RB67 Lens Dilemma - 50mm or 65mm?

[Kirks518]

I want/need a wide angle for my RB67SD, and I can't decide between the 50 or the 65. I currently have the 90/180/250 and a 2xTC, so I'm good on normal/portrait/tele.

I'd like opinions on the two wides, and if you've used both, which did you prefer, and why? It would be used primarily for architecture and landscape, with some other stuff mixed in.

 

[whlogan]

Well, the 65 is an akward lens at best events. I have both and the 50 is far and away the better lens. A 65 will always make you say "Gosh I wish I Had the 50" Or I wish I had the 50mm for this shot". Having the 50 and you can always crop. Enough of this diatribe... you want to shoot wide angle? get a 50mm.... and never look back....

Logan

 

[Kirks518]

Thanks. That's pretty much what I was thinking, but I guess I just needed a little reassurance.

 

[Alan Gales]

This chart is for the RZ67 lenses but it gives 35mm equivalents for both the 50mm and 65mm which would be the same on the RB.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/comp_mamiyamed_10.html

Both the 50mm and 65mm focal lengths are popular. It just depends upon how wide you want. For what it's worth I used to own the 50mm ULD for the RZ and loved it. It felt like my old 25mm on my Contax 35mm cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Similar experience but with 80mm lenses as the normal. I had a Mamiya 330 with a 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lens. The 65mm was never wide enough and a 55mm would have been a better choice. With the Hasselblad again the 60mm lens was too close to the 80mm lens and just not wide enough. So for the Hasselblad the 50mm lens was perfect. Based on those experiences I would strongly recommend the 50mm lens over the 65mm lens for the RB67.

 

[j-dogg]

I went through this dilemma and decided on the 50. It has a minimal amount of distortion and is very sharp even wide open. There are some negative scans in my gallery if you wanna check them out.

I love it to pieces and it can mount two standard size filters with no vignette.

 

[Kirks518]

I went through this dilemma and decided on the 50. It has a minimal amount of distortion and is very sharp even wide open. There are some negative scans in my gallery if you wanna check them out.

I love it to pieces and it can mount two standard size filters with no vignette.

That was really about the biggest concern I had, although everything I see/read says no distortion. Hearing it from another user just reinforces the 50mm as my choice. Great gallery, btw.

 

[j-dogg]

That was really about the biggest concern I had, although everything I see/read says no distortion. Hearing it from another user just reinforces the 50mm as my choice. Great gallery, btw.

Thanks!

Its only noticeable in the absolute farthest corners and you have to be shooting round circular objects on your corners, essentially the only way you will see it is if you shoot a test sheet.

For %99.9999 of practical and professional applications its perfect, if I had to do it all over again I would get the 50.

 

[MattKing]

Just to be different ....

My "standard" kit is a 65mm + 140mm pair.

When I want wide, I add the 50mm. When I want long, its the 180mm.

I use a 35mm lens as my "standard" lens for 135.

And a 55mm lens as my "standard" lens for 6x4.5.

The 65mm serves as my standard lens for 6x6 too.

 

[flavio81]

I have the 50mm and i'm happy with it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I want/need a wide angle for my RB67SD, and I can't decide between the 50 or the 65. I currently have the 90/180/250 and a 2xTC, so I'm good on normal/portrait/tele.

I'd like opinions on the two wides, and if you've used both, which did you prefer, and why? It would be used primarily for architecture and landscape, with some other stuff mixed in.

my rule of thumb for all formats says:get half and double the normal focal length.I think you are half -way thgere with your 90 and 180.Now get the 50mm to complete a great set.

 

[nwilkins]

well I might be going against the grain but I have a Pro-SD body and a 180mm KL, 90mm KL, 65mm KL and 50mm C lens. I have yet to see/use any lenses that perform better than the 180, 90 and 65 lenses. They are as good or better than any of the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses I have used.

The 50mm C lens I carry only on paid shoots in case I absolutely need the width. Otherwise the image quality is not on par with the others, though I have no idea if this is because the KL lenses are somehow better. The 50mm has fairly noticeable barrel distortion. Also when shooting colour the 50mm creates significant colour fringing whereas the other lenses do not.

So I would say go with the 65mm, but I stress that I am only comparing the 50mm C with the 65mm KL (I believe a wholly different lens design than the 65mm C) so no idea how the 50mm C would stack up with a 65mm C lens.

Here is an example of the 50mm distortion I am talking about - the walls/floor and window of this room are actually very straight:

 

[Alan Klein]

50mm will aggravate the distortion in the lines more so than 65mm noticeable more with your architectural shots. I shoot landscape however and I;m very happy with the 50mm.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/50mm/

 

[flavio81]

Here is an example of the 50mm distortion I am talking about - the walls/floor and window of this room are actually very straight:

That distortion looks still reasonable, considering this is a lens with an 82° angle of view...

 

[Xmas]

I could not decide so I got both.

 

[nwilkins]

That distortion looks still reasonable, considering this is a lens with an 82° angle of view...

the angle of view for the long dimension of the film is 69 degrees. It is certainly far more barrel distortion than I see on my 24/2.8 Nikkor lens, which offers a slightly wider angle of view. In any case none of this distortion is present on the 65mm KL lens, which as I said is one of the reasons I prefer the 65 unless the 50's width is absolutely needed.

 

[480sparky]

..................Here is an example of the 50mm distortion I am talking about - the walls/floor and window of this room are actually very straight:

That's simply perspective distortion......not a fault of the lens.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

When I had my RB67 I bought the 50mm first and cropped, if needed. Then I added the 65mm later because I didn't like the large difference in focal length to 90mm. BTW, I also added the 127mm to fill the space between the 90mm and 180mm.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That's simply perspective distortion......not a fault of the lens.

He may be referring to the pincushion distortion seen as inward curving of straight lines.

 

[StoneNYC]

You should get an RZ camera and buy my 50mm RZ lens

The 50 is great on my RZ67 I just don't use it that often because I have the Mamiya7 and my LF gear so it has to go.

On my Mamiya7 I use a 65mm and 43mm and on the RZ I use a 90mm and 50mm (until I sell the 50mm).

It's all individual to what you're shooting and such.

The distortion issues on the 50 are highly over-exaggerated, it's a really nice lens.

I feel like "big jumps" are more important for an all around better option when shooting, so if you have a 90 or 75mm already, don't bother with the 65mm and go for the 50mm, if you don't have those, the 65 might be more valuable.

Really it's up to you to decide.

 

[Kirks518]

I could not decide so I got both.

That's actually what I first thought of doing, and then sell the one I found I didn't use or like. I do that too often when I can't make up my mind between two or three items I'm interested in. If there were still brick and mortars around to see touch and try things, it would be so much easier. But I think I'm going to grab the 50mm, as it was initially what I wanted, and everything I read and hear about it is good (well, 99%).

 

[Sirius Glass]

well I might be going against the grain but I have a Pro-SD body and a 180mm KL, 90mm KL, 65mm KL and 50mm C lens. I have yet to see/use any lenses that perform better than the 180, 90 and 65 lenses. They are as good or better than any of the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses I have used.

The 50mm C lens I carry only on paid shoots in case I absolutely need the width. Otherwise the image quality is not on par with the others, though I have no idea if this is because the KL lenses are somehow better. The 50mm has fairly noticeable barrel distortion. Also when shooting colour the 50mm creates significant colour fringing whereas the other lenses do not.

So I would say go with the 65mm, but I stress that I am only comparing the 50mm C with the 65mm KL (I believe a wholly different lens design than the 65mm C) so no idea how the 50mm C would stack up with a 65mm C lens.

Here is an example of the 50mm distortion I am talking about - the walls/floor and window of this room are actually very straight:

I think that the distortion in not significant considering that the camera was not held level not perpendicular to the facing wall.

 

[nwilkins]

He may be referring to the pincushion distortion seen as inward curving of straight lines.

I am indeed.

 

[480sparky]

He may be referring to the pincushion distortion seen as inward curving of straight lines.

So am I. It's perspective distortion.

Think of it this way. Stand in the middle of a railroad track. The rails converge close to the horizon, do they not? They 'appear' furthest apart right at your feet.

Now, turn around, and the same effect occurs in the other direction.


Now, explain how you would design a lens that will maintain those parallel tracks equidistant in a photo that was taken by a wide-angle lens held above the tracks looking straight down.

The corners of the room and the window frame is the same thing..... if you extend those lines to the horizon, they will appear to converge. Perspective distortion!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Pincushion and barrel distortions are not the same thing as perspective distortion. They're just the lack of near total correction of linearity distortions.