1st shots with Mamiya 140mm Macro on RB67 (2024)

Lugged my RB67 Pro SD up the hill to do a few test shots with the 140mm f/4.5 Macro C, with extension tube no.1, and some Velvia 50. I love this lens! The Velvia is easy on the eye too. Hope you like them... If only I could put this camera in my pocket.

Very nice!

Question, what is the point of the macro lens, I do a lot of macro work but always just use any lens with the extension tubes and the bellows of the camera body... So, what's the lens do differently?

Thanks!

Great photos. In wish mine was small too.

Jeff

Rob MacKillop said:

Oh, you mean the camera?! Doh! Not sure what you were talking about for a second there!

Click to expand...

See Also

How to Focus in Macro PhotographySubjective Impressions of K-Mount LensesTop Olympus OM-D Tips and Settings for Macro PhotographySMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses

Not many wish THAT was smaller....

StoneNYC said:

Very nice!

Question, what is the point of the macro lens, I do a lot of macro work but always just use any lens with the extension tubes and the bellows of the camera body... So, what's the lens do differently?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Stone,
Most lenses have a curved field of focus. Macro (or as is technically correct, Micro) lenses are generally designed to have a flat field of focus, in addition to having fewer optical problems (such as chromatic aberation for one possible issue) when focused closely. This is a gross generalization, so there will always be exceptions, but I know that you have experience in using the google for a better explanation than mine.

KennyMark said:

Stone,
Most lenses have a curved field of focus. Macro (or as is technically correct, Micro) lenses are generally designed to have a flat field of focus, in addition to having fewer optical problems (such as chromatic aberation for one possible issue) when focused closely. This is a gross generalization, so there will always be exceptions, but I know that you have experience in using the google for a better explanation than mine.

Click to expand...

+1

True macro lenses are optimized for close work. Non-macro lenses are optimized for farther distances.

The Mamiya 140mm C lens is a true macro lens. The adjustable floating element means that it also performs quite well at farther distances.

In the 35mm world, you have to be careful. There are lenses out there that are labelled "macro" which more properly should be labeled "can work close".

Flat-field performance matters the most for flat subjects.

Rob MacKillop said:

Jeff - Your what?

Click to expand...

Jeff

StoneNYC said:

Very nice!

Question, what is the point of the macro lens, I do a lot of macro work but always just use any lens with the extension tubes and the bellows of the camera body... So, what's the lens do differently?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The correction of spherical aberration depends on the distance at which you're focusing. Lenses without floating elements are usually optimised somewhere around hyperfocus or at portrait distances depending on their expected usage whereas a good macro lens will have a floating (moving) element that allows it to be corrected for nearly any distance. For 35mm systems it happens automatically (there are different groups of elements in the lens on separate helicals, you can often see them moving independently when you wind the focus ring) but for Mamiya M-LA lenses, you need to manually set the floating element with an extra ring on the lens because the lens doesn't know how far out on the bellows/tubes it is.

If you stick a normal lens on a long bellows, you will get a high magnification but also a very soft image with a curved focal plane and some crazy aberrations. If you use a proper macro lens, it will be sharp throughout the image with a flat focal plane, so you can actually reproduce a flat image accurately. You can focus near the corner of the frame and actually achieve some sharpness.

The handbooks that came with the camera itemized caveats for each lens type used close up.

Only the macro was perfect if you floated the ring ok

The 127 might just vignette with both tubes the others worse

the 65 and 55 needed f/16 or smaller and only short tube

Etc.

too difficult to remember think mamiya have ecopys on their site the soft focus is bad enough...

I resisted the temptation to buy either tube.

Xmas said:

The handbooks that came with the camera itemized caveats for each lens type used close up.

Only the macro was perfect if you floated the ring ok

The 127 might just vignette with both tubes the others worse

the 65 and 55 needed f/16 or smaller and only short tube

Etc.

too difficult to remember think mamiya have ecopys on their site the soft focus is bad enough...

I resisted the temptation to buy either tube.

Click to expand...

Hmm I tend to use the 180mm with #2 tube or both tubes. Sometimes the 90mm but never the 50mm

Anyway I haven't noticed any bad CA actually, but I have the RZ W lenses? Maybe those are better?

I would Consider a trade of a macro for one of my RZ lenses since I mostly use it for macro anyway. But probably wouldn't want to invest $ into it.

I can understand the flattening the scene part though.

If anyone is interested let me know, in the mean time congrats again OP looks like you have something spectacular

Rob MacKillop said:

Lugged my RB67 Pro SD up the hill to do a few test shots with the 140mm f/4.5 Macro C, with extension tube no.1, and some Velvia 50. I love this lens! The Velvia is easy on the eye too. Hope you like them... If only I could put this camera in my pocket.

View attachment 78207

View attachment 78208

View attachment 78209

Click to expand...

Very nice work with the ProSD and 140 macro here. Took me a couple outings to use the floating element correctly with or without tube(s). But, once I used it for awhile it became a bit more automatic overall. Great setup IMO. Again, images are very nice here with the Velvia too.

StoneNYC said:

Anyway I haven't noticed any bad CA actually,

Click to expand...

CA is not the problem, it's usually coma and SA. Optical aberrations reference.

StoneNYC said:

but I have the RZ W lenses? Maybe those are better?

Click to expand...

Nope. RZ W are generally optically identical to RB lenses. Some (KL) RB lenses are even newer than the older RZ lenses, for example:
- RZ 180 W is a Tessar and I think identical to an RB 180 C
- RZ 180 W-N is a Sonnar and identical to an RB 180 KL

So the RB 180 KL is in fact a newer, slightly sharper-wide-open lens than an RZ 180 W. Slightly different look, some prefer the older.

StoneNYC said:

If anyone is interested let me know, in the mean time congrats again OP looks like you have something spectacular

Click to expand...

KEH and eBay have plenty make sure you get the M-LA version. It's a spectacular lens for sure.

polyglot said:

CA is not the problem, it's usually coma and SA. Optical aberrations reference.

Nope. RZ W are generally optically identical to RB lenses. Some (KL) RB lenses are even newer than the older RZ lenses, for example:
- RZ 180 W is a Tessar and I think identical to an RB 180 C
- RZ 180 W-N is a Sonnar and identical to an RB 180 KL

So the RB 180 KL is in fact a newer, slightly sharper-wide-open lens than an RZ 180 W. Slightly different look, some prefer the older.

KEH and eBay have plenty make sure you get the M-LA version. It's a spectacular lens for sure.

Click to expand...

Interesting thanks, hadn't realized, if I could change anything I would simply wish that the RB backs would not have foam rubber but simply like traps like the RC Pro II do, I would probably switch to the Arby anyway because I like the fact that you don't need a battery with them. But I do like the interlock co*cking the shutter and the mirror and rotating the film to advance it all in one movement option that the RZ has that the RB does not.

I wasn't looking to purchase though as I said I am only interested in trading so KEH won't work for me since it's a purchase site isn't it? (Never used it).

StoneNYC said:

Interesting thanks, hadn't realized, if I could change anything I would simply wish that the RB backs would not have foam rubber but simply like traps like the RC Pro II do, I would probably switch to the Arby anyway because I like the fact that you don't need a battery with them. But I do like the interlock co*cking the shutter and the mirror and rotating the film to advance it all in one movement option that the RZ has that the RB does not.

I wasn't looking to purchase though as I said I am only interested in trading so KEH won't work for me since it's a purchase site isn't it? (Never used it).

Click to expand...

The Pro-SD backs for the RB have light traps, while the earlier backs use foam.

And if you don't like having to wind the film, buy one of the "cheap as chips" power backs .

MattKing said:

The Pro-SD backs for the RB have light traps, while the earlier backs use foam.

And if you don't like having to wind the film, buy one of the "cheap as chips" power backs .

Click to expand...

Wait, so why do the RZ Pro (non- II) backs have foam?

StoneNYC said:

Wait, so why do the RZ Pro (non- II) backs have foam?

Click to expand...

Don't know, but I'm going to guess that the Pro-SD came out after the RZ Pro.

MattKing said:

Don't know, but I'm going to guess that the Pro-SD came out after the RZ Pro.

Click to expand...

That seems so strange why would they be supporting two of the same basic 67 systems? What is the pro ass model then have the same kind of advanced features where you could advance the film with the same co*cking lever as the mirror?

(Edit: okay I was dictating with Siri, and that's what she said, ironically, but actually I meant"Pro-S model").

StoneNYC said:

That seems so strange why would they be supporting two of the same basic 67 systems? What is the pro ass model then have the same kind of advanced features where you could advance the film with the same co*cking lever as the mirror?

(Edit: okay I was dictating with Siri, and that's what she said, ironically, but actually I meant"Pro-S model").

Click to expand...

RZ67 Pro was introduced in 1982.

The RB67 Pro-SD was introduced 8 years later in 1990 - it replaced the RB67 Pro-S which had been current for 17 years.

The RZ series may very well have been intended to eventually replace the RB series, but not immediately.

With the RZ series you lost functionality in some areas, while gaining in others. It certainly didn't make the RB series equipment second class.

the RB 67 pro had manual and motor backs the motor backs had a power pack that attached to base plate and they were 120/220 switchable and would work manually if the batteries failed. they work ok with grip and tripod options

you only pushed the big lever ie the back operated off the shutter double exp pin then you pushed the lever

the RB67 backs fit the other cams if you have the correct adapters eg the press camera

the foam is an irrelevant problem it lasts for 20 years you replace it... if you used the RB in cold you may need relubed sooner than refoam there is foam in the revolver as well also needs... autos need gas...

you need the manuals and you need to read...