Thanks EarlJam, I can't see anything wrong with that shot. I shoot a lot of landscapes, and I don't think a minimal difference in sharpness will be noticed.
Nice camera! 
Thanks, Kai-san. I bought the C3 used in 1977 at a local camera show: $150 for the body, 80mm and 135mm lenses, and chimney finder (about $750 in current dollars). I added the Paramender a couple of years later. The camera was 11 years old at the time but in spectacular condition, apparently from a wedding photographer who used a grip, as the only wear was on the bottom plate, and it's never needed any service. It took me more than 40 years to get around to looking for a wide-angle lens to complete the set. I'm hoping 120 sticks around long enough for one of my grandkids to take over the system in a few years.
A couple of observations about TLRs: they're ideal for pictures of younger children, particularly portraits, as "waist level" is pretty much equivalent to a child's eye level. And, relative to SLRs like the Hasselblad and Bronica, operation is effectively silent. I had a job once where the client insisted that I shoot with a 500 ELM. I made one exposure, terrified my subjects, and had to stop for the day. I returned a week later with the C3 and 80/2.8, shot a dozen or so rolls in the same environment, put the transparencies into the show with other Hasselblad images, and the client could not see any difference between the two 80mm lenses.
Re the relative sharpness of the 55mm and 65mm lenses, I'm not convinced it matters much today. We're not shooting Kodachrome or Pan-X now, nor making very large wet prints (at least, most of us). For current emulsions and prints from scanned originals, any differences are going to be very difficult to discern.
