Pentax 67 300mm two versions, is the “late” model better?

[harlequin]

Hello Team,

After selling some unused equipment this weekend we are looking at the 300 mm lens for p67...

Are they the same optically?
I assume they are all multicoated?
Would this emulate a 135 lens on 35mm...?
Any sample shots taken with this lens would be icing on the cake...
Not terribly expensive lenses, but want to get the better of the 2, as with the 200mm lens, the redesign allowed closer focusing..

Many Thanks for your suggestions and guidance!


Harlequin

 

[voceumana]

Definitely not the same optically. The newer lens is far superior. It uses extra low dispersion glass and internal focus Close focus is 2 meters compared to 5m for the older lens.. Mechanically, it also adds a tripod mount on the lens which provides for rotation so that you mount the lens, rather than the camera, and then use the rotation feature for vertical composition. This balances the camera on the tripod better.

It is not cheap--I bought mine used from Japan for about $700 earlier this year.

See: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-Star-67-300mm-F4-Lens.html

 

[Alan9940]

The P67 300mm F/4 ED(IF) is far superior to the standard 300mm, IMO. And, the difference in price probably shows that.

 

[johnha]

To add to the confusion, the 'old' 300 came in three different names, see: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Takumar-6x7-300mm-F4-Lens.html these are the same formula. Generally the lens names changed with those of the camera. The 300 M* is completely different and much more expensive.

A 300mm is equivalent to 150mm. I've not used one but I'd expect the combo to be heavy and unwieldy without a tripod mount on the lens - which is why I stopped at 200mm. The latest 200mm also focuses much closer than the previous 200mm.

 

[halfaman]

In this case the three versions are:

Super Takumar 6x7 300mm F4: First version. Single coating