65mm & 90mm 4x5

[Csholl]

Hi,


Does anyone recommend a 65mm lens for 4x5? Or is 90mm better for adjustments? I'm thinking about the Fujinon lenses, specifically.

[darr]

I use both on my Ebony RSW without issue, but the 65 stays off my Master Technika bc it is a hassle to set up without getting the box in view. Can your camera take a 65 without issue? The 90 is my most used lens, and movements are not a problem. My 65 is a Rodenstock Grandagon N, and my 90 lenses are Nikkor f/4.5 and f/8. The 65 gets used with a 6x12 back mainly. My RSW kit comprises 65, 75, 90, and 150 lenses. The 65 and 150 are my least used.

[Vaughan]

The question is equivalent to "should I get a 20mm lens or a 28mm lens?" The only honest answer is "Both, of course."

If you can only get one then a deciding factor may be which angle of view you find more useful.

[Doremus Scudder]

Get the 90mm first, then see if you really need/want wider. I have both and use the 90mm much, much more than the 65mm.

Also, be aware that there are two "flavors" of 90mm lenses: big and fast and slower and more compact. The latter usually have a bit smaller image circle with the exception of the Nikkor 90mm f/8 (my favorite 90mm - maybe look at that one too?)

The physical limitations of your camera and the style of photography you do should determine which size lens you choose. Want portability and 67mm filters? go with an f/8 or Rodenstock Grandagon f/6.8. Need a huge image circle and weight and filter size are not a concern, then get the f/5.6 / 4.5 version.

After you've used the 90mm a while, you'll quickly know if you need a wider lens. 75mm is a nice focal length too

Best,

Doremus

[Kevin Crisp]

The difference between a 65 and 75mm is not great, and I find 75 much more useful. It is hard to go wrong with a 90, but I very rarely use the 65. It depends on lots of things, of course.

[Joel Kitchens]

Hi Csholl,
I have both. My 65mm is a Schneider Super Angulon, while my 90mm is a Nikon. I gave up trying to use the 65mm on my Master Technika, even with a recessed lensboard, and Linhof's special lever to focus wide angle lenses. Even my small fingers were too big to easily adjust the aperture and shutter speed. I've had the Nikon 90mm much longer. Sometimes I question whether I should have gone with a 75, but at the time the 65mm had a price "too good to pass up."

I do agree with Doremus Scudder's suggestion of starting with the 90mm first, and then see if you find it inadequate.

Cheers!
Joel

[Joseph Kashi]

The difference between a 65 and 75mm is not great, and I find 75 much more useful. It is hard to go wrong with a 90, but I very rarely use the 65. It depends on lots of things, of course.

+1 on the 75mm The Fujinon 75/8 NSW (outside writing) is compact (58mm filters IIRC) and provides reasonable movement capability on 4x5. It has very good image quality and is not very expensive. It might be a very good compromise, especially if you are hiking, etc. I have one and definitely like it.

[dave_whatever]

With the obvious caveat that all relatively modern biogon-type lenses will be great, I've used both the 65/8 Super Angulon (oddly mounted in Copal 0 rather than 00) and the Nikkor SW 65/4, the latter of which I still have. Both are optically excellent, but since given even the faster Nikkor is a manageable size I'd say it's worth going for a faster lens rather than a slower F/8 version. Much easier to compose with.

Also the Nikkor has 67mm threads and will work well with the same Schneider IIIB (or the equivalent Rodenstock 0.45 E67/86) centerfilter, the same one that is also useable on the 110SSXL and on any 67mm-threaded 90mm lens, which is handy if you ever own them and use a lot of rise/fall or use them for 6x17.

As for 90mm vs 65mm, I would say get a 90mm first - to me these are workhorse lenses, a "put my 90mm in the coffin with me when I die" sort of focal length on 5x4, whereas 65mm is more of a niche special occasion type of lens.

[Mick Fagan]

I have both of these lenses, both Fujinon and both 67mm filter size.

For quite some time I thought I needed a 75mm lens so I could have some movements greater than the approximately 5mm possible movements with the Fujinon f/5.6 65mm SWD lens. Then after some years with the 65mm I realised that having the 65mm lens with the wider coverage and almost no movements mostly just needed cropping to emulate (so to speak) a 75mm lens. If you really do need some movements, then a 65mm really isn't that good, but it is a very nice lens and I use mine surprisingly often.

I have a Heliopan centre graduated filter for my 65mm, for me having this filter makes the 65mm perfect, but your kilometreage may be different.

I have the Fujinon 90mm f/8 with more coverage than my cameras can handle, I really use it a lot for architectural use.

If you are only able to purchase one lens at a time, then get a 90mm first.

I once used the 90mm then I decided to use the 65mm with no change of the camera/tripod to physically see the differences. The 90mm lens was my chosen lens for the picture, but on a whim I wondered what real difference the 65mm lens would produce.




The 65mm lens for some landscape pictures cannot be beaten, at least as far as I'm concerned that is. This picture below, taken 9 years ago, was the picture that sold me on my Fujinon SWD f/5.6 65mm lens for just what it could do. The wire on the ground is around 400mm from the lens and combined with the centre graduated filter which ensured the sky in the corners stayed the same right across the long side of the negative; I was hooked on my 65mm lens.

The landscape 65mm picture has had the foreground cropped slightly, hence the slight panoramic effect.

[Lars Holte]

I have the Fujinon-SWD 65mm f:5.6 lens and don't find it as sharp as my other Fujinon or Schneider lenses.

Here is a direct comparison between the 65mm Fujinon and the Schneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 90mm f:8:

Fujinon-SWD 65mm f:5.6 (with yellow filter):


Schneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 90mm f:8 (with no filter):


I also have the Fuji Fujinon-SWD 90mm f:5.6, which is a steller lens - but big: