RB67 65mm vs. 75mm lenses

Has anyone used both of these lenses, and can offer an opinion? The 75mm was available only in the KL model. The 65mm was available in all models: non-C, C and KL.

I am looking at KL versions of both, or a C version of the 65.

I want to use one of these focal lengths for architecture, still life and some portraits.

I have a 50 Sekor C and like it, however there is a fair amount of barrel distortion which needs to be planned ahead for in camera or in PP. I have read a couple of reviews on the 65 and 75, and it seems they both also have barrel distortion. Not a deal breaker but curious to know real world opinions.

How are these lenses for:

- sharpness
- contrast
- build quality
- distortion (barrel or otherwise)

Thanks for any input.

I have not tried the 75, but the 65 is one of my favorite lenses. It's sharp and with a lens hood it has plenty of contrast to me. Without the hood, it is prone to flare and a lack of contrast. I've used both the slip on hood and the compendium hood and both work for me. Build quality on my one example is good. Barrel distortion is not particularly noticeable in real photos - the lens is much better in that respect than the 50.

The RB67 gate size is 56mm x 69.2mm, so 65mm on RB67 is like using 28mm lens on 135 format (in terms of vertical FOV)., whereas 65mm FL on RB67 is more like shooting with 32mm on 135...I find that 24mm FL on 135 is far more useful for architectural interiors with 135.

75mm FL is useful for portraiture on the context of full length standing portraits...it forces you to be too close to your subject, and leading to less-pleasing facial perspective for head & shoulders shots... I simply cannot condone a head & shoulders shot with 32mm FL on 135 format camera!

Thanks juan and wiltw. The 65 seems like a better FL for interiors. wiltw I agree that wide lenses need to be used with special considerations for portraits, and they create unwanted results if not used in the right situation.

I have a 65mm C version and really like it. If you are concerned about critical sharpness be sure to get one with the floating element (I understand the older non C version did not have the floating element). I shoot mostly B/W and find the contrast of the 65mm to be fine. As far as composition goes it feels very comfortable to work with- the extra depth of field over the "standard" lens is appreciated!

pthornto said:

I have a 65mm C version and really like it. If you are concerned about critical sharpness be sure to get one with the floating element (I understand the older non C version did not have the floating element). I shoot mostly B/W and find the contrast of the 65mm to be fine. As far as composition goes it feels very comfortable to work with- the extra depth of field over the "standard" lens is appreciated!

Click to expand...

And if you have one with the floating element (really useful but only for closeups) be sure to set the "float" back to infinity when done using it closer.

I've got the 65mm, original, non-C, no floating element. I only use it for B&W, but it's a heck of a lens. I regularly do 16x20 prints from those negs, and they're really snazzy (I do use a Parallel on my enlarger).

I don't know how important the floating element is, but getting one may be a wait til one turns up. I can find no fault with the old 65 if you see one for a good price. (I got my 65 and a 127 for $110 or so - the 127 had a spot of fungus, which came right out).

I do want to get a 50, for some of the things I do I just want a little more "drama". My 6x6 pinhole is maybe a 40mm equivalent, when I get used to that the 65 on the RB seems a little "ehh".