PDA

View Full Version : 65 or 75 mm



ric
11-Mar-2007, 04:21
Hi to everybody

I'm looking for a 65 or 75mm, I prefer the 65mm, lens for 4x5" format.

Do you have some advices for me? I'm a newbie in the LF world :D


Hello/Ciao, ric

Walter Calahan
11-Mar-2007, 04:55
See if you can look through both lenses on a camera to see which works with your way of seeing. Only you will know which fits your vision.

Me, I own both.

Henry Dove
11-Mar-2007, 04:58
Ciao Ric!

Much depends on what else you are using and your personal vision. I prefer a 65mm as it makes a good change from my 90mm, and although it doesn't give a lot of movement on 5x4, I still like its angle of view which matches what I used to get from various 19/20/21 lenses in 35mm to go with a 28mm. A 24mm didn't really fit in with my 35mm lens bag, and so a 75mm doesn't really fit my perspective now. Kind regards,

Henry

Leonard Evens
11-Mar-2007, 06:00
Make sure, particularly with a 65 mm lens, that it is designed to cover 4 x 5. Some very short focal length lenses are designed for 6 x 9.

I have a 75 mm lens, and I don't really see any need to go shorter than that. One problem with very short focal length lenses is that, depending on the subject, you may end up with a lot of empty space in the foreground. A typical example would be in photographing a building facade where you can't get far enough back from it. Without a rise, you may find that one third to half the view is taken up with the pavement in front of the building. Without adequate rise, you can't correct for that. In such a circumstance, if you work digitally, you may be better off with several views using a longer lens and stitching digitally.

Steven Barall
11-Mar-2007, 06:40
I think Ric wants to know about individual lenses available from the different manufacturers as far as which ones should be considered and why etc...

I really don't know anything about those focal lengths or I would gladly chime in.

Ed Richards
11-Mar-2007, 07:28
The Nikon 65mm F4.5 is a great lens. It is on sale at BH for 699 US/669 imported, and cheaper used because of the BH sale prices. The used price was higher before the sale and will be higher as soon as the sale is over.

Jack Flesher
11-Mar-2007, 08:21
I'll toss in a vote for the Schneider Super Angulons f5.6 versions. The Rodenstock Grandagons f4.5 are probably just as good but are heavier. FWIW, on Schneider, the newest Multicoated versions have their lettering around the outside rim of the filter ring on the front lens barrel -- the older designs have their lettering on the front of the lens around the front element.

As for which focal, I think it depends on what you want to shoot with them and what other lens(es) you already own. I like the spacing between the 65 and a 90 (my basic 4x5 set is 65, 90, 150, 300), but if I owned a 110 or 120 as my next lens up, I would probably go for the 75 instead.

Cheers,

Nick_3536
11-Mar-2007, 08:40
The Nikon 65mm F4.5 is a great lens. It is on sale at BH for 699 US/669 imported, and cheaper used because of the BH sale prices. The used price was higher before the sale and will be higher as soon as the sale is over.


How good is the coverage at F/22? The published is at F/16. Does it increase at all?

Ed Richards
11-Mar-2007, 08:54
> How good is the coverage at F/22? The published is at F/16. Does it increase at all?

Interesting question. The competing lenses are rated at 170 at f22. I have used the Nikon 65mm with some movements on 4x5 and did not get visible vignetting at f22. I am assuming that the coverage was greater than 170 based on this. None of these lenses have much extra coverage for movements.

Nick_3536
11-Mar-2007, 09:05
Thanks. I think I could live with a fuzzy corner of the sky.

Ron Marshall
11-Mar-2007, 11:38
If you intend to use it for architecture the 65s have a smaller image circle which doesn't permit as much movement. Not a problem for landscape.

Ed Richards
11-Mar-2007, 13:03
> Thanks. I think I could live with a fuzzy corner of the sky.

With these you do not get fuzzy, you get black. The limit on image ciricle is more mechanical than optical.

Nick_3536
11-Mar-2007, 13:39
Now that worries me. I was thinking of the 75mm. Hoping the actual coverage at F/32 was a touch bigger then the published 200mm. If it actually hit 210mm [even if the corners were fuzzy] that would be okay for 5x7 ultra wide with no movements. Or great for 4x5 with movements.

But if it's mechanically limited -(

Ed Richards
11-Mar-2007, 13:50
If you want to use something wider than a 90mm on 5x7 with a modern lens, you are in big money territority. A super symmar 80mm or a SA 72mm XL.

Nick_3536
11-Mar-2007, 14:02
I can't justify those. The Nikkor would be mostly for 4x5 and 6x12 rollfilm. The added 5x7 would be a nice bonus.

Larry Kalajainen
18-Mar-2007, 16:52
I'll toss in a vote for the Schneider Super Angulons f5.6 versions. The Rodenstock Grandagons f4.5 are probably just as good but are heavier. FWIW, on Schneider, the newest Multicoated versions have their lettering around the outside rim of the filter ring on the front lens barrel -- the older designs have their lettering on the front of the lens around the front element.

Cheers,

I'll second the motion on the Super Angulon. I just sold one because I wasn't using it much, but it was a superb performer and much smaller and lighter than others--took a 67mm filter. Adequate coverage of 4X5 without vignetting, but needed bag bellows to get any movements, and then, not a great deal. But enough, usually.

Ole Tjugen
18-Mar-2007, 19:21
I'm sure the Super Angulon 65mm is a great little lens.

I would want one if I didn't already have an Ilex Acugon 65mm!

All right - I want one anyway. But not enough to warrant replacing the Acugon.

Ed Richards
18-Mar-2007, 20:09
The Nikon 65 is faster - f4.5, small - 67mm filter and a small lens, and cheaper for a comparable copy, at least until the sale at BH ends and the used prices rise.