rz67 50mm uld vs the 65mm KL L

[troyammons]

Or 65mm uld if they make one.

 

I have never used either of these lenses but am curious. I have a friend RB

nut, that says the 65mm kl is much better sharpness wise than the 50mm. Is

that true ?? Seems like a 50mm ULD lens would have to be close.

[r_scott_steube]

I own 37mm, 50mm non-UDL, 65mm L-A and have rented the 50mm UDL. The 50mm UDL is a vast improvement over the older 50mm non-UDL. The 65mm L-A has a floating element system which requires a two step focusing technique, but the results are outstanding. In any case the 50mm lenses are true extra-wide angle and depending on subject or composition style 50mm is less versitle than the 65mm, but when you need a 50mm, you NEED a 50mm. I shoot mostly outdoors on a tripod and the f/4 of the 65mm vs the f/4.5 of the 50mm sometimes does make a difference. Also, using a bubble level with either lens is helpful to avoid unintended distortions. Hope this helps.

[sandeep_singh_brar]

I have the 50mm ULD and it's a absolutely stunning lens with corner to corner sharpness unlike anything I've ever seen on a wide angle. I understand the 65mm W with floating lens elements is also a very good lens. KL lenses for the RB are only equivalent to Z lenses, not better.

[enrico_pocopagni1]

Hello Troy,

here are a few exemples of Z 50 and z 50 ULD. Sharpness increase is evident.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=149557

 

Greetings

 

Enrico

[victor_moss]

Sandeep Singh Brar wrote "KL lenses for the RB are only equivalent to Z lenses, not better".

 

Actually there is no optical difference between the "Z" lenses and the "W" lenses. Only the aperture spacing is wider for the W lenses.