Can Anyone Help Me Pick The Next Lens For My Pentax 67II?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

Right now, I have the following four lenses (from wide angle to telephoto):

-Pentax 6X7 45mm f/4
-Pentax 67 Zoom 55mm-100mm f/4.5
-Pentax 67 Shift 75mm f/4.5
-Pentax 67 Zoom 90mm-180mm f/5.6

My first guess is that I should get the Pentax 67 200mm f/4, which will keep me covered from 45mm to 200mm. Then again, I'm thinking that maybe I should get a special prime lens like the famous Pentax 67 105mm f2.4 or even the Pentax 67 55mm f/4. Also, would it be worth it to swap out my older Pentax 6X7 45mm f/4 for the newer Pentax 67 45mm f/4? I've read that the optics are the same, but I wonder if there was at least some improvement in optical quality. If anyone can answer that, that'd be great.

Anyway, if this helps, I'm primarily an architectural and landscape photographer who shoots color negative and transparency.

That all said, what do you experts recommend I choose as my next lens?

Many thanks!

 

[Alan9940]

The 55-100 and 90-180 are my two favorite lenses for the P67, even though I own 5 prime lenses. But, those two zooms are big and heavy, as you know. I'd definitely go for the 105/2.4! It's a very workable focal length and is great when you want to go quick & light.

 

[halfaman]

The 67 200 mm f/4 SMC is quite cheap, light and tack sharp. It is always a good idea to include It. I found the 6x7 S-M-C version to be also very nice, not so sharp and with longer minimum focusing distance but color rendition is very pleasant.

The 67 55 mm f/4 SMC is outstanding, sharp wide open and super sharp stopped down a bit with minor distorsion. It is better than the 67 45 mm SMC but it is also longer and heavier to carry. It is my wide angle of choice 99% of the time.

The 105 mm f/2.4 is one of the stars of the system. A versatile focal length with the brightest aperture and a wonderful 3D separation at medium distances wide open. All the versions except the latest 67 SMC use Thorium glass that produces yellowing. It could be mitigated but not completely removed, so not the best thing for color work. The 67 SMC version doesn't suffer yellowing but it costs much more than the others for this reason.

 

[abruzzi]

It's a very workable focal length and is great when you want to go quick & light.

while I agree, it is kind of amusing to see the words "quick & light" associated with the P67.

 

[leicaliker]

the 105 2.4 would definitely be my pick.

 

[DREW WILEY]

165/2.8 is also especially nice. Same 67mm filter size as the 105.

 

[Alan9940]

while I agree, it is kind of amusing to see the words "quick & light" associated with the P67.

Yeah, I was referring to the size/weight difference of the 105 vs either zoom. I find handheld shooting much easier with the smaller lens; whereas, I tend to use the zooms only when locked down on a sturdy tripod.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

A wide angle is a great thing to have for the p67 system. I've got the 55mm f/4 and it makes great images, but I can't speak to the 45mm.

Pentax 67 55m f/4 @ f/11
120 Ektar 100



One lens not yet discussed is the 135mm f/4 macro, which while does not give a true 1:1 repro ratio, has a closer focusing distance (~.75m/2.5ft) than most other p67 lenses. The extra flexibility provided when walkabout shooting is something I appreciate. It's also lighter than the 55mm and surprisingly ergonomic when shooting vertically with the handgrip resting on the palm and the fingertips on the focus ring.

Pentax 67 135mm f/4 @ f/??
120 Tmax 400 Rodinal 1+50 14:00



Edit: adding 100% crop from the 135mm

 

[destroya]

I would go with the 165 2.8 or 200 f4 latest model.

 

[Alan9940]

A wide angle is a great thing to have for the p67 system. I've got the 55mm f/4 and it makes great images, but I can't speak to the 45mm.

I own the 45, 55, 105, 165, 200, 55-100, and 90-180 and they all make better images than I am a photographer! I can't speak for any other lenses in the P67 lineup, but these I can certainly vouch for. I've read that the 75 AL and 300 ED/IF are, also, fantastic. Lots to choose from for sure.

 

[Neil Grant]

Hi all,

Right now, I have the following four lenses (from wide angle to telephoto):

-Pentax 6X7 45mm f/4
-Pentax 67 Zoom 55mm-100mm f/4.5
-Pentax 67 Shift 75mm f/4.5
-Pentax 67 Zoom 90mm-180mm f/5.6

...I don't have a Pentax 67, but I DO have a Mamiya 645 and a 50mm PC lens for architecture which is a rather useful combination. I see you already have a 'PC' lens, but could you get a wider 'PC' than your 75mm?

 

[voceumana]

My latest acquisition for the 67II was the 300mm ED/IF telephoto. Quite a remarkable lens--optically and mechanically. On it, the lens mounts to the tripod, and a rotating collar allows you to rotate the camera for vertical composition while keeping the tripod head level. I bought it from a Japanese seller on ebay for about $700. For this focal length for this format, it is compact considering it does not get longer with closer focus.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shot the 300 EDIF yesterday. It requires some serious tripod support, and I bolt it directly atop the same Ries tripod platform top as I use for my 8x10. No tripod head whatsoever. One of the best MF telephotos there is. But I also have the regular 300, which doesn't make me as paranoid about losing if I happen to leave it hidden n the truck while out hiking with view camera gear, since these are now very affordable to replace, unlike the EDIF version. It's fine for black and white work, but for the best results in color, the EDIF version is a better choice since there's almost no perceptible color fringing at all. It also focuses closer.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I own/use most of the primes between 45mm and 400mm. Out of weight consideration and relatively slow speed, I've never considered the zooms. Since you already have good coverage with your two zooms, I would recommend one of the following:
1, If you think your style of photography needs a longer telephoto, get the 300mm EDIF. The 200mm does not give you anything over your zoom. The 400mm EDIF is even more expensive and is too big and heavy for regular uses. I've used mine once in a decade.
2. The 100mm f/4.0 with macro converter. Skip the 105mm It's an old (1967) design and brings little to the table. It gets a lot of social media traffic lately (it has creamy bokah, right??), which explains why its used price has doubled in the last few years. In terms of raw performance, it is outclassed by the 90mm 2.8 (not the LS version) and very much so by the 100mm,
3. If you prefer a wider angle,strongly consider the late version 55mm 4.0. It is one of the best lenses in the 67 system.