Barry, quite accessible as they are only around 250m from the car park, I walked in to check out the scene, then walked back to the truck and brought the camera back in with bag bellows already attached. I had already worked out the 65mm would be the lens, the main rocks are about 1m from the camera, maybe 1.2m maximum; so the 90mm was possible, but I wasn't going to get the surrounds, especially the height with the 90mm.
The only real issue I had was trying to stay upright, the ground was so slippery and the constant drizzle a bit iffy but bearable. Left the bag bellows in the truck cabin to dry out as I kept on driving, they are possibly leather, not sure if it is man made leather or real leather.
At close range, the 65mm is a world of a difference to the 90mm, more than I thought would be the case. From a reasonable distance, the 65mm and 90mm don't look that different, but up close, the 65mm is brilliantly different.
For some time after getting the 65mm lens, I tried a few movements and some very minimal shifting of standards. With about 10mm of coverage spare I started thinking of a 75mm. I've given that idea up now as apart from the cost, I have done a couple of sheets with movement and one with a little shift, then cropped the negative at roughly where a 75mm lens runs out. The end result is that I basically have the coverage of a 75mm with cropping of the negative, so sort of the best of both worlds. The camera bag is lighter, and my pocket is heavier.
By selecting the 65mm I could have the surrounding vegetation, especially the tree, on the negative. Once I had developed the negative I could see the swirling misty clouds, bonus.
I'm still pondering a severely cropped landscape version....