I usually shoot 4x5 but I find that I really like my recently acquired RZ67 with 110mm lens. My next lens will be a wide angel and I'm seriously considering the 65mm lens. Question is will I really see a difference in prints made with the lens containing the floating element and one without? The consensus I've found is that people prefer the 65 to the 50 as well. Why is this?
I believe the floating element is a newer design intended to reduce the distortion of wide angle lenses. The one without will be less expensive but should provide the same sharpness. The 50mm lens gives a bit wider angle, but stacking 77mm filters will result in vignetting. I have both 65mm and 50mm and use the 65mm more, but that is really a personal preference. You will find the 65mm gives a huge difference in angle of view from the 110mm.
Bob
__________________
"I always take a camera, That way I never have to say 'Gee, look at that - I wish I had a camera'" -Joe Clark, H.B.S.S.
Thanks for the information. If I don't get the lens with the floating element I will always wonder what kind of difference it would make so I guess I'll have to be patient save some money and then get one. I really like 4x5 but the film and processing costs are stopping me from experimenting and I really need to experiment to improve my photography.
I have used an RZ with a 50mm & 90mm lens for years and almost allways used the 50mm for landscapes. But I did find that I was having to crop my negs a little due to the vignetting I was getting with just one filter attached, so when I bought my Mamiya 7 last year I opted for the 65mm lens and i love it. It's still pretty wide and no vignetting.
I know I'm talking about a different camera and don't know how the same focal length lens compares on each but I now want to get a 65mm for the RZ.
Peter
__________________
"you get your mouth off of my finger" Les McLean
I sold of of my RZ gear a year ago, but I found a big difference betwen the Floating element lens and the 65mm W. The Floating element lens was sharper, had better contrast and was less prone to vignetting, at least in my case. I could see no difference in small prints, say 5x7 or so but over 8x10 there was, at least to me, a noticable difference.
Hope it helps.
Gary
__________________
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
The Floating element lens was sharper, had better contrast and was less prone to vignetting, at least in my case. I could see no difference in small prints, say 5x7 or so but over 8x10 there was, at least to me, a noticable difference.
Hope it helps.
Gary
Gary,
Thanks, that is exactly what I wanted to know. Now, for a personal question, if you don't mind: Why did you sell off your RZ kit?
so when I bought my Mamiya 7 last year I opted for the 65mm lens and i love it. It's still pretty wide and no vignetting.
I know I'm talking about a different camera and don't know how the same focal length lens compares on each but I now want to get a 65mm for the RZ.
Peter
Thanks Peter,
Is the Mamiya 7 as good as people make it out to be? Like I originally said I also shoot 4x5 and I'm looking for a decent 6x7 camera as well since 135 doesn't really cut it for landscapes for me. The Mamiya 7 is expensive but it sure would be easier carrying it to the top of a mountain when compared to my 4x5 kit or the RZ for that matter. If there was an easy way to use neutral density grads on the Mamiya 7 it would be very tempting.
Thanks, that is exactly what I wanted to know. Now, for a personal question, if you don't mind: Why did you sell off your RZ kit?
Scott
Too much stuff honestly. I was (and still am) using my hassy and Mamiya 7II gear alot more than I used the RZ, not to mention LF which gets the most use.
Good Luck with you choice.
Gary
__________________
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
RZ67 65mm lens 
Linear Mode
