Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
The difference of lenses is the perspective difference which is provided...it is so unusual to the brain. It is not accustomed to having the relative size of something close be so radically different in size to something farther away but reduced in scale by the perspective difference.
I guess we can boil this down to: "the perspective seems to look pretty normal with the 65". As a matter of fact: several of the 65mm shots I saw remind me of my 110mm shots (perspective wise). I guess I should rephrase my original question to "why do the 65mm shots look more like 110mm shots than 50mm shots?" And your reply has some merit here: "because the 65mm images don't look unusual enough to tickle our brain, whereas the 50mm shots definitely do".
Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
I disagree that 'you can simply crop 65mm out of a 50mm shot'...the perspective is different. Cropping changes framing, but you cannot get the same perspective from the cropped shot since the initial shooting position is different. If I frame an area which is 1000' away, I capture 1200x1400' with the 50mm lens, but I have to be 1300' away to capture the same framing with the 65mm lens, so my relationship between items in the near field vs. in the far field is greatly changed.
What you describe here is not cropping but changing shooting position. If you crop to make a 50mm image look like a 65mm image, you maintain the same position and just use a subsection of your negative to make the print. And in this case you do get the same result (ideal film and lens assumed, of course).
Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
I was going to recommend the 65, as it seems to be what you are looking for.
Your reasons are workable if you want a wider lens too, but from the original post it seems like you're giving yourself an unneeded hassle.

If you decide later you'd rather have the 50, you could sell the 65 and get the 50.
My conclusions from this thread so far are: the 50 is an entirely different lens than the 65, so the question shouldn't be "50 or 65?", but "which lens for which purpose?". If you look in the equipment forum, lots of people ask "50 or 65?", because they appear so similar from a technical stand point, and the arguments for or against either lens were mostly based on technical specs like sharpness or distortions. The aim of this thread was to present and analyze the difference between these lenses from a compositional view as it applies to landscape photography. My conclusion so far is: the 65mm images do not look all that different from my 110mm images, and the 50mm lens tends to produce a very pronounced look which would not necessarily suit my task and has a potential to become a cliche look (if it hasn't already).