I was really lucky to find a compete RF645 outfit with 3 lenses. This is a great camera, but the film advance is prone to problems. My
camera arrived with faulty winding (the advance lever would sometimes slip or get stuck in mid-wind), so I had to send it to Tamron for
repair. It cost well about $200 to fix it, and the camera has worked great since. So if you have an RF645 with a similar problem my
advice is do not hesitate to send it to Tamrom. Still, this faulty winding is something to keep in mind if you are in the market for an
RF645. How prevalent is the winding problem? I'm not sure, but after purchasing the 135mm lens I bought a used body with 135mm
framelines (my camera has framelines for the 100mm lens) and it had the same winding problem! (I returned it as the seller wouldn't give
me a partial refund and the camera was quite expensive). So, I'm two for two on that score. I actually lost heart and sold my 135mm lens
(which is pictured above right, in back of the 45mm and 65mm lenses). The 100mm is one of the finest lenses I've ever used, so I'm more
than content with "just" that lens and, in fact, it's the only lens I've used on my RF645 for over a year. All the photos of Japan below
were taken with the 100mm lens (in Osaka and Kyoto). As you can see, there's some sense of telephoto compression, and the lens helps
me see selectively and pull smaller scenes out of the environment. In my opinion, it's one of those rare lenses that palpably heightens
your enjoyment of photography.
camera arrived with faulty winding (the advance lever would sometimes slip or get stuck in mid-wind), so I had to send it to Tamron for
repair. It cost well about $200 to fix it, and the camera has worked great since. So if you have an RF645 with a similar problem my
advice is do not hesitate to send it to Tamrom. Still, this faulty winding is something to keep in mind if you are in the market for an
RF645. How prevalent is the winding problem? I'm not sure, but after purchasing the 135mm lens I bought a used body with 135mm
framelines (my camera has framelines for the 100mm lens) and it had the same winding problem! (I returned it as the seller wouldn't give
me a partial refund and the camera was quite expensive). So, I'm two for two on that score. I actually lost heart and sold my 135mm lens
(which is pictured above right, in back of the 45mm and 65mm lenses). The 100mm is one of the finest lenses I've ever used, so I'm more
than content with "just" that lens and, in fact, it's the only lens I've used on my RF645 for over a year. All the photos of Japan below
were taken with the 100mm lens (in Osaka and Kyoto). As you can see, there's some sense of telephoto compression, and the lens helps
me see selectively and pull smaller scenes out of the environment. In my opinion, it's one of those rare lenses that palpably heightens
your enjoyment of photography.
The RF645 is bigger and heavier than even a large 6x6 folder (the Ansco Super
Speedex, in this example), but it does have a lot more features. In my opinion it is
still a small package when you consider the quality of the images it can produce.
Speedex, in this example), but it does have a lot more features. In my opinion it is
still a small package when you consider the quality of the images it can produce.
Bronica RF645
with
Zenzanon RF lenses
with
Zenzanon RF lenses
Finally, a horizontal photo. What can I say? When I use a camera with a vertically oriented
viewfinder, I tend to see vertical images. (As you can tell from the longer aspect ratio, the top and
bottom of this photo were slightly cropped.)
viewfinder, I tend to see vertical images. (As you can tell from the longer aspect ratio, the top and
bottom of this photo were slightly cropped.)
The 135mm and 100mm lenses at their closest focusing distance. I did
some focusing tests of the 135mm lens on my 100mm-frameline body
and at the widest aperture and closest focusing distance images were
focused about 1-inch in back of where the rangefinder indicated. It was
accurate enough for general photography, but not perfect.
A point in favor of the 100mm lens is that although the closest marked
distance is 1.8 meters (5.9 feet), it actually focuses down to about 1
meter and, at least on my camera, does it accurately.
some focusing tests of the 135mm lens on my 100mm-frameline body
and at the widest aperture and closest focusing distance images were
focused about 1-inch in back of where the rangefinder indicated. It was
accurate enough for general photography, but not perfect.
A point in favor of the 100mm lens is that although the closest marked
distance is 1.8 meters (5.9 feet), it actually focuses down to about 1
meter and, at least on my camera, does it accurately.
| ======================================== Sponsored Links ========================================= |
