. However in use it made very little difference. Compared to the 150 you're only giving up what, 1.25 stops? Another plus was that this lens performed exceptionally well wide open, and was at its best by f8. I remeber always stopping my primes down at least one stop and usually two stops for critical work anyway.<p>

 

<i>Big pluses for the 150 are that it's small, light, and fast (by RZ standards).</i><p>

 

I agree. The zoom won't compete here.<p>

 

<i>But like I said, the thought of carrying 3 telephotos is a bit daunting...</i><p>

 

That's what I loved about the lens. I got the equivalent of the 90, 127, 140 (with the tube), 150, and 180 (and IMO, the 210 APO too -- it was that good) all in one lens. FWIW, it also uses 77mm filters, so there was no upgrade needed here either...<p>

 

All IMO!<p>

 

Cheers,

[henry_a]

Have you considered using the 1.4X tele converter with your 110? That would cover the 150 focal length and be less expensive and more compact than another lens. It'd make about a 154mm f4. Plus when used with your 180 you'd have yet another focal length (252) with one less lens - you could leave the 250 at home. Sometimes when I think about switching from Hassy to Mamiya (it happens every so often) I think this might be a nice solution to a too-heavy Mamiya bag.

[john_bellenis]

Moses,

 

I would go for it (not what you wanted to hear, I know). I really like the 150mm and find myself using it in many unexpected situations - it's like the Camry of my lenses, mid range, not too specialized but used a LOT. I use it many situations where I could get away with the 180mm but decide that I'd like some more cropping options and bit more depth of field.

 

Also, you mentioned that you are doing a lot of location work. All of my work is away on location, and you simply can't have too much redundancy. When your assistant drops either the 150mm or the 180mm, you have a back up right there without needing to make the frantic rental / Fed Ex phone call!

 

One poster mentioned the 1.4x converter which I have never thought about (I have no idea why I have never considered it, I'm just programmed to think in terms of prime lenses) ... Can anyone enlighten me about the quality of this, and can you use it on the 250mm?

 

Good luck with your decision and on the new kiddo!

 

John - www.johnbellenis.com

[moses_sparks]

Wow, lots of good input, I thank you all!

 

Bill - I have to disagree about the 150, I've rented it 3 or 4 times now, and I really like the perspective and close focusing of the lens. And optically, it sure looked good to me. I'm not one of those guys who reads MTF charts or photographs brick walls. My eyes and a roll of transparencies tell me everything I need to know about a lens. It's a highly subjective thing though, and the 127 obviously fits your way of seeing better.

 

Henry - Yes, I have tried the 1.4x, that was my first thought as a compact solution to the problem, and space is really what it comes down to me for me. I tried several rolling cases and liked the big Tamrac the best, so I'm sticking with that. That means whatever I buy HAS to fit in that case!

 

I didn't like the 1.4x though. Unlike helicoid mount lenses, it changes the minimum focus on the RZ, which is one of the best things about the system. Also makes DOF impossibly shallow. It felt very odd when I tried it with my 110 and 180 lenses.

 

(After a little measuring session this weekend I found that I can JUST squeeze the 150 in my case by stacking it with my 110, with a divider between them.)

 

John - Regarding the Department of Redundancy Department...you're absolutely right. The short tele is such an important lens for people work I've decided I don't mind having two of them. I have had some of the weirdest things happen to me on location, you need all the backup you can get.

 

SO, I'm going to rent a 140 macro, a 150, and the zoom, and test drive them side by side. Hopefully that will help me make a final decision.

 

Thanks again guys.

[moses_sparks]

Hey John!

 

Almost forgot, I peeked at your site...very nice work!

 

I get roped into doing interiors for my employer from time to time, so I know how tough it is to do well, yours are first rate.

[acuityphoto]

I am curious about the criticisms of the 1.4x teleconverter option. Namely, that it dramatically reduces depth of field and affects the minimum focusing distance.

 

I have the 110 and 180, and have been considering the 1.4x to get a mid-range focal lenth. However, I still want to be able to focus close enough for relatively tight portraits/headshots with reasonable depth of field.

 

Does anyone have exact specs on DOF and minimum focus with the 110mm + 1.4x combo? Anyone try the combo with an extension tube?

[moses_sparks]

Sam,

 

Maybe one of the optical gurus lurking out there can comment on your specific question, but teleconverters always affect depth of field because it's effectively increasing your focal length.

 

Nothing unusual there.

 

The 1.4 x also decreases maximum aperture by 1 stop. Again, just what you would expect.

 

But what I did find strange (and this is where someone else will have to provide a more technical response than I can) is that every teleconverter I have ever used with a helicoid focusing lens did NOT change the lenses' minimum focus distance...but it does with the RZ. Obviously has to do with the bellows type focusing.

 

Adding an extension tube will cost you even more light, and further reduce depth of field.

 

I can't see how that would be very useful unless you were specifically going for a particular effect.

 

That's why people needing that close focus ability use the 140 macro.

[luciano_capitanio1]

Hi Moses,

what do you think about the use of 110 + Teleconverter 1.4 RZ ?

You obtain a 154mm/f4 with possible some minor sharp compromise (but if your sobjects are not walls and bricks...)