Which RB lenses for RZ ?

[john_dowle1]

<p>I'd like your opinions on which RB lenses are the best performers on the RZ ?<br>

I've been looking at RB images and it does look as though the lenses are equal to the dedicated RZ lenses ?<br>

Thanks in advance as usual for any feedback or advice.<br>

John.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>I'm partial to the newer RB KL lenses--same formulae and coatings as the RZ glass. Though I have some, the old C and even older uncoated lenses often have age-related issues unless you luck into lightly-used examples. I found a small group of NOS KLs and splurged a few years back. Some criticize the KLs less-than-battleship build quality(especially the shutters) next to the old C series but many of the latter worked hard for a living(e.g., 90mm and 180mm) and are just worn out.<br>

<br /> Might also help to know what focal lengths you're after???</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Why do you want to put RB lenses on an RZ67? RZ glass is so cheap it doesn't seem necessary to bother adapting older lenses onto the newer body.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>What adaption? RB lenses work on the RZ. The only issues are infinity focus and inaccuracy of the RZ distance scale--just use the ground glass. No metering with the RZ metered finders, either.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I disagree that the RB images are equal to the dedicated RZ lenses. The RZ are truly pro-grade, and I tried by using RB lenses on my RZ (90mm and 180mm). In addition, you don't have the shutter that is prone to fail in RZ lenses, since it is an electronic leaf shutter (i.e. no shutter speed drift). As mentioned, RZ lenses are cheap enough these days that there's no point in doing it to save money.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Funny but weren't the non-C and C lenses "pro" grade--however you choose to measure that? KL=RZ glass minus the electronic shutter. Some who service the Mamiya RB/RZ aren't wildly optimistic that the electronic shutters will prove as tough as the old RB lenses. Doubt that RB67 shooters will ditch their lenses in shame knowing their glass isn't "pro" calibre.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Well, yes, with medium format, it's not likel with DSLRs, where they make products for the Target/Best Buy crowd as well as for more serious users. Even an RB67 and its lenses are great for professional use, but whatever metrics you use to measure the quality of a lens, you have to admit that the RZ lenses are "more." Given the minor price difference today (especially considering that you have to factor in the film cost, development cost, and the scanning/printing cost to shooting either system), you get wonderful performance from RZ lenses like the 110mm, to which there is no answer from the RB system. My experiences are backed up on this forum, feel free to search and see tons of discussions about the RB vs RZ.</p>

<p>As for the shutter, the RZ system is what, like 30 years old? Those same people worried about the shutter I assume are the same people that are still mailing their correspondence because they're not sure if email will catch on? ;) Electronic is electronic. The wonderful thing electronic/digital vs mechanical/analog is that electronics, save for any corrosion or other catastrophic failure, work the same over the course of their lifetime. Whether it's a shutter, a processor, or a digital sensor, it will work the same after 20 years as the day it was new. Just make sure that your camera bag has a spare battery, and you're set.</p>

[frank_major]

<p>There are great lenses in both camps - finding the focal length/FOV that accomplishes your imaging is much more important than determining which lens mount. Find out what you want to shoot and choose a mount that offers what you need.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>The RB 127KL lens outperforms the RZ 110 and RZ 150 easily in my experence (I have all three).</p>

<p><br /> The RB 127mm KL is the shortest focal length in the RB/RZ series with absolutely imperceptible barrell distortion, while even the awesome RZ 110mm shows a slight trace.</p>

<p><br /> You also have the RB 150 SF C soft focus - but don't use that on the RZ body as the strength needed to trigger the shutter is too much for the RZ body to handle according to the RZ manual.</p>

<p>So to answer your question, get the RB 127 KL. There are still some NOS on Ebay for less than the cost to manufacture them.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Andre, is the RZ 127/3.5 optically identical to the RB 127/3.5 KL? Both are 6/4 designs.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"<em>is the RZ 127/3.5 optically identical to the RB 127/3.5 KL? Both are 6/4 designs</em>."<br>

<br />Yup. Identical except for the electronically controlled shutter. Have the the 150/3.5 KL and love it.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"is the RZ 127/3.5 optically identical to the RB 127/3.5 KL? Both are 6/4 designs."<br>

Yup. Identical. Have the RB 150/3.5 KL and love it.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"is the RZ 127/3.5 optically identical to the RB 127/3.5 KL? Both are 6/4 designs."<br>

Yup. Identical. Have the RB 150/3.5 KL and love it.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I have both the RZ 150 and RB 127. Newest, not softfocus each. I only shot the 150 once - using monopod at 1/250, but it appears not as sharp as the 127. By a noticeable amount. Will test more.</p>