Medium tele for Pentax 67

[MFstooges]

Hi,
First of all sorry for my poor english.
I plan to add a medium tele for my P67 and thinking of either 165mm f2.8 or 200mm f4. I read that 165mm have lover/hater while most people like the 200mm. What I don't understand is that used 165mm sells higher than 200mm.
Please give me some feedback, I shoot mostly landscape and occasionaly portrait.

Jon

 

[sidearm613]

Hi,
I haven't got the 200 F/4 but I do have the 165 f/2.8. From what I get, the 200 has several variations, the newest one being the best and closest focusing. I know that that edition was optically redesigned so it is worth getting the latest one if you go for the 200 f/4.

As for a lens I actually do have experience with, I personally think that the 165 is an excellent portrait lens, and with that big f/2.8 aperture its a magnificent piece of optical glass in my opinion. Really stunning with a nice circular diaphragm that stops down nicely and has really good bokeh wide open. I guess you could wish the 165 had a f/32 stop, which the 200 has, but honestly I never felt like I needed it. I have very little experience using the lens in landscape situations as I tend to use wide angles, but nevertheless I offer high praise for the 165, as I would for any P67 optic.

 

[borisdeswan]

I own and use the 165 mm f 4.0 (with shutter) and a 200mm f 4. ( late version). If I would have to choose between both and I was to do mostly landscapes I would favor the 200mm. Both have pleased me in every way optically and with their sturdiness. BTW both were pleasant and cheap succesfull purchases on the big online seller.

 

[MFstooges]

Hi boris, any reason why you favor 200mm? To be honest I'm still training my eyes to see landscape in compressed perspective so I wouldn't want a lens that only serves narrow purpose.
F32 would be nice to have but I wonder if diffraction creeps at this point?

Jon