hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
Ah, thanks for thatDoug said:Hi Matt -- Theoretically there is no problem, but in practice... Consider a critical situation, close-focus distance, wide-open aperture, thus very little depth of field. The Bronica's RF baseline is short, but just adequate to the task... except if manufacturing tolerances in both body and lens happen to "stack up", both erring to the maximum in the same direction. Then unhappy customers have focus errors.
Not all lens/body combinations had a problem, only a minority I think, and not all that many customers bought the 135 lens anyway. But enough that Bronica saw they had to take corrective action. Very expensive corrective action! They designed and produced a new 100mm lens, recalled the 135's, and changed the customer's framelines to match. The new 100mm lens is lovely, yet its close-focus markings are un-numbered, with warnings to be careful focusing in tha closest range region indicated on the lens. I think Bronica was doing a bit of CYA there...
Of course there was also a cheaper solution, one offered by Robert White Ltd, the UK importer. They sent the body and 135mm lens to the service shop to be matched to each other. Of course the limitation of that was that indeed it became a matched pair and should always remain together later in the used market.
I expect the 100mm lens was made in only one production run of limited quantity, while most of the 135's were returned to Bronica, leaving both lenses more or less rare... and pricy. I'd like to have a 135, which I'd then send off to have matched with my body, but I'm not willing to pay crazy prices! I do think the 100mm is more useful than I imagine the 135 to be, so my 135 desire is a feeble little blip of GAS.
I'll be soon receiving a used 645 format SLR, for which I already have 105 and 135mm lenses that will fit with an adapter, so this might give me a feel for the relative usefulness of the Bronica's long lenses too.
well, if I ever win the lottery then I may go for a 135mm or 100mm, but to be honest, I'd rather spend the money for lenses for my Kiev 60. At least I can get pretty nice Carl Ziess Jena lenses in the 80mm, 120mm, and 180mm range for a lot less combined.Cheers
Matt
Jon Perry
Established
21 (or is it 22?)
I've got one converted for 100mm and one with 135mm lines (just in case the opportunity of a 135mm ever arises, you never know.... )
and...
WHERE HAS THE DEDICATED BRONICA RF645 FORUM GONE?!?
(OK, I'll stop shouting now, sorry.)
Jon
I've got one converted for 100mm and one with 135mm lines (just in case the opportunity of a 135mm ever arises, you never know....
)and...
WHERE HAS THE DEDICATED BRONICA RF645 FORUM GONE?!?
(OK, I'll stop shouting now, sorry.)
Jon
sircarl
Well-known
No. 23. The RF645 is my main camera (have all 3 lenses). It impresses me more each time I use it.
Well, SOMEbody bid on that 135mm lens in the last few seconds and got it for the $999 starting price. Not a bad deal. Was it anyone here?
stephanj
Member
Doug said:Well, SOMEbody bid on that 135mm lens in the last few seconds and got it for the $999 starting price. Not a bad deal. Was it anyone here?
I think that supports my observation. While it has not been the case in the past, and might not be in future, the 100mm and 135mm are currently not too expensive. They're just rarely found.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
$1000 plus the cost to "mate" it to an RF645 body is not too expensive?
Chris
Chris
DCourter
Member
That was me - I got lucky - and it turned out the seller lived 10 miles away and delivered it to my door the next morning. Camera was in perfect shape and he threw in a working 2 megapixel digicam to boot. I gave it (the Bronica) to my son for Christmas and he loves it. Now he needs the 45mm to complete the kit.
Dan
Last edited:
stephanj
Member
ChrisPlatt said:
Okay, I forgot the cost that you'd incur for calibrating. However, from a UK perspective $999 is not very far off how much they originally cost new.
On the issue of calibration, as a previous poster mentioned, it depends how thing stack up. You don't even strictly have to change the framelines as a bit of testing will tell you the size of the crop you need to visualise - about 3mm if I recollect.
jtm
not a moose
I guess I'm #24.
I don't know the serial number, but it changed when I sent it to Tamron to get the 100mm framelines put in.
I don't know the serial number, but it changed when I sent it to Tamron to get the 100mm framelines put in.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Trying to compose a portrait in that tiny rectangle is ridiculous.
I'll save my money, and keep my SLR for that...
Chris
I'll save my money, and keep my SLR for that...
Chris
You state it very well, Chris, and I had the same thought.ChrisPlatt said:
wilkens
Member
I'm #25...
jtm
not a moose
The 100mm rectangle is not too tiny. I worry more about rangefinding than framing with that lens.
Agreed for the 100mm, John, as Chris and I were referring to the 135mm after I'd observed that the 100 struck me as more useful overall (in the context of why I didn't jump into the bidding on that 135 on eBay).jtm said:
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I think it's too small for the 100mm, too.
IMO telephoto lenses and rangefinder cameras just don't mix...
Chris
IMO telephoto lenses and rangefinder cameras just don't mix...
Chris
sun king
jt
A laggard #26!
sun king
jt
BTW, I find the Polarizer kit very useful. In addition to working beautifully with slide film, I use the viewfinder bracket to get pseudo-TTL metering with my yellow, orange, green, and red filters. I screw a 43mm version into the PL viewfinder bracket and a 58mm filter on the lens-- then I don't have to think about filter factors and exposure compensation. I pretty much keep the PL bracket on the camera permanently.
Does anyone else do this?
Does anyone else do this?
f8nbethere
Member
The guy I bought my RF645 from was doing this (keeping the polarizer bracket mounted etc...); the camera came with all these tiny filters and it took me a while to figure out what they were for. For me, keep-it-simple-sh*ithead works best - I don't use filters much.
In terms of the tele lenses, I bought the 100mm lens to complete my kit, but find I'm usually just too lazy to change lenses! It is, however, the best performing lens for the system, IMHO (although all the lenses are great). I just the love how it's super sharp, but has super smooth out-of-focus areas. It's awesome. Ideally, I'd like to find a second body and keep the 100mm mounted on that. Otherwise, I might as well sell it.
I also wish they still made this camera! The quality (of the body, at least) puts the Mamiya 7 to shame!
In terms of the tele lenses, I bought the 100mm lens to complete my kit, but find I'm usually just too lazy to change lenses! It is, however, the best performing lens for the system, IMHO (although all the lenses are great). I just the love how it's super sharp, but has super smooth out-of-focus areas. It's awesome. Ideally, I'd like to find a second body and keep the 100mm mounted on that. Otherwise, I might as well sell it.
I also wish they still made this camera! The quality (of the body, at least) puts the Mamiya 7 to shame!
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
sun king said:
True, but then you must compose and focus through that darn colored filter.
Use an SLR if you want to torture yourself that way - fewer filters required!
Chris
Turtle
Veteran
I think long lenses on RFs are fine for landscapes etc but not portraits with miniman DOF. I can achieve a lot more with an SLR in this regard, but for environmental portraits the 100mm would be handy.
Just took my RF645 for a spin at an old ambassadors residence in Kabul (now derelict) and have yet again some decent negs to show for a whistlestop opportunity. You can work Sooooo fast with this camera......but the results would suggest anything other than comprimise.
Just took my RF645 for a spin at an old ambassadors residence in Kabul (now derelict) and have yet again some decent negs to show for a whistlestop opportunity. You can work Sooooo fast with this camera......but the results would suggest anything other than comprimise.