all those pentax 67 lenses

[bonk]

There seem to be quite a lot of lenses out there for the Pentax 67. How is the overall image quality of those lenses. Wich ones are known to be good? Wich ones stand out from the crowd when it comes to image quality?

 

[Craig]

There seem to be quite a lot of lenses out there for the Pentax 67. How is the overall image quality of those lenses. Wich ones are known to be good? Wich ones stand out from the crowd when it comes to image quality?

The more modern lenses are excellent. I've used the 105, 165 and currently have the two zooms. The zooms are quite recent designs (2001 I think) and are excellent. I've had very crisp chromes with both zooms.

 

[Soeren]

I have seen a site somewhere addressing that question but I don't remember the name. IIRC the 55mm f/4 is considered very good and a pinch better/sharper than the 45mm f/4 I have the 45mm and I am very pleased with it. The 75mm f/2.8 and f/4.5 should be very sharp too, I have the old 4.5 version and I find it hard to shoot with (dark finder and slow focussing) though the results are great. The 105mm should be ok but not remarkable and the 90mm f/2.8 should be better. I have the 165mm but I can't comment on it since I haven't had any slides or prints done yet, the negs I had under the magnifier looks pretty sharp though.

Kind regards
Søren

 

[wildbill]

The 55mm F4 is sharper than my 90mm and my 150mm takumar is sharper than my 90mm by just a bit. My 150 is for sale if you're looking for one. I just replaced it with the longer 165mm. I highly recommend the 55mm though, it's so sharp! but takes big filters. I borrowed the 35mm fisheye recently and will report my results soon, cool lens with built in filters.

vinny

 

[jeroldharter]

I have the 45 mm, 90 mm, and 165 mm LS lenses. All are very sharp.

I have also used the 300 mm f4 (or 5.6?) which is an older model Takumar. It was very good but not as good as the 3 I mentioned.

 

[jovo]

I have the 55, 105, 135, and 200mm lenses, and have been very pleased with all of them although I use the 55 the least frequently. As I rarely make prints larger than 11x14, I can't attest to sharpness and contrast beyond that size, but up to there, all have proven to be excellent. In fact, up to that size, it would be difficult for anyone to distinguish between a print made with the P67 and any one of those lenses, and a print made with my 4x5 Shen-Hao using either a G-Claron 150, or a Fujinon 250.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

At one time the Victoria's Secret catalogs were shot with the Pentax 6x7 camera system. (Well, the photographer shot with the Pentax)

 

[david b]

I have an ultra rare Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm 2.8 lens for my 67.

 

[david b]

I believe the camera was the camera of choice by Bob Carlos Clarke and didn't Robert Adams use one for a while?

 

[luvcameras]

Here is my Pentax 67 Lens Guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/p67ss.htm

Dan

 

[Soeren]

Here is my Pentax 67 Lens Guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/p67ss.htm

Dan

Yup Thats the one
Kind regards
Søren

 

[coigach]

Hello,

I use my P67 mostly for landscapes - I've developed a tolerance to lugging the heavy beast around with tripod etc...!

I use the (newer) 55mm and 75 mm lens, both v sharp. I also use the 135 macro, v sharp when used in macro mode, less good at anything else beyond f8; and the 300mm lens, which is v sharp, but very difficult to avoid shake with beyond f8 in my experience.I used to own the 45mm lens too which was v sharp, but traded it in as I found it just too wide for my style of photography.

My apug users gallery will show some pictures taken with these lenses.

Hope this helps,
Gavin

 

[Krockmitaine]

Thanks for the infos,

I have the standard 105 mm and the 200mm. I have pictures made in a scrap yard and at 7000 feet of altitude in a hot air balloon made with the 105mm and both are tack sharp. Same with the 200mm.

Before my next purchase, which will be the macro lens, I will buy a good tripod. This beast need something strong against vibration and the one that I have (Manfrotto) is not doing it's job, besides beeing heavy.

Marc

 

[Russ Young]

My first professional camera was a Bronica S2A. The lens I used most was a 50 made by Zenzanon which was sharper than the corresponding lens made by Nikkor. Then the opportunity came along to pick up an entire Blad system for cheap, and of course I did and was very happy with it; customers recognized the camera immediately... and I billed them more!

In 1983, a friend offered to loan me a Pentax 6x7 body and any one of several lenses to try. The first experiments were with the 55, pitting it against the Blad 50 in three situations where I most often shot... they were equal at the small apertures but the Pentax was definitely sharper in the corners at wider apertures (will I be burned for heresy now?). I was doing more table top work and so tried the 135 Macro next- and at distances under 8 feet or so, it was amazing at f/11-22. I sold the Blad system for a handsome profit and bought into the Pentax 6x7 with money to spare and have lived happily ever after.

The only caveat: some of the old series lenses (thinking of the 200 especially) are not as good as the new series.

And the 120 soft focus is arguably the finest roll film format soft lens ever made.

Russ