Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Ben Syverson]

Woah, one 65 package has become available! $399 for a Travelwide 65 + Lens

[Tin Can]

Shit, and I just bought 2 other cameras and an enlarger. Not today!

The 90 will still be just fine with me.

This deal will not last long at all.

[Jim Cole]

And it didn't!

[Tin Can]

I looked at it, I could have clicked, but I am not a wide angle guy, too many years shooting 50 mm on a Pentax.

And it didn't!

[AuditorOne]

I looked at it, I could have clicked, but I am not a wide angle guy, too many years shooting 50 mm on a Pentax.

+1

90 is wide enough for me. It was exactly what I wanted. A 65 would be wasted on me as I would hardly ever use it. Besides, if I did use anything that wide it would be for interior architecture and for that I would absolutely need movements.

[Roger Cole]

I like wide but not THAT wide. In fact, I'd really rather have something like 120-135 on 4x5, but I'll take the 90. Not really interested in the 65 much less anything shorter, and not just because I have a 90 but nothing shorter. Anything shorter is a specialty lens for specialty shots (on 4x5 anyway - of course you could use it with a rollfilm back like he shows the Calumet working, but then why not buy yourself an RB67 or a 6x6 or 645?) Wider requires careful leveling. Wider REALLY needs front rise in many circumstances. Wider really needs...well, a view camera. For a point and shoot 90 is about as wide as I care to go. I can understand that folks will do cool things with the 65, though I think it will be a lot more limited than 90, but 47? Really?

[Tin Can]

I don't even like 50 mm on my RB. 127 just right on 6X7. Since I do have a 90 for 4X5, but don't use it, this will force me to do some wide. And that will be good!

[Ken Ford]

I had a chance to handle Ben's prototype today - very impressive. It tipped me over into subscribing for a 65, and I even found what looks like a clean Super Angulon 65/8 for something less than spot pricing. Life is good.

[Tin Can]

Jealous!

[Ken Ford]

Jealous!