I wonder if there might be more bang/buck impact by putting the money into a 65/5.6? The lens itself isn't huge, but there's more coverage. Those who have them both might know whether more coverage brings less fall-off in the crucial zone?
That's a question, not an assertion!
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
Jimbo, use the list. It has a link to my article on center filters. The article answers your questions. If you don't know what the list is, ask.
Oh, yeah, film's latitude is your friend.
Michael, I have a 65/8 Ilex (= 65/8 SA clone), 65/8 Fuji (the same, don't ask) and a 65/5.6 SA (the price was so right that I couldn't resist). All have the same fall off. The f/5.6 has better image quality farther out and, as expected, less illumination out there. It is brighter wide open than the f/8ers, which I've never had difficulty focusing.
Thanks ! This is a big help. Knowing the falloff is the same for all 65mm lenses, I will not invest in a 5.6 version hoping for less issues. I seldom use my 65mm and use it on a Pacemaker Graphic 4x5 so with the lens buried in the body, there is not a lot of room for movements anyway. Let me know info on your list.
Jimbo, the link is in the first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.i...mainly)-lenses discussion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks