Which 65mm lenses cover 4x5?

jim10219 said:

The Super Angulon 65/8 will just barely cover 4x5 without any movements. That’s what I use. With my Anniversary Speed Graphic, the lens sits so far inside the camera, that you couldn’t really do any movements anyway. I do have to drop the front bed, though. But any 65mm lens would be the same. It will vignette pretty bad without a center filter, but sometimes that looks cool, and you can always burn it out with B/W film. A proper center filter can be difficult to find, so be warned.

I bought mine really cheap, and it had a recent CLA. The previous owner only thought it would cover 6x9, so I got it for less than I probably should have.

Click to expand...

My pre-Anniversary speed Graphic was modified from new as a Wide Angle special.



The top of the body is cut away to allow rise with a WA lens, not sure what lens was originally fitted but the Range-finder is set up for something a touch shorter than a 90mm. The camera came with a Pacemaker G as enough parts to make one good camera, no parts are interchangeable Both rebuilt but the covering was mostly missing from this one so it's French polished..

The idea of the top cut away isn't new, it can be seen on some British cameras as a hinged flap and I saw a factory modified MPP MicroTechnical MkVII or MkVIII once on Ebay that had been specially made for an Architectural photographer, (the seller) with a similar cutaway.

Mick Fagan said:

I fail to understand how using a 75mm lens, which, as you say, has more usable movement over the 65mm; could be a better option. I understand that one could shift to the left or right, to get either side of the building; but this means I can only get one side of the building on the negative.

I don’t have a 75mm lens so I cannot compare it with my 65mm lens, but as I understand it, I need to be further away from anything I am photographing with a 75mm lens over a 65mm lens to effectively get the object I am wishing to record.

I have been rather successful with my 65mm lens and consider it to be a very useful lens, if and when I happen upon a 75mm and I have the money spare, I may acquire a 75mm lens, but I doubt I would ever let my 65mm lens go, it is really terrific.

The below image is my 65mm lens using a graduated centre filter, the tripod is literally leaning into a steep sand dune, there is no way to get further away. The picture is slightly cropped on the left to remove the last trestle which was only half in the frame.

Click to expand...

I agree about how useful the 65mm can be, I'd say a very much higher proportion of the image I make with it go on to be included in exhibition sets than other lenses. That doesn't mean I use it very often rather that when I do it's because I know the image is important and it's my only option.

Yes a 75mm would need greater distance to shoot a similar shot to say the one above and so might not be appropriate, but actually I find the jump from a 90mm to a 65mm rather a large gap and there are often cases where the 65mm is just too wide and a 90mm not wide enough. I've found after a couple of years practical use that the 75mm lens is an extremely useful addition and a nice focal length to use. I'm often shooting in quite tight spaces, not wide open landscapes.

My personal conclusion is the 75mm is often a better option, I'm getting images that I visualise that are different compared to if I used either the 90mm or 65mm which would be a compromise. It's filling a gap and I wish I'd bought one many years ago .

Ian

Ian, thanks for your thoughts, probably make me get one when one comes along.

Mick.

Brad, I was out yesterday in reasonable spring weather and after taking what I wished to take, I decided on a little test.
I used my 90mm first, then without moving anything, I replaced it with my 65mm and took another shot.

I cannot understand why I made a mistake, but make a mistake I did. I thought I was exposing Foma 400, when in fact I was exposing FP4+, I won't even mention what I said when I pulled the film out of the sheet holder to hang up to dry. The negatives are very thin, but you should get a good idea of the real difference between a 90mm and a 65mm.

Regardless, here are the two sheets.

Mick.

Mick Fagan said:

I fail to understand how using a 75mm lens, which, as you say, has more usable movement over the 65mm; could be a better option. I understand that one could shift to the left or right, to get either side of the building; but this means I can only get one side of the building on the negative.

I don’t have a 75mm lens so I cannot compare it with my 65mm lens, but as I understand it, I need to be further away from anything I am photographing with a 75mm lens over a 65mm lens to effectively get the object I am wishing to record.

I have been rather successful with my 65mm lens and consider it to be a very useful lens, if and when I happen upon a 75mm and I have the money spare, I may acquire a 75mm lens, but I doubt I would ever let my 65mm lens go, it is really terrific.

Click to expand...

The reason I found the 75 far more usable was strictly the larger image circle and the fact it fit my vision better, the 65 was just too wide for 95% of what I shoot in 4x5 and the fact the image circle was so tight saw me going for the 90mm a lot more.

I had a magazine assignment in a marble quarry that I knew would need both fairly wide and reasonable movements, so I bought the 75, sold the 65 and called it good.

I suppose a good lens line for me on the wide end would be 90, 75 and 58XL but honestly I rarely need more than a 90.

Mick Fagan said:

Brad, I was out yesterday in reasonable spring weather and after taking what I wished to take, I decided on a little test.
I used my 90mm first, then without moving anything, I replaced it with my 65mm and took another shot.

I cannot understand why I made a mistake, but make a mistake I did. I thought I was exposing Foma 400, when in fact I was exposing FP4+, I won't even mention what I said when I pulled the film out of the sheet holder to hang up to dry. The negatives are very thin, but you should get a good idea of the real difference between a 90mm and a 65mm.

Regardless, here are the two sheets.

Mick.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this comparison. I am a bit surprised to find that the difference, at first, seems quite subtle - especially for the distant objects. This reminds me of something an instructor mentioned years ago regarding the usage of short focal lengths...the idea was something like,instead of thinking of the shorter focal lengths as "wide angle" it is often helpful to think of them as enabling one to position the camera closer to the object of interest, in effect to change what is and, usually more importantly, what is not included in the foreground. It took me a very long time to grasp this concept....and it still slips my mind (as do at lot of other things these days). Your examples here helps. Thanks.