Pentax 6x7 lenses

[flavio81]

The late SMC 135/4 Macro is distortion free and sharp, and light enough to carry around whole day in the bushes. It works well for portraits too.

I just ordered a 135/4 yesterday, will report my impresions once I get to use it.

flavio - the vast majority of user replies on the Pentax Forum are in relation to actual P67 camera use.

It used to be the case, but if you look carefully, for lenses from 90mm up, you'll see lots of users putting the lenses on K-1 and other cameras. I'm referring at the "lens reviews" section of the site:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html

Going the opposite direction, people have successfully adapted all kinds of vintage-look lenses to P67 bodies, including projector lenses.

Yes, i've seen it, but I never have seen results that would justify the trouble (& cost) over using regular Pentax lenses. People adapt things like 120/2.0 lenses but it doesn't make too much sense to me, for example 120/2.0 = 60mm = same physical aperture as a 168/2.8 (the 165/2.8 Pentax is far cheaper). Depth of field is already really really narrow with most P6x7 lenses.

 

[aoresteen]

My kit was the 45mm, the 55mm, the 105mm, and the 200mm. All were excellent lenses. The 105 came with the body I bought.

My issue was the crop that the penta prism viewfinder gave. I preferred the waist level finder, especially the 45, but vertical shots were impossible. I gave the entire kit to my brother and now use my Cambo 23SF & 'Blads mostly.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, i've seen it, but I never have seen results that would justify the trouble (& cost) over using regular Pentax lenses. People adapt things like 120/2.0 lenses but it doesn't make too much sense to me, for example 120/2.0 = 60mm = same physical aperture as a 168/2.8 (the 165/2.8 Pentax is far cheaper). Depth of field is already really really narrow with most P6x7 lenses.

I think there are two main reasons for adapting other lenses to the Pentax 67. One is for long tele work and the other is for lens character, like bubble bokeh.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I doubt you're going to find better tele lenses per se than the dedicated later ones Pentax themselves made, which also happen to have excellent bokeh. But someone might want a more "dreamy" look based on this or that old lens formula, so that kind of adaptation does occur.

The fellow who sold me my first P67 setup specialized in Celestron telescopes, the whole line of P67 equip of that time, plus Nikon tele stuff. His personal work also revolved around tele photography. His favorite setup was big heavy 8X10 Toyo G view camera with a massive tripod, with a superbly corrected Apo Nikkor 360/9 process lens on the front, and the option of several cameras at the rear plane, including both P67, Nikon film SLR's, and Nikon digital DSLR's. But he also adapted Celestron scopes for P67 usage.

The astro photography crowd made optional vacuum backs for P67's, which allowed backless 220 film to be held exceptionally flat and precise. A couple of their favorite lenses were the 300 EDIF and 400 EDIF 6x7 ones.

 

[blee1996]

I have adapted projection lenses (ISCO/Schneider Cinelux for 70mm film) and Petzval lenses to P67, mainly for their unique look when wide open. They were both quite cheap and I already have them, thus only need M65 helicoid and M65 to P67 adapter.

But I do think it is a bit too much to pay $800+ for Cinelux project lenses with custom built aperture control. There are already tons of great choices in short tele lenses of native P67 mount.

 

[Tom Taylor]

I just ordered a 135/4 yesterday, will report my impresions once I get to use it.

IMO the 135 Macro is a much underrated lens. I took this photo with it at an outdoor exhibit of Dahlia's at SF's Golden Gate Park pointed straight down over a fence using no flash or filter:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Either the 105 or 165 do fine closeups with an extension ring. I've done a little of that; but about 95% of that kind of work I've done with 4X5 monorail gear instead, so never had the incentive to buy the dedicated 6X7
135 macro lens itself.

 

[Alan9940]

@DREW WILEY Off topic from the recent posts in this thread, but as someone with 300EDIF experience I was wondering if you might be able to provide some insight on a question I've always had. In the past, I've seen multiple comments lamenting that the 200mm lens + 1.4x converter provides nearly the same results as the 300; or, close enough that one probably couldn't see any difference at normal print sizes and viewing distances. What say you?

Thank you.