RZ67 50mm or 65mm lens

I have an RZ67 with 110mm lens. I'm looking to get a wide angle for landscape and around town shots. Cost will probably rule out the floating element models. Can anyone give some guidance on which would be better and is there any difference between the F4 and F4 W in the 65mm? Any comments greatly appreciated.

The W would be newer. I always forget what the improvements are over the 1st line.

Which to get? :confused: The 65mm is already fairly wide. But it's your choice on how wide.

I have an RB67 with both 65mm and 50mm. For me, 65mm is ideal, it's similar to a 35mm lens on 35mm film which is perfect for my general purpose shots (I always found the 90mm on my RB67 just a little too narrow in field of view). The 50mm is pretty wide, a little too wide for most shots for me, though gives great perspective when you need it. To summarise, both focal lengths are great but I get more use out of 65mm, it's my general purpose lens if I have to take out just one focal length.

I have an RZ with the 50mm 4.5 W and the 75mm 3.5...I think it is an "L" lens. Both a very satisfactory lenses. I have never owned or used an RZ 65mm lens. The 75mm 3.5 lens was discountinued due to poor response in the market place...I am guessing. Certainly it is a top notch RZ lens but it is fairly rare.

I have an oldie rb 65 and actually it's very good. That would be the lowest end option and I think it'll satisfy you. Just be sure to hood the thing. As I mentioned elsewhere, the rb 50 is the only rb lens that disappointed me. But then again, I was comparing to the 50 on the mamiya 6, so...

Now there is no denying that the new 50 uld is at the top of the heap, in terms of edge to edge performance. It will depend on your ultimate goals as a wide angle shooter, whether it's worth waiting and saving. I think in the broader context of how much wide angle performance has cost in the past, a used 50 uld at US$1000 or so is actually quite a bargain.

I'll just add, for amusement, that I think the rb fisheye is shockingly good! Good enough that you might consider shooting that and cropping. Especially if you are open to post-scan corrections, I think it is a really under-rated option for ultrawide. Not in the same league as a 50 uld or 65, but I am just saying... well maybe I was expecting it to be complete crap and that's why I was so pleasantly surprised...

I will be playing with the 75 SB this weekend and can comment later.

The RZ fisheye is good to Plus relatively it seems one of the better MF fisheye deals.

P.S. A mini-review of the 75 short barrel plus the rz tilt & shift adapter:

After a bit of time with the 75 short barrel and the t&s adapter, I am concluding that it's really not a good solution for architecture at all. The lens is roughly 35mm equiv., which makes it much too narrow for interiors, plus the t&s gizmo gives only ~1cm up and down, delivering almost no perspective correction for buildings small enough to fit into the field of view. A ~$300 crown graphic is far more capable, in terms of rendering interiors.

On a slightly more positive note, as a pano option, if you are open to stitching two frames together then you can probably get ~6x9 out of it using the rb 6x8 back. The image circle is probably substantial enough for that.

On another positive note, the tilt is sufficient for some creative effects at far focus. At near focus (i.e. tabletop) it's not really going to deliver anything special in that regard- you can mount just about any of the other lenses on the t&s gizmo if close focus and a bit of tilt is the only need. In this case the t&s gizmo just acts as a t&s macro spacer.

So for many of the purposes one associates with t&s, I think the 50 uld is far and away the best option... you would crop and/or correct perspective in post.

Concerning build, the 75 SB is well made, but it is a *big* piece. Think rb/rz fisheye but bigger! It lacks floating element correction and also has no simple way to deploy a filter (I guess I'd put one on the back). The lens is well made and has a lovely solid metal front cap, and like most rb/rz lenses it is built for battle. If launched from a cannon it would probably penetrate armor and still be usable for photography afterwards.

Bottom line for me: I am unconvinced by the 75 SB + t&s option; it is simply too narrow in application for my taste. The 180 SB may actually be more interesting, since it is closer to the field of view I'd want for portraits and perhaps landscapes. I find ~35mm equiv kinda blah.

keithwms said:

I have an oldie rb 65 and actually it's very good. That would be the lowest end option and I think it'll satisfy you. Just be sure to hood the thing. As I mentioned elsewhere, the rb 50 is the only rb lens that disappointed me. But then again, I was comparing to the 50 on the mamiya 6, so...

Click to expand...

Hi Keith,

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I had the same question. I'm looking for a 50 or 65mm wide-angle lens for my RZ67. Why were you disappointed with the 50mm? I can't afford the ULD so I'll have to go for the regular 50mm f4.5 W. The 65mm is also an option and around the same price. I am looking for a good lens for landscape photography and for taking pictures of outdoor lighting on homes at night.

Any help would be appreciated.

Nick

I'd go for the 65. I find lenses much wider than that on 6x7 to have limited utility for what I shoot when shooting landscapes. They are just too wide for me. YMMV.

Nick, the issues I had were with the rb 50. It had significant distortion and wasn't as critically sharp as I had hoped, especially in the corners (although, as I noted elsewhere, I was thoroughly spoiled by a 50mm on a mamiya 6 at the time I reviewed the rb 50).

The rz 50 ULD is very good. But if it's out of your price range... well, I now have an rz 65 L-A and I like it very much. It is a very sweet lens at a good price. If you don't really need that extra few degrees of coverage, the 65 is what I'd recommend.

For landscape and scenics you might be 100% satisfied with the non-ULD 50. For things like architecture, forget it... in my opinion.

Overall though... for me the 65 is tops.

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.

FWIW
-Ed

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.

Policar said:

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?

Click to expand...

It'll cover 4x5 at typical portrait distances; it gives a ~3" image circle at infinity, not half bad.

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 (there was a url link here which no longer exists) 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?

Policar said:

That's very cool that you got that to work; the shot looks good, too.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.