Fuji 65/8.0 VS Fuji 65/5.6

[Calzone]

I already own a 65/8.0 for Fuji G690 BL, GL690 and GM670.

Last night I was looking through my negatives and took notice how nicely this lens renders. I need to use this heavy camera more and just had my GL690 and 100/3.5 serviced at Nippon.

Just wondering if the 65/5.6 is as good as the 65/8.0 because I could always use some lens speed.

Thanks in advance.

Cal

[Abbazz]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Just wondering if the 65/5.6 is as good as the 65/8.0 because I could always use some lens speed.

I have not done extensive testing, but image quality seems to be at least as good or even better on the F/5.6 lens. Those Super-Agulon / Biogon type wide angles are indeed very good: they are one of the main reasons to use a rangefinder instead of an SLR...

Cheers!

Abbazz

[sevo]

As far as I can make out, they are the same fundamental design. The (rigid f/5.6) 65mm on my GSW II is somewhat sharper than the f/8 on the GM - but I don't know whether that is age/dust related, nor whether that change (if any) occurred between f/8 and f/5.6 or somewhere within the f/5.6 line.

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by sevo

As far as I can make out, they are the same fundamental design. The (rigid f/5.6) 65mm on my GSW II is somewhat sharper than the f/8 on the GM - but I don't know whether that is age/dust related, nor whether that change (if any) occurred between f/8 and f/5.6 or somewhere within the f/5.6 line.

I've owned both of the interchangeable lens models. I never noticed a real difference in IQ. However, when you find the 5.6, it's usually pricey.

For that reason, I would opt for the GSW II or III model for three reasons:

The GSW 5.6 65mm II is usually not pricier than the interchangeable 5.6
The GSW were all EBC coated, which does show a positive difference in different lighting situations and the interchangeable lenses had NO EBC coating except for the AE100 metered lens.
The GSW models were alll lighter than any of the interchangeable lens combos.

[Calzone]

Thanks for all the responses.

Cal

[t.s.k.]

The 65mm/5.6 is arguably the rarest lens in the lineup and typically much more expensive. Optically they're very very similar but I believe nearly all 5.6 lenses were made during the GL production - the latest runs with rubberized focus rings and a other few subtle changes. These later lenses have the benefit of not only being newer but lighter as well.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by t.s.k.

The 65mm/5.6 is arguably the rarest lens in the lineup and typically much more expensive. Optically they're very very similar but I believe nearly all 5.6 lenses were made during the GL production - the latest runs with rubberized focus rings and a other few subtle changes. These later lenses have the benefit of not only being newer but lighter as well.

Been eyeing the 5.6 because one was available at a reasonable price. I'm considering jumping on the next opportunity because the 28 mm FOV is my favorite on a Leica.

Also in the past my Plaubel 69W has gotten the most use because its lighter and wider with a 21mm FOV, but those 6x9 negatives made with the 65/8.0 really pop.

BTW carrying an old Fuji around NYC is kinda crazy. I get looks like I'm a tourist attraction, LOL, and I meet a lot of strangers who are interested in the camera.

Cal

[Dante_Stella]

I haven't tried the 5.6 detachable version, but the GSW690-series lens (which I would assume to be very similar but multicoated) is markedly better than the 65mm f/8 - and doesn't need the separate viewfinder.

And not to put a drop of oil in the Perrier, but the 50mm looks at least as good as the 65/5.6. More sunstars, though.

Dante

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Dante_Stella

I haven't tried the 5.6 detachable version, but the GSW690-series lens (which I would assume to be very similar but multicoated) is markedly better than the 65mm f/8 - and doesn't need the separate viewfinder.

And not to put a drop of oil in the Perrier, but the 50mm looks at least as good as the 65/5.6. More sunstars, though.

Dante

Thanks for the confirmation. My Plaubel 69W has a Schnieder 47/5.6 Super Augulon for 6x9 and offers perspective control shifts. What a camera. I guess I'm trying to fill in the space with a 28mm equivilent. The newer Fuji looks like the way to go.

Cal

[Texsport]

Originally Posted by t.s.k.

The 65mm/5.6 is arguably the rarest lens in the lineup and typically much more expensive. Optically they're very very similar but I believe nearly all 5.6 lenses were made during the GL production - the latest runs with rubberized focus rings and a other few subtle changes. These later lenses have the benefit of not only being newer but lighter as well.

I'd say that the 50/5.6 is considerably rarer than the 65/5.6, certainly also the 100/3.5AE, and probably even the 150/5.6.

Texsport

[Abbazz]

Originally Posted by Texsport

I'd say that the 50/5.6 is considerably rarer than the 65/5.6, certainly also the 100/3.5AE, and probably even the 150/5.6.

+1

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Texsport

I'd say that the 50/5.6 is considerably rarer than the 65/5.6, certainly also the 100/3.5AE, and probably even the 150/5.6.

Texsport

I happen to own the 150/5.6 Sonnar.

Cal

[Texsport]

I happen to own all the lenses and every camera and accessory in the series, having searched the whole world for them at one time.

Texsport

[mretina]

Either is hard to find. No luck for me yet. 100/3.5 non ebc is nice but would love something wider, i think wide better suits this camera. Is it just me or do you agree?

[pagpow]

I thought the 65/5.6 was supposed to be better than the 65/8, and Dante's note suggests that he at least thinks so. If it isn't better, speak up, cuz it'll save me money. I notice Abbazz was mute on this point.

Giorgio

[lodewijk]

I have fujica 65mm f5.6, and not sure about the sharpness.
So i am going to test the lens on sharpness and contrast, also the 100mm 3.5.
I am very curious about the results ,let you know ,
Regards,
Lodewijk.

[Abbazz]

Originally Posted by pagpow

I thought the 65/5.6 was supposed to be better than the 65/8, and Dante's note suggests that he at least thinks so. If it isn't better, speak up, cuz it'll save me money. I notice Abbazz was mute on this point.

Hi Giorgio,

I'm not really mute :

Originally Posted by Abbazz

I have not done extensive testing, but image quality seems to be at least as good or even better on the F/5.6 lens.

That's just that I have not done side-by-side testing, on the same subjects, with the same lighting, etc. My overall impression is just that both lenses are very good and I don't remember either one ever disappointing me. Maybe the 65/5.6 is a tad sharper, maybe it also has a bit more distortion, but proving that would require some extensive comparison shots that I have never made!

By the way, has anybody inquired about the 65/5.6 that has been for sale at Keh.com for months? The price is low because the lens is rated "ugly" but, knowing the rather conservative ratings used by this seller, I'd be curious to know what really is wrong with this lens...

Cheers!

Abbazz

[pagpow]

Thanks, Abbazz, appreciate the info -- and I'm delighted to see you are not mute.

Giorgio