Pentax 67 300mm lens, is there any advantage to "late"model?

[harlequin]

Dear APUG/Photorio Members,

Seriously Contemplating purchase of 300mm for Pentax 6x7 camera, seems there are 2 popular versions,
one is the "late"version which matches look of "late 200mm" that I purchased years ago. Is there a major difference in
the lenses, like the 200mm version, the close focusing was improved, and maybe the coatings.

a)Has anyone experience with these lenses?
b) is it worth the extra 40-50$ for the "Late" version.?
c) I shall be photographing birds in back yard on tripod/cable release with c-41 negative and B+W also.
d) Sometimes the older lenses seem better built, but I am looking for best contrast and image quality...
e) Should any member have image shot with this 300 mm F4 lens I would like to see the "compression" level.
any photo samples greatly appreciated!!
f) Also.How does it work with 2x tele-extender ?

Really appreciate your feedback as I would rather "Buy it right, the first time"..

Kind Regards,

Harlequin

 

[johnha]

Note: This relates to the M* 300mm f/4 ED IF (circa 2000) not the earlier SMC P67 300mm f/4 from (circa 1987) which could be described as the 'later' model.

I've haven't used any of the 300mm lenses, but if you mean the 300mm F/4 ED IF (internal focussing) circa 2000, I have a lens review from Professional Photographer (UK magazine) March 2000. Basically the 'earlier' lens is very good optically but awkward to use. The internal focussing makes the ED IF one easier to use. The focus mechanism is apparently lighter, focuses closer (2m instead of 5m) and requires less throw from minimum focus to infinity (1/2 turn instead of 3/4 turn). It also has a more convenient reversible bayonet lens hood. Sounds like a win all round to me.

John.

 

[Fixcinater]

I have a non-ED IF Takumar, not the latest with the fine rubber grip, it is quite good as stated but no tripod ring. I've used it with a P67:M42 adapter and the lens shows very good quality on digital. No experience with the expensive ED IF version or with TC.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Takumar-6x7-300mm-F4-Lens.html

Toughest part for me is getting focus exactly where I want it, it's quite shallow.

 

[johnha]

Note: This relates to the M* 300mm f/4 ED IF (circa 2000) not the earlier SMC P67 300mm f/4 from (circa 1987) which could be described as the 'later' model.

I have a non-ED IF Takumar, not the latest with the fine rubber grip, it is quite good as stated but no tripod ring. I've used it with a P67:M42 adapter and the lens shows very good quality on digital. No experience with the expensive ED IF version or with TC.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Takumar-6x7-300mm-F4-Lens.html

Toughest part for me is getting focus exactly where I want it, it's quite shallow.

Hi Fixcinater. The lens review I mentioned above states of the 'older' version:
"... the old lens had a peculiar characteristic that made it difficult to exactly pin-point exact focus. Rather than popping sharply into focus at the right point, it looked vaguely sharp over a range of focus settings... The new lens is just the opposite - it pops in and out of sharp focus with the tiniest movement."

 

[Hatchetman]

It is a pretty good lens for the price. I have the second version. The lack of a tripod mount is the real drawback. I use it handheld. The focus throw is very long which makes it tough to focus on sporting events, etc. I would not use it with a teleconverter. Lack of tripod mount would make it almost impossible. You'd have a real tough time holding it steady no matter what you did.

Olson Rug by Rob, on Flickr

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There were small but worthwhile improvements to the third generation SMC Pentax 67-designated lenses starting in 1989 and finishing in 1997. This includes updating the optical configuration of a few and of course the updated cosmetic appearance to better match with the concurrently released Pentax 67 camera body.

The later SMC Pentax 67 300mm ED lens is highly sought-after and very well corrected for a telephoto, but it is heavy and would benefit from a tripod collar. I think it would be overkill to spend so much on this lens for amateur backyard bird photography; its forte is more into serious sports and distant landscape isolation, with particularly excellent rendition in colour.

