RZ lenses

[kevinbriggs]

<p>

<p>Mamiya currently has a promotional video on their site for their new RZ33:</p>

<p>http://www.mamiya.com/rz33/</p>

<p>Within this video, there is some commentary (albeit brief) on the RZ lenses. Although it is not stated explicitly/emphatically, it is certainly emphasized that the RZ lenses are the sharpest with respect to the entire Mamiya medium format line.</p>

<p>Is this true...?</p>

<p>Just wanted to get commentary from Mamiya users.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

</p>

[ed_sawyer]

<p>Well, in a word, no. The Mamiya 7 lenses are exceptional, and better the Mamiya RZ lenses where they overlap, particularly the wides (43, 50 and 65mm). The RZ 110/2.8 is an outstanding lens, perhaps the best of the RZ lenses in general. Much of the RZ glass is very good, but I'd still generally rate the Mamiya 7 lenses better all around.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Perhaps what they mean is that the currently produced RZ lens lineup is the sharpest in the evolution of the lenses for the Mamiya rotating back 6x7 SLR (ie, RZ/RB) - and not necesarily the sharpest Mamiya MF lenses in general.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>The Mamiya 7, being a rangefinder, is generally accepted to have better lenses due to the optical benefits of not having a mirror to deal with. As Ed mentioned, wide angle lenses on the RZ are more complicated retrofocal designs.</p>

<p>The downside is...the Mamiya 7 only works on film. Factor in the relative sharpness lost by scanning, and the RZ may win out. ;-)</p>

<p>That said, I've done some quick and rough comparisons of the 110mm RZ lens to the 110mm 645 lens and didn't see much difference in sharpness. There was some apparent distortional differences that I don't know what to attribute to. </p>

<p>In any case, any marginal differences between any of this medium format gear is beyond my ability to discern. With the exception of my Holga. ;-)</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>I wouldn't doubt that most of the RZ lenses are outstanding optics, in particular the APO telephotos. But the RZ lenses have 3 additional design/performance constraints to overcome, compared to the M645 ones: a larger image circle, a much longer flange distance (affecting the wideangles), and the "bottleneck" of an internal leaf shutter. So I can't imagine how they would be <em>sharper </em>than M645 lenses of the same design generation. </p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Ray,</p>

<p>True on the leaf shutter...it can't make it easier to design a lens. No clue if it makes it harder.</p>

<p>But, in my example, the focal length was not wide, and the image circle was the same. The 2x crop on the RZ would use "more" of the sweetspot of the lens than the 1.5x crop on the 645.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the RZ lenses don't have helicoid focus requirements, which have been stated to make a significantly simpler design. One would think removing moving elements would have a serious impact on lens IQ. (The 100-200 has both focusing methods...using the helicoid method primarily and the bellows focusing for macro. But I haven't used it yet to see how it works. :-) )</p>

<p>And aren't all RZ lenses newer than most of the M645 lenses? 1990+ for the RZ, vs 1975+ for the m645?</p>

<p>I could compare the m645 200mm APO to the 180mm RZ and see who wins. :-)</p>

[kevinbriggs]

<p>Thanks for all the great info! Much appreciated.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Many photographers - even pros - are not equiped or inclinded to be able to answer this question anyways. It seems that only a small percentage knows how to critically examine lens sharpness.<br>

<br /> I believe lens manufacturers knew that the vast majority of photographers have nothing stronger than an 8x loupe - many owning the plastic element Peak 8x loupe. While one can tell whether a negative is "sharp enough" to print an 8x10 with an 8x loupe, I feel one needs at the bare minimum an quality glass 10x loupe to begin to critically compare lenses.<br>

<br /> For example, I owned a 4x - 12x Mamiya multielement zoom loupe. Using that, I coule accurately order all my lenses from LF to 35mm from sharpest to softest.<br>

<br /> However, studying negatives with my current 8x Peak loupe, all of my lenses would appear to be equally sharp.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>And aren't all RZ lenses newer than most of the M645 lenses? 1990+ for the RZ, vs 1975+ for the m645?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gregory, no.</p>

<p>Firstly, the RZ was launched much earlier than that - 1982. Initially, its stable of lenses primarily consisted of RB67 optical designs from the 1970s - some actually older than the M645 designs.</p>

<p>Secondly, Mamiya was adding or updating lens designs to both the M645 & RZ through the 1980s and 1990s. I'm not sure when the most recent RZ lens design was released, but there are still new Mamiya/Phase One designs coming out for the 645.</p>

<p>I couldn't tell you what the median lens design age is for each line, but I'll bet they're pretty close. That is why I stressed "of the same design generation", because we are talking about a period of around 3 decades.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Ray,</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. You've given me motivation to dump the RZ and stick with the 645...well, at least when I'm done with my cache of film. ;-)<br /><br /><br /></p>

[photom]

<p>3 RZ lenses were tested here along with a comparison of many other med. format lenses:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>You've given me motivation to dump the RZ</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gregory, I'm not sure I want to have that on my conscience! Don't dump it too hastily! (;))</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Don't worry...I have tons of film left. Just burned two more rolls. I need to use my digital back to calibrate the focus screen. I may see a marked improvement after that. Then I can honestly blame my blurry shots on the camera and not the operator. ;-)</p>

[ed_sawyer]

<p>I have some RZ lens tests from Modern Photo posted at:<br>

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~eme39/MP_Mamiya_RZ67_lenses.pdf<br>

These were the first generation RZ glass, so not as optimzed as the later versions (particularly the 180). still, they did impressively well, esp. the 110.</p>

<p>-Ed</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_major]

<p>I'm hoping my question is in line with the thread, if not sorry for the hi-jack....</p>

<p>Is/are the RZ lenses comprised of a different optical formula than the RB lenses? or are the differences more related to the shutter mechanism?</p>

<p>I'm asking, i suppose, of the wider RZ 65mm which according to both the links above is an excellent, high-resolving lens. How would it fare in comparison to an RB 65mm K/L? </p>