Bronica RF lenses

C

Cron

Well-known
Local time
12:56 PM
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
568
Location
Vienna
View My Gallery
Hi!

about 1 month ago I purchased a heavenly used RF645 with 65mm lens.

First question: there are little problems with the film transport. I cannot transport in a smooth way, sometimes it seems to be blocked. But it works. When film ends after 16 pictures, the lever blocks really and I have to do this action with brutality. It works, but I cannot imagine this as the normal way of action. Or is it? I have no possibility to compare with another RF645.

Second question: Since having bought the RF I was looking for the 4,5/100. But I cannot find one. Masses of 45 and 65 on the market, but no 100mm lens. They seem to be rare. Does anybody know, how much are produced? And yes, I would buy a good priced one.

oh ......... pictures made with this camera surprised me in quality ;-)

Regards from Austria
 
Servas, Cron!
It sounds like you need to get that Bronica RF645 serviced! I have 2 and the film transport operates much more smoothly than you describe. The 100 and especially 135mm lenses are rare as production was limited. Check the classifieds here at RFF as there was a 100mm lens offered a few weeks ago for about $1000.
 
Thanks, Frank!

I checked the classifieds, but the lens isn't there anymore.

Hope, the filmtransport has only to be serviced without needing hardware parts.
 
You'll need to locate a Tamron service center to have your camera looked at, unless you already have a trusted independent service man.
 
Cron, My understanding is that because of the limited production of the 100 mm lens, they actually sell for more than they cost new. The lens that appeared here in RFF classifieds sold within two days for $1000.

My RF645 works perfectly smoothly during the transition from advancing film during shooting and spooling the leader after all exposures are made.

I sure do like my Bronica RF 645 - expecially those great big negatives.
 
My used RF645 had the exact same problem. I sent it to the Tamron service center in New York and they fixed it for about $250, as I recall. Like yours, mine also worked, i.e. I could get a full roll through it, but it would get very hard to crank at some points. I didn't hesitate to get it fixed, as I wanted to do it while parts were still available, etc. The camera works smoothly now and is my favorite MF shooter. Problems with the film transport lever seem to be fairly common and I've actually never heard of anything else going wrong the RF645, under normal use. Anyway, it's definitely worth fixing, as they are GREAT cameras!
 
thanks to all!

$100.- for an new 65? where can I buy one?

if Frank will pay $600.- for a fine 100/4,5 so I will offer $605.- to get it ;-)
 
Apologies for the thread hijack but seeing as RF645 shooters are gathered here:

What do you like least about this camera? Following on from my "Which modern RF MF" thread above this Bronica looks to be a real contender. I'm particularly liking the limited range of lenses available (reduces GAS risk!)

I'm comfortable shooting manual focus 35mm rangefinders and I've shot a SLR/TLR MF in the past as well (metered/unmetered, manual focus of course)

Are there any quirks/foibles with these cameras?
 
After using the Bronica RF645, seeing how easy it is to use, and seeing the MF negatives print, it makes it difficult to go back to using your 35mm cameras again, except in instances where utmost portability, or where telephoto and macro results are needed. The Bronica is really, really good.
 
Terao said:
Apologies for the thread hijack but seeing as RF645 shooters are gathered here:

What do you like least about this camera? Following on from my "Which modern RF MF" thread above this Bronica looks to be a real contender. I'm particularly liking the limited range of lenses available (reduces GAS risk!)
Click to expand...

🙂
I'd never even heard of this camera until I started reading this site...finally managed to get one for my birthday a week or so ago.
Easy and great to use...it has 'that certain something' - picking one up is enough to convince you... 😉
It joins my Nikon F3 and Olympus OM2 in that respect.

What do I like least? That I still need to get the 45mm lens...everything else is fantastic.
 
I can second what Frank says. I've had medium format cameras before, but this is the first one that feels truly "natural" to use. And it delivers superb results. You do need to get used to the vertical viewfinder, but I found that easy -- and I take more vertical photos now! I was lucky enough to get the 100mm lens early on. A gem -- worth looking out for. I never had a problem with the winder, but my battery door latch has stopped working properly, so it has to be taped shut. Fortunately the batteries last a long time.
 
what do I dislike...hmmmmm,

NOTHING with the camera and lenses per se apart from lack of availability for the longer lenses.
 
I could wish there were framelines in the viewfinder for the 45mm lens. Would be great to have a 35mm lens available too, while I'm wishing! Otherwise just about perfect. Much of my Gallery here is shot with the RF645...
 
Yeah! I wanted a 35mm lens, too.

For the 45, I've decided that I do pretty well using the whole finder for framing. The framing is not as accurate, but I usually get more than I expect, rather than less, and the built-in finder doesn't have the terrible barrel distortion of the huge separate finder.

I've toyed with the idea of taking a Cosina 28-35 minifinder, tweaking the lines a little, and sticking it on the side of the camera. That would still be inconvenient, but at least it wouldn't be huge.
 
jtm said:
For the 45, I've decided that I do pretty well using the whole finder for framing. The framing is not as accurate, but I usually get more than I expect, rather than less, and the built-in finder doesn't have the terrible barrel distortion of the huge separate finder.
Click to expand...
John, I do the same, and have to be careful about parallax because much of my shooting is fairly close-in. I've not used the accessory VF at all...

I figure the absense of 45mm framelines is due to the slightly higher VF magnification needed for the original 135mm frames not to be inconveniently small. If they'd begun with the 100mm instead at the start, and set up the VF for those frames to appear a reasonable/small size, then the lower magnification might have made the VF suitable for parallax-compensated 45mm frames and I'd be happier! So I can blame it all on that 135mm misstep... :bang:

Chris, good to hear the dedicated flash is a useful one...
 
I found a 4,5/100 and would consider to sell it ....... exchange $ against € and keep the 1000 in front of the sign ;-)



but no ... I like it too much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom