Wide angle on the RZ

[LMNOP]

Hey APUG! If you've followed my last thread, I am going to work on my RZ kit, building the variety up a bit, especially after an astrophotography venture last night. I have NO idea how the negatives will turn out, but I shot on two different bodies, neither of which had a wide enough perspective for what I was looking to accomplish.

The 50mm F4 for RZ has a W version, and a non W version.

The 65mm has an ML A and a W version.

First of all, anyone has a preference of 50 vs. 65?

SECOND and most importantly, will I really see a difference with the ML A? I know a friend has one and he swears by that 65mm, but I want to save room in the budget wherever I can.

Thoughts? Examples?

 

[pedrocruz]

I've used a 65mm L-A for a while, and is a great lens, and when corrected, the correction plays a big difference in corner sharpness.

 

[LMNOP]

I've used a 65mm L-A for a while, and is a great lens, and when corrected, the correction plays a big difference in corner sharpness.

You have to correct for sharpness in the corners? Is this in post editing or on-lens?

 

[LMNOP]

Anyone have issues with KEH Bargain status for a lens?

 

[M Carter]

Anyone have issues with KEH Bargain status for a lens?

Everything I've purchased from KEH rated "bargain" I would have rated "excellent". I've gotten BGN items from them that look almost mint.

 

[flavio81]

You have to correct for sharpness in the corners? Is this in post editing or on-lens?

He might be referring to the "floating system" ring in the lens. You need to set this ring to the approximate shooting distance in use, so the lens stays "corrected" (or optimum) for that shooting distance.

 

[EdSawyer]

Both the 50 and 65 most recent versions have the floating element correction. The price difference between them and the old versions is negligible (<$150 I am sure), so it makes sense to get the latest versions. I have them both, and they are superb (65 M/L-A, 50 ULD). The 50 is wider of course, but the 65 is great for things like environmental portraits, etc. Get both! And get the 37mm fisheye too - that's a great lens also. Wide but not insane, and has less barrel distortion than any other fisheye I have ever used (not sure if it uses a different-than-most projection or not... )

-Ed

 

[Alan Gales]

I had the 50mm ULD and I highly recommend it for a wide angle. As far as which is better a 50 or 65 depends upon what you are shooting.

 

[LMNOP]

I just sort of impulsively purchased a 65 f4 original - not the la or w - not worried about the loss of features, though I don't know if it'll be wide enough for the star trails I want to capture. I think I'll skip the 50 for the fisheye if I can, keep the 65 anyway. We will see! Bargain condition from KEH, hopefully it works!

 

[chris77]

I just sort of impulsively purchased a 65 f4 original - not the la or w - not worried about the loss of features, though I don't know if it'll be wide enough for the star trails I want to capture. I think I'll skip the 50 for the fisheye if I can, keep the 65 anyway. We will see! Bargain condition from KEH, hopefully it works!

if i had to chose one lens only, i guess i might keep the 65mm.
it is extremely sharp and focusses very(!) close.
enjoy..

chris

 

[LMNOP]

if i had to chose one lens only, i guess i might keep the 65mm.
it is extremely sharp and focusses very(!) close.
enjoy..

chris

Ive heard this lens is really sharp, but does that statement apply to all of the 65 lenses for the RZ or just the floating element? I opted for the cheapest one, Don from KEH (great sales rep) seemed excited about any option and did not try to upsell, I like that.

 

[EdSawyer]

I have the 65 M/L-A, never had the earlier one, but the later one is superbly sharp, agreed. Probably the above statement really mostly just applies to the later one. Given the price difference (minimal), you should really go with the latest and greatest versions of these lenses. A nice 65 M/L-A can be had for $200-300 on ebay, which is a steal considering they were (are?) ~$1800+ new, at least back in the late '90s.

 

[LMNOP]

I have the 65 M/L-A, never had the earlier one, but the later one is superbly sharp, agreed. Probably the above statement really mostly just applies to the later one. Given the price difference (minimal), you should really go with the latest and greatest versions of these lenses. A nice 65 M/L-A can be had for $200-300 on ebay, which is a steal considering they were (are?) ~$1800+ new, at least back in the late '90s.

Yeah, sort of wishing I went with the M/L-A, I can always return it depending on how it works. I just noticed they have a 250mm for 109, I can see myself having way too many lenses in a few weeks.