Thanks Keith. Does anyone know if there's a big difference between the 65mm L-A and the standard 65mm? My budget for a wide-angle was about $250. It seems the L-A lenses go for at least $350 usually.
I don't mind fixing lens distortion digitally, since my workflow involves scanning. That said, if the 50mm is noticeably less sharp than the 65mm (likewise with the L-A vs non L-A), that can't be fixed afterward.
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah.
Well, if you're open to digital post-processing then maybe the ordinary 50 will be okay for you. But then again you can stitch images from the 65...
I don't know about the non L-A 65 but I suspect that it is very good as well. I had an rb 65 that I liked very much- zero complaints. I went to the rz 65 L-A recently when I picked up an rz for the 110.
I have both the 50mm uld and 65mm m-la. Both are quite sharp, shaper than the 110mm f2.8 I would wager. The 65mm is probably slightly crisper, but it doesn't matter if you don't use a cable release, for instance. The 50mm is also a great near-macro lens. Both exhibit noticeably distortion compared with large format lenses.
Those prices sound a bit high to me and I bet you can do a little better. I kind of want to sell these lenses but I can't bring myself to until I convince myself I can achieve the same quality consistently with large format!
The 50mm uld seems overpriced simply because all well-corrected ultra-wides are (it's no better than the 65mm; just wider) but I would go for the m-la over the regular 65mm just because this is like the sharpest lens on the system and not that much more expensive.
Yes, the 65 l-a is much sharper and contrastier than the 110. The 110 is really all about smoothness of bokeh and people-friendly contrast, it's not nearly as critically sharp as say the 90 or 127 lenses. In my book, the 110 is basically a wide-normal portrait lens. I have rigged it to LF camera for macro fun though, in that case the speed makes it quite enjoyable.
The 110 is easily the sharpest of the normal RZ lenses, newer, better and sharper than the 90 or 127 in my experience. The 65 L/A is a tiny bit sharper than the 110 but not that much. The 110 is more consistent across the frame, at all apertures. Check the Chris Perez tests. Also, Modern and Popular photo both did tests of the RZ lenses back in the day.
Both the RZ 50s are quite good. Of course the ULD is better but if you are not shooting close-up the regular 50 is a bargain and still very good. I have had both at the same time. Also have the 65 L/A and 110. I'd not hesitate to get a normal 50 (nonULD) if you want a really wide lens.
the 65 L/A can be had for under $200 with some patience on Ebay. I paid $190 for mine in as-new condition. Usually the 50 non-ULD can be had anywhere in the $200-350 range. ULD 50 is usually at least $575-675.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yeah, the 110mm seems quite sharp to me by f8 or f5.6 (though not as good as the 65mm) and even remarkably decent at f2.8 if significantly less contrasty. I haven't used the other normal lenses, though.
How close up do you have to focus for the 110mm to cover 4x5, by the way? I would LOVE to use this on 4x5. And how do you actuate the shutter?
I paid about $280 I think for the 65mm in new condition and $300 for the ULD in very good condition. I want to sell them to finance a new large format lens but they perform too well for the money! Anyhow, if you can get it for under $200 then you would be crazy to ignore the 65mm m l-a. It's nice (and it's huge, which is kind of cool, too).
Last edited by Policar; 11-20-2010 at 08:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I had the 65 LA, wasn't feeling the perspective so I sold it for the 50 ULD. A nice bonus is that the 50 ULD is smaller and lighter than the 65, as well as being ridiculously crisp.
It'll cover 4x5 at typical portrait distances; it gives a ~3" image circle at infinity, not half bad.
Originally Posted by Policar
I don't bother with the shutter, I just set the lens to "T" and open the shutter with a cable release and hand shutter.
I use this lens for LF macro. It is super bright of course, which is wonderful when you're going past 1:1 macro. I have a pasta homage to Weston in the galleries that was done with this lens, on 5x7.
Sorry if i'm asking something off topic..... How is this RZ 65 m/la lens significantly different than the earlier 65mm Sekor C (w/floating element) for the RB67 - aside, obviously, from mounting dimensions?
That's very cool that you got that to work; the shot looks good, too.
Originally Posted by keithwms
Guide me through this since I'm dumb, though; I see the cable release and time slider on the lens and I'd be okay using just time exposures, but don't know how to close the shutter by hand on the lens.
Also, can I just buy a copal 3 lensboard and jb weld on a hollowed-out rz67 lenscap to mount this thing?
In theory, any 6x7 lens should have a 90mm or so image circle, at least. There's such a big chunk of dead metal at the end of the 110mm lens I wonder if that could be increased if it weren't for mechanical vignetting. If I could use this for portraits (despite the less-than-ideal focal length) I'd no longer want that 150mm xenotar so much.