I don't think Pentax ever recommended the 300mm (any version) with a teleconverter, simply because you would be squinting through a very dark and 'grainy' viewfinder.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have both - a late regular 300 and the EDIF version, which goes for about five times the price of the other these days. The EDIF is probably the finest MF telephoto ever made, along with the even more expensive P67 400EDIF. It's a lens coveted by wide-field astrophotographers, and is extremely well corrected, sharp, and contrasty even wide open. And yes, it can focus closer. The regular version is not bad at all, but needs to be stopped down a bit more and has somewhat less contrast and critical color sharpness. It's a good black and white lens. Both are big and heavy and need serious tripod support plus mirror lock-up although I've successfully used them rested atop a car roof or fence rail without lock-up at higher shutter speeds.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's no difference in ease of focus. But because the depth of field is so shallow at this focal length, it helps to use either the magnifying chimney finder or the swing-away prism magnifier, unless you are shooting at infinity. The bokeh of the EDIF is luscious.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The oldest P67 lenses were called Takumars. They were well built. The famous Himalayan photographer, Shirakawa, used Takumars, including the 300. Some, like the 150 and 200, were optically improved by both the 165/2.8 and later 200. Others, like the excellent 105/2.4, never changed except cosmetically. The 55 dramatically improved. The only problem with a 300 Takumar is potential condition due to the wear n tear of age.

 

[trendland]

Dear APUG/Photorio Members,

Seriously Contemplating purchase of 300mm for Pentax 6x7 camera, seems there are 2 popular versions,
one is the "late"version which matches look of "late 200mm" that I purchased years ago. Is there a major difference in
the lenses, like the 200mm version, the close focusing was improved, and maybe the coatings.

a)Has anyone experience with these lenses?
b) is it worth the extra 40-50$ for the "Late" version.?
c) I shall be photographing birds in back yard on tripod/cable release with c-41 negative and B+W also.
d) Sometimes the older lenses seem better built, but I am looking for best contrast and image quality...
e) Should any member have image shot with this 300 mm F4 lens I would like to see the "compression" level.
any photo samples greatly appreciated!!
f) Also.How does it work with 2x tele-extender ?

Really appreciate your feedback as I would rather "Buy it right, the first time"..

Kind Regards,

Harlequin

Pentax offered 2 different versions of the late 300mm F/4.
The original last pricing I remember was (2006) 300mm F/4 ~ USD 3085,-
300mm F/4 ~ USD 1950,-
The 2xconverter ~ USD 970,-

The converter was too expansive to me.
(I bought it years later in used condition
(nearly mind offering) at about USD 60,-
.....from Japan. But I had to calculate the taxes? ??? And I worried about condition. (Is it realy mint? ??)
No it wasn't : The converter was NEW !
The best combination I ever bought to nice price.
with regards

PS : The 300mm I bought 2006 was the cheaper one (the USD 1950,- type)
I often used it for portrait shots with tripod. I never care about stability
(because it is constructed for)
Meanwhile I changed my oppinium.
(better use is handheld - because I realy don't trust in stability from construction design - you might damage the ground plate of the P67II body)
With 2xconverter no way on a tripod !
But some friends have good experience with tripod extention from "Arri"...
(very hight priced - you have to pay for 350g of industrial alluminium...)
PPS : Superior characteristics with or without 2xconverter .
I have some shots on cd - if I can find it I came back later.
PPPS : Portrait with 300mm lens?
I realy don't care about - and sometimes I brake the roules - from own decision.

 

[trendland]

There were small but worthwhile improvements to the third generation SMC Pentax 67-designated lenses starting in 1989 and finishing in 1997. This includes updating the optical configuration of a few and of course the updated cosmetic appearance to better match with the concurrently released Pentax 67 camera body.

The later SMC Pentax 67 300mm ED lens is highly sought-after and very well corrected for a telephoto, but it is heavy and would benefit from a tripod collar. I think it would be overkill to spend so much on this lens for amateur backyard bird photography; its forte is more into serious sports and distant landscape isolation, with particularly excellent rendition in colour.

I don't think Pentax ever recommended the 300mm (any version) with a teleconverter, simply because you would be squinting through a very dark and 'grainy' viewfinder.

