Close Focus: Mamiya RB 140/4.5 Macro vs. 127/3.5

[norbert_laasch]

<p>Hi,<br>

I own a KL 127/3.5 for my RB67, and I really like this compact lens. My questions are: Do you recommend this lens also for close focus photograpy (scale 1:1 or even somewhat grater) or should I achieve a 140 macro for this purpose? Will the results with the Macro be visibly better? And what about the 140's image quality at normal distances (use as normal short tele)?<br>

I'm looking forward to your answers.<br>

Best regards, Norbert</p>

[tree]

<p>I have the 140/4.5 and love it: I don't have the 127/3.5 so I can't really compare, but I will say the 140 is a wonderful piece of glass and you can get excellent magnification, especially if you add extension tubes (which can be had for song at KEH). I also regularly use it over my 127C for "normal" photography: works very well for that too. Right now it is my favorite lens.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>I have a 140 macro 4.5 for my Mamiya RB67 and this is one of my first tests at Macro. Shot at 5.6 I was as close as I could get, no extenstion tube used as I don't have one. It is not cropped just reduced in size for web use. I have not tried your lens so can not compare.<br /><a href="../photo/9195052">http://www.photo.net/photo/9195052</a> regards Carl</p>

[scott levine]

<p>If you want to use the 127 for close focusing, the edges of the frame will be soft since it is not a flat field lens. Depending on what you are photographing, it may introduce a nice effect. You may want to rent/borrow both an extension tube and the Macro to help make your decision. If you are not shooting artwork or flat objects, the extension tube may be the way to go. </p>

[norbert_laasch]

<p>Many thanks for your advices and experiences so far! Best regards, Norbert</p>