65mm vs. 75mm, angle of coverage actual/phsycological

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

Hi, Everyone.

I'm considering buying a 65mm f8 Ilex Acugon for those situations where the Rodenstock 75mm won't cut it.

Is there a substantive differnce between these two focal lengths based on coverage only (not concerned about light fall off, recessment etc.)? How much more do you see through the viewfinder--not just numbers, but how does it "feel" visually compared to the 75mm? Is it somewhat like going from a 24mm to a 20mm in small format, or is it not as noticable?



-- Peter Chipman (chippete@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002


Sorry, forgot to mention that I mostly do landscape work--Like to emphasize the forground a lot.

-- Peter Chipman (chippete@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

...and one more thing... Although the Image Circle for this lens is only 155mm, (egad, 5mm to spare!), would it be fair to say that, as far as DOF goes, less movement is required from this lens? Otherwise, ya, I guess I won't be able to make tree trunks straight without some serious cropping. BTW, I picked it up (just bought it on eBay) in EX+ condition (clean glass with slight cosmetic wear) for $260...Would you say this is a fair price, or did I just make a seller very happy?

-- Peter Chipman (chippete@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

Hi Peter

I don`t know this lens, but you should do a shooting and you will find it out if its sharp to the corners or not. But for the price everything should working fine and I would not buy a 65 mm I would buy the 55mm Rodenstock then you know you have the best. It could of course also be the 58mm Schneider. With F8 It is very difficult to see the composition on the groundglas in thad focal lenght.

Good luck!

-- Armin Seeholzer (armin.seeholzer@smile.ch), March 26, 2002.

It sounds like you are confusing angle of coverage with angle of view,two totally diferent concepts.The angle of view difference here is as follows:a 65mm lens has the angle of view =to an 18mm lens in 35mm,a 65 = a 21mm lens in 35mm.The angle of coverage is based usually on stopped down to F22 or so,this is the amount of circle projected onto the rectangular frame.A lens with more coverage has a larger circle,and allows more movements of the camera/lens.Generally cheap wides have little room for movement,where cheap teles have lots of movement area.An expensive wide will have a lot more coverage,or greater angle of coverage.Hope this helps.

-- Edsel Adams (mrchippy628@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

I have owned both a 65mm and a 75mm lens, and can say there is a significant difference between the two; I mainly used the 65mm lens with a 6x12 roll-film back, but even with 4x5, it provides a significantly wider angle of view. That said, I eventually went with a Rodenstock 75mm f/4.5 because of the increased coverage - the 65mm lens was just too limiting on the movements, and as it was an f/8 lens, it was often hard to focus.

-- Eric Boutilier-Brown (ericbb@evolvingbeauty.com), March 26, 2002.

My apologies. I meant to say angle of view.

Thanks, Eric. That's what I was trying to get at. Also, I'd love to have the 58 XL, but for now I'll just have to drool.


-- Peter Chipman (chippete@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

I looked at 75 and a 65 mm lenses as well, and I settled on the 65 for a number of reasons. First it's pretty much like a 20 mm lens (possibly a bit wider) in 35 mm format, while the 75 is more like a 24. I love what my 20 does for me in 35 mm and wanted that capability in 4x5.

So I bought a 65 mm f8 SA. Which is the second reason. These are relatively old and not particularly expensive lenses, so I could afford it. I got a used "Sinar Select" (supposedly Sinar cherry picked certain SA's) for less than $500 about six years ago and that's all I could have paid at that time.

It's also the shortest lens I can use with my particular camera. A 58 as someone else suggested just wouldn't fit. I have an older Toyo field camera and the bellows is pretty much jammed up tight when I have the 65 mounted, so I question as to whether the 58 could even focus. If you have a bag bellows (or just a different camera) then perhaps a 58 would be something to consider.

The 65 f8 SA ia also a tiny lens. I carry it and a considerable amount of other gear in a back pack; so the slower, smaller lenses I can afford are actually a boon when your don't have a donkey to haul all this stuff around.

One the down side, the 65 SA has a very small image circle so you won't get much movement out of it - which is a moot point for me because of that restricted bellows movement I mentioned. This lens also has the older Compur shutter (and EVERY 65 f8 SA I've ever seen has this shutter) and it hasn't the slider for opening the shutter to focus. So you have to select B, fire the shutter and lock it with your cable release. A pain indeed.

For any of these lens you will (technically) need a centre spot filter for edge to edge evenness. But I actually like the look I get without one. I just do pictorial work with this stuff, and for my own amusement, so I don't have anyone looking over my shoulder. In any case it has the effect - to me - of having burned in edges.

So to me there is a significant visual difference between the 65 and the 75, as well as some practical ($) differences as well; and I'm very happy with the choice of the 65.

-- David Grandy (dgrandy@grandyphoto.com), March 26, 2002.

Thanks, David.

The lens I bought is at the following link. From the description, it appears to be the American knock-off of the 65mm SA.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=1340481701&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=1017112914&indexURL =0&rd=1

Does anyone have a comment on my point about the restriction of movement being somewhat less of an issue because of the DOF with the 65mm (I'm thinking 3 or 4 feet to infinity or better)?


-- Peter Chipman (chippete@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

It's not a depth-of-field issue but a perspective-control one.

-- Mark Sampson (MSampson45@aol.com), April 04, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