If I remember from some shootings in good light situation the viewfinder is a little dark but it is real ok to find the focus. You might be right if you try to use this combination in bad lighted scenes.
So, definitifly NO WAY in avaible light shootings.
.......At "high noon" no problem :

with regards

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Pentax Forum gives a lot of details if you find the lens specification link, along with typical current pricing, which is still 5 to 1. Either variety you need a serious tripod and head. With my 300 EDIF I employ both the thread in the camera body and the lens collar, bolt both to a solid bar of maple, which in turn is mounted directly to the top of my big Ries maple tripod. Rock solid. But I also have a large carbon fiber tripod which functions analogously, though I prefer the sheer mass of wood, esp on windy days.

 

[trendland]

The Pentax Forum gives a lot of details if you find the lens specification link, along with typical current pricing, which is still 5 to 1. Either variety you need a serious tripod and head. With my 300 EDIF I employ both the thread in the camera body and the lens collar, bolt both to a solid bar of maple, which in turn is mounted directly to the top of my big Ries maple tripod. Rock solid. But I also have a large carbon fiber tripod which functions analogously, though I prefer the sheer mass of wood, esp on windy days.

Hi there,
Do you mean such type ? :

with regards

 

[DREW WILEY]

Na. Bolted both positions onto something WAY more solid than that. The 300's need better support than my 8x10 camera. I made it from a bar of hard maple, then pickled it with penetrating marine epoxy for stability, which I deliberately discolored with rust powder etc to match the vintage weathered look of my big Ries maple tripod. Gotta look cool, and not like geek gear! But I also laminated dense phenolic to the top of the block. It sits right atop the big Ries platform, using the standard 3/8-16 turn knob. If I do need to orient the camera vertically, I have one of those heavy ole Bogen cast iron pan/tilt heads. If you happen to prefer ballheads, use em for a boat anchor - worthless in this scenario.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

f I remember from some shootings in good light situation the viewfinder is a little dark but it is real ok to find the focus. You might be right if you try to use this combination in bad lighted scenes.
So, definitifly NO WAY in avaible light shootings.
.......At "high noon" no problem :

It is a grainy viewfinder but not a problem for typical lenses e.g. f3.5 to f5.6 I have no quibbles with the viewfinder using f2.4 to f3.8 lenses but I get very niggly with f4 and a polariser in flat/diffuse light, requiring supplementary focusing assistance (right-angle finder or central-spot eyepiece magnifier). You would need either/both for precisely focusing large tele lenses, especially if you throw an extender into the mix!

 

[DREW WILEY]

The regular 300's hard stop at infinity. The EDIF goes slightly past infinity, presumably for some non-visual astro usage, but you can count on the center of the infinity marking itself. I've never had an issue with focus, even thru a red filter, but like I said, unless you are shooting at infinity, a magnifier helps. These lenses are pretty bright - not like f/4 with a wide angle lens! A tele-converter would impose a real headache in this respect, however.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

not like f/4 with a wide angle lens!

My "fix" for that is to swap out the 45mm and snap into place the adorable 75mm f2.8! Saves me a fair bit of cropping in most circumstances...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, yes... But I had to choose between a 75/2.8 and that 300EDIF. I generally shoot the P67 on tripod anyway, and the slower 75 is optically superb with a lovely rendering if you have the accessory magnifier handy. For hand-held shooting, I chose a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder instead. I promised my wife I'll be budget-neutral with equipment - sell a lens or camera if I want a new one.

 

[destroya]

I''ve used the ED with the grey 1.4 tele conv and have never had an issue with a dark finder. with that converter, I get razor sharp shots. just too bad it doesn't get used enough as longer lenses dont really fit into my landscape shots. But it does make half dome come alive when used right

 

[DREW WILEY]

In the backcountry, a tiny 300 Nikkor M on a 4X5 with a roll-film back makes a lot more sense; plus you've got full view camera movements and still full 4x5 capacity with ordinary holders. But in high winds, you also have a kite! To be honest, however, that P67 300 is just plain fun. Nice for distant grab shots on road trips or wildlife. Probably why I keep both 300's. If someone breaks in my truck while I'm in the backcountry with a view camera, they'll only get something easy and cheap to replace. The EDIF won't be there!