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.
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.
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.
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?
If you really want to use the shutter speeds on the lens, the thing to do is use an rb lens instead, those have the speeds controlled on the lens. Then you can take the front piece off the rb and use it to cock the lens etc. Erie Patsellis has written about this here on apug many times.
Originally Posted by Policar
With the rz 110, I hand-shutter only. An enterprising electrician could fire the shutter electronically but you'd still need the cocking mechanism.
Yes you could put it on a copal shutter if you feel so industrious. But I find that I can easily hand shutter reliably to a quarter sec or so and do lights on/off if I need faster, so that is fine for me. Again, I am mostly using it at close focus and macro, and with the available LF films, we're not talking fast shutter speeds.