David Munson , Apr 30, 2000; 12:40 a.m.
I can't get a straight answer on this issue- every source contradicts
the one before it. In practical terms, how much of a difference in
image quality is there between Mamiya C and KL lenses? I know that
there must be some improvements in the KL lenses, but to what degree?
For example, how much higher quality is an image going to be that's
made with a 127mm KL lens than an identical shot made with a 127mm C
lens? What this all boils down to is an issue of economy. As a
student, I need to exercise good economy and this issue has been
eating away at me. I could buy a KL lens used in good condition or
buy two C lenses in equally good condition for about the same amount
of money. However, if the C lenses aren't going to give me high
enough image quality, then buying the C lenses would be false
economy. Is there any numerical data available on the subject? Would
you like to provide some insight from personal experience? I'd
appreciate it as this issue is getting a bit old and I'd like to get
it figured out.
Thanks.
-Dave Munson
Dave Jenkins , Apr 30, 2000; 09:28 a.m.
David, it's my impression that the KL lenses are not better, but rather that their quality control is more consistent. In past years, Mamiya had a reputation for producing some pretty inconsistent quality, although their best lenses were quite good. Personally, I owned two 50mm wide angles for my RB, and both of them were dogs. I was so disgusted I got rid of the whole system. I miss the 6x7 format, but not the weight of the RB system. (I went back to Hasselblad.)
If you could personally test the lenses you are considering, you might very well find that a 127mm C lens is fine. I had a 127 that was a beauty, even though it was so old that it was not even a C. But the next lens that came off the assembly line after it might have been a dog.
So the moral of this story is: test! Buy from a local dealer with the understanding that you will return the lens if it isn't up to par. If you buy from an out-of-town dealer, be sure there is a return privilege. Then test, test, test. Take pictures of a sheet of classified ads taped to the wall. Shoot a brick wall. And shoot lots of pix of the things you normally shoot. Use a sharp slide film such as Velvia or Provia, a good tripod, and examine the transparencies carefully with a quality magnifier. Return any lens that doesn't measure up and try again until you find a good one.
Or pay more money for a KL with better quality control. (Then test anyway, just in case!)
Andrew Cassino , May 01, 2000; 01:30 a.m.
Dave,
I have a sheet here that I got from a Mamiya rep a couple of years ago entitled "Factory Lens Designation Codes".
According to this sheet, the letters "KL" are lens mount codes and mean that the lens fits the RB67/RB67 Pro-S (that's the "K") and also the RB67 Pro SD (that's the "L"). The "C" designation is the "Design Improvement Code", and "C" is the latest design improvement that this sheet shows (except for "N" which I believe only applies to the 645 lenses and means "new barrel design").
Therefore, it seems that the real difference between the 127mm C and the KL 127mm is that the latter fits all models of the RB67 while the former only fits the older models. Logically this also means any given KL lens is, by necessity, a newer lens (chronologically) than a C lens. I guess these differences might well account for the price differences you see. Personally I would not hesitate to buy a clean 127mm C lens.
Andrew Cassino
Jack Congson , May 01, 2000; 10:12 p.m.
My personal experience is that the K/L lenses deliver the same quality as the the new RZ lenses and are in a different league from the earlier C and non-C lenses of the RB family.Its both due to the new coatings and computer assisted optical design.
All 3 lens families will work on the Pro-SD. The 75 shift K/L and the 500mm K/L will work only on the Pro-SD.
There is no way I will buy a non-K/L lens. The quality difference is just too obvious. I have the 75 K/L and the 140 K/L Macro. These two lenses really kick ass!
Read what Mamiya tech support has to say at their web site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James Beine - 12:17pm Jan 24, 1999 EST (# 9 of 14)
Is there an advantage to change from the C to the newer KL lenses J. Beine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Cirillo - 10:52am Jan 25, 1999 EST (# 10 of 14)
Mamiya America
James: The KL lenses incorporate the lastest in Mamiya's optical designs. The eariler lenses have been around for years, taken millions of photos and are of excellent quality. However, if you require every possible advancement, then the KL lenses are for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hobson , May 02, 2000; 10:01 a.m.
I,m sorry I can't comment on lens quality, but I have something else you should consider. My 90mm f3.8 "C" lens had shutter problems. After getting estimates I found Mamiya factory service only $20.00 higher so I opted to send my lens to Mamiya. The reply I got back was the parts needed to repair my shutter were no longer available! They would, however, update my lens with the "newer S-D shutter" at a cost to me of over $300.00. I can only assume the "S-D shutter" is from the KL lenses.
Jim H.
Scott Eaton , May 04, 2000; 11:38 a.m.
>>I have the 75 K/L and the 140 K/L Macro. These two lenses really kick ass! <<
Wish I had known that before I purchased my RB. I own older 65, 90 and 180 lenses, and all but the 180 are pieces of junk. The 65mm is *so* bad that my fixed Nikkor 35mm images on 100 speed film blow it away. The 90 shows obvious color fringing in 20x24 prints on fine grained film. Thank god for high-rez drum scans and USM to clean up the mess.
If it weren't for the amazing 180mm I'd dump the whole system. I simply don't get how Mamiya can produce so many coke-bottles and nobody complains. These older lenses have obvious problems that you can see with a loupe on any 6x7 transparency.
