Earlier Mamiya RB lenses on SD body

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Help, please!</p>

<p>I have an SD body with a KL lens. I'm waiting delivery of a couple of earlier, ie pre KL, lenses.</p>

<p>From what I had previously read, I was condfident that these would fit the SD body without the so-called KL adapter ring. I'd seen couple of postings saying that with the ring the lens would fit more snugly, but it wasn't essential.<br>

I've now seen a posting - on another forum - that without the ring pre KL lenses can be very difficult to remove from the body. Which is correct?</p>

<p>Advice will be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p> </p>

[david_mcniven]

<p>I have SD & earlier bodies, KL & earlier lenses; I've never had or heard of a problem removing a lens caused by the lack of an adapter. My KL lenses have the adapters removed so I don't have to mess around before I can use them on a Pro S body.<br>

No problems of any kind ever. For me that's over 20 years.</p>

[neil_grant]

<p>The adaptor ring fits around the rear element shroud. It just 'fattens' things up so there's a snug fit in the wider KL mount of the SD. It shouldn't have any effect on ease of lens interchange.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Agreed. It is a non-issue for mounting or removal difficulty.<br>

It's just a fancy o-ring, to take up space (my opinion) so as to minimize "banging around while mounting the lens" and to also act, in weak fashion, as a light seal per Mamiya. I've used my SD body with older C lenses often in the bright summer sun, sans the rubber ring, and no light leaks were observed.<br>

I'm one guy who has posted in the past that you can use "dash 226 or 227" size square o-rings in place of the Mamiya thingy. They cost about about 50 cents, compared to the 'real deal'. As an engineer, I go for functionality. Business people go for huge mark-ups.<br>

Uh-oh, a MAC Group cop car just pulled up outside my door ... :o)<br>

Jim</p>

[charles_hohenstein]

<p>Is there really anything to distinguish the KL lenses from the earlier ones, except for the extra ring and perhaps better coatings? Were any of the lenses tweaked as far as optical design is concerned for the KL series? Otherwise, I see little point is preferring the newer lenses.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Simple answer -<br>

Yes!<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00BfKP">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00BfKP</a><a href="http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=KL+lenses+vs+c+&filter=0#1385"></a><br>

No!<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00TBpG">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00TBpG</a><br>

Spin the wheel.<br>

I only use C's and I am happy, but I am an amateur, so my work is not super-imperative critical.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Many thanks for the reassuring help: the forum is wonderful!</p>

<p>Charles amd Jim have opened the issue again of whether there are quality differences between the KLs and earlier lenses. Perhaps before long I might be able to undertake some tests of my own, although I doubt whether they will be all that scientific. I will have a 127mm KL and an earlier version of that lens. Perhaps I will run a film in what I would regard as normal circumstances, five frames with each and see if there are any obvious differences...........</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>PS I'm not sure whether I could find in the UK the particular o-rings that Jim refers to, but I could try.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>My experience, as echoed in the second linked thread above, is that while there may be a "slight" difference, for my work I've never seen the benefit.<br>

I shoot both b&w and C41 flims, in a variety of settings from studio to location, portraiture to fine art landscape and, when properly shaded, a C or even most non C lenses are every bit the equal of my Hasselblad lenses. I've been using RB's going back over 25 years and not once have I (or a client) ever been disappointed by the image quality. The single biggest difference I have seen is in contrast, but properly shading a lens reduces the difference to negligible.<br>

If you're one of those photographers who must have the latest and greatest, or absolutely sharpest lens, by all means buy them, it's your money. In my opinion, for the price difference, I doubt the cost/benefit ratio justifies it, much like the Hassy C/CF lens lines. Many pros (myself included) continue to earn a living with the old, obsolete C lenses, I actually prefer the slightly lower contrast rendering that the older lenses gives you, for both analog b&w and digital color, it's a simple adjustment to increase contrast, all the while still retaining detail in deep shadows. I prefer to look at them as tools, much as a carpenter views a hammer, though in this case you might actually be able to use an RB as a hammer if needed.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Erie, your posting was interesting and entertaining!</p>

<p>I am a mere amateur, but I bought my first "proper" camera in 1956. A lenshood (or shade, if you like) was a prerequisite, and has been with all lenses ever since.</p>

<p>I'm certainly not obessed with sharpness. People show me photographs and ask whether they are sharp enough. My response is often yes, but they would do better to look at the picture itself rather more: don't have a sharpness obsession. It is a bit like people with hi-fi obsessions. They spend their time listening for "noises" rather than the music!</p>

<p>As you intimate, there is, in any event, a difference between image contrast and definition capabilities.</p>

<p>I recently bought a near mint RB SD that has a 127mm KL on it. I'm now waiting delivery of an "earlier" 127, not that I want two of them, but because I bid on the basis of the value of the filters etc that accompanied it. In other words, the lens is just about coming free. I thought it would interesting to compare the two before disposing of one.</p>

<p>I mainly use monochrome, and I'm more likely to reduce contrast on printing rather than increase it. Hidden somewhere, I have an elderly Rolleiflex with an uncoated f3.5 Xenar. I keep saying I must find that and try it for monochrome. I suspect it will provide very attractive images..........</p>

<p>Thanks again your input.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>