MF Telephoto

[hughjb]

Aside from the Mamiya is there another RFF MF camera that has a telephoto lens?

120mm equivalent to 35mm

Thanks

Hugh

 

[Kin Lau]

You could fix a tele lens to a Baby Graphic, or a MF (choice of 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9) holder to a 4x5 Speed Graphics.

 

[Abbazz]

Aside from the Mamiya is there another RFF MF camera that has a telephoto lens?
120mm equivalent to 35mm

Hugh,

Here is a quick review of the telephoto lenses available for medium format rangefinder cameras (I deliberately set aside baby LF cameras, like the Speed Graphic):

The only lenses still available new on the market today are the Mamiya 150/4.5 (74mm equiv.) and 210/8.0 (104mm equiv.) lenses for the Mamiya 7 (6x7). There was a 150/4.5 (82mm equiv.) for the Mamiya 6 (6x6), but it is now discontinued. Mamiya also made some telefocus lenses for its Press/Universal series (6x9): a 127/4.7 (55mm equiv.), a 150/5.6 (64mm equiv.) and two different 250mm (107mm equiv.), an f/5.0 and an f/8.0. These lenses are not too uncommon today and sell on the used market for affordable prices.

There were also a 180/4.5 (89mm equiv.) and a 135/3.5 (67mm equiv.) lens for the Koni-Omega 6x7 cameras. The 180mm is common but the 135mm is quite rare, having been produced for two years only.

There were two telefocus lenses for the Bronica RF (a 4.5x6 camera): a 135/4.0 (83mm equiv.) and a 100/4.5 (62mm equiv.). These lenses have been built in very limited numbers and are highly sought after today, leading to high prices.

The old Fuji G690 series also had interchangeable lenses. A 150/5.6 (64mm equiv.) and a 180/5.6 (77mm equiv.) were available. These cameras have been out of production for almost 30 years and the lenses are quite scarce on the market.

As you can see, you will not find a medium format telephoto lens for a rangefinder camera with an equivalent focal length of 120mm in 35mm terms. Why? I guess it has to do with the difficulty of precisely focusing a tele lens with a rangefinder, due to the very limited depth of field of these lenses. Just two examples to illustrate that:

- The first 135/4 lens first released for the Bronica RF was almost impossible to focus, due to the short rangefinder base of this camera. The lens was withdrawn and replaced by a 100mm of more modest aperture (f/4.5). Usually, tele lenses available for MF RF cameras all have a limited maximum aperture (around F/4.5, 5.6, even 8.0) and are not capable of close focusing to limit the risk of focusing error.

- You may have noticed that the 150mm lens for the Mamiya 7 is very common on the second hand market, much more than the wide angles. This is because many users are disappointed with the results they get with this lens due to the focusing errors, even though the minimum focusing distance is a rather conservative 1.8m. For the longer 210mm lens, Mamiya solved the problem by removing the rangefinder coupling and setting a minimum distance of 7m!

So, if you really need to have a 120mm equiv. lens on a medium format camera, you'd better buy a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya RB SLR.

Cheers,

Abbazz

Edit: I just realized I forgot the Graflex XL, for which a 150/4.5 (64mm equiv.), two 180mm (77mm equiv.), f/4.8 and f/4.5 and a 270/6.6 (116mm equiv.) were available. There are a few other, more obscure MF RF cameras that could be used with telephoto lenses, like the Linhof Press or the various Horseman models.

 

[Doug]

Hugh, I surely agree with Abbazz that telephotos are the province of the SLR, where focus accuracy rises with focal length, and RF cameras are supreme with normal and wide-angle lenses. A 120mm equivalent (talking an angle of view of 20-21 degrees), is getting pretty long for an RF, and though some offer 135mm you need a long baseline and decent finder magnification, good eyesight and luck.

Frankly, 90mm feels awful long to me on a Leica-type camera, though it seems better on the Contax G2 due to its full-frame viewfinder. I prefer a 75mm for the long end, and that rarely, while 75 and 85 feel more natural on an SLR.

The Bronica RF645 is a great system with excellent lenses, and I do use the 100mm f/4.5 as a long-normal, with its 39° angle of view. I wouldn't mind having the 135mm too, as my second body has the 135 framelines, but I don't know that I'd use it enough to justify the expense. By the way, Abbazz, the 135 also has an f/4.5 max aperture... 🙂

 

[hughjb]

Thank you all for the informative post. I decided to do the following, as part of my arsenal I have two Fuji rangefinder, one with a 90 mm lens and the other one with a 65.

I was planning on using both of them for an upcoming event, given that the negative is huge on both cameras I'm just going to get closer and crop the images as required.

For a telephoto I will just use my Nikon FM2 with a telephoto and fill the frame.

Thank you much

Hugh

 

[Abbazz]

By the way, Abbazz, the 135 also has an f/4.5 max aperture... 🙂

My bad. Thanks for the correction, Doug.

Cheers,

Abbazz