We don't talk much about scanning on this forum, there should be a lot of info on the fellow site DPUG. You can generally get pretty good colour from a scanner by setting the RGB channel points in the scan software and then do final adjusting in PS.
Ok, just bought a 55mm F4 late model lens from KEH in EX condition -could be a gamble, but saved £100. will see if that was wise! Thanks for the advice guys!
"A gamble"!? The 55 f4 is one of the very best of the SMC Pentax lenses. No bull.
I agree with dpurdy re lens selection. The 55mm f4 is a modern (and heavy) design lens far removed from the early Takumars in optical performance: it, and its bigger brethren, the 165mm f4 LS (portrait lens), is impressively sharp, right down to the smallest detail. Remember with the 67 sharpness can be sacrificed by vibration or movement: all of my shots use a tripod. The 55 can be shot at f4 for portraiture and down to f5.6 with still good delineation (actually, f11 is my working Av in rainforests, with a Schott/Kausmann polariser). If you're into portraiture, I don't really see the need for a 45mm and longer lenses will allow a greater working distance and very shallow throw of focus. There is a fairly wide variation in optical performance across the entire Takumar/SMC Pentax 67 lens range, varying from average/B- to A/A+ excellent. Examine used lenses carefully.
I am presently considering the 105mm f2.4 as a go-between for the 55mm and 165mm. The extra speed is sought after as focusing can be a challenge in low light+ POL with 55 or 165.
A "rare earth element" !?
By the Lord Harry, I have never heard of it (much less seen it!). Or maybe I have read about such things here on APUG affecting lenses here and there. But...Pentax??
The lens I am scrutinising is listed as having "minor dust" but no quantification as to it, other than being told politely to "nick off and find a better one then".
Yeah, I believe it's Thorium. As far as I know only the earliest example of the three versions of this lens utilized Thorium and it's readily noticable just looking through the lens wide open. If they noticed the dust they'd be blind to not notice the yellowing if present. I'll take a look at mine when I get home and check the SN and labeling of the lens to confirm which version it is. In any case, the lens is a great performer. Light with an equivalent view of around 55mm and surprisingly sharp as well. A couple more examples:
Indeed, most helpful. You must be shooting wide open to get the extremely shallow depth of focus in your images. I'm imagining a different result if you were tripod-shooting.
There is commentary the lens is best at f8 to infinity and that the Dof scale is off slightly.
All of my photography is necessarily done on a tripod as I am hopeless handholding the big 67 and even need a haul-up strap just to dock it (mind you, once docked it is a sure-fire conversation starter!). That means, notwithstanding induced vibration when and where it occurs, either 55 or 165mm are performing at the best, around f8 to f11 for 55mm, f16++ for 165mm.
More than anything else it was probably the #1 tube that narrowed that DoF, it was used on the shot of my friend shaving and of the girl and yes the camera is indeed heavy!
EDIT: Just got home and checked, my lens is labeled Super-Takumar/6x7 and the SN is 42XXXXX. Both the S-M-C Takumar 6X7 105mm f/2.4 and the SMC Pentax 67 105mm f2.4 should be free of the lens yellowing problem.
Google for the words Thorium and Lens; you'll find a lot of interesting information.Very good. I'm still surprised by the thorium/yellowing bit of the Takumars; I surmise there are potentially other Takumar lenses out there with this quirk?
Google for the words Thorium and Lens; you'll find a lot of interesting information.
Anyone recommend a Pentax 67 CLA guy in the UK?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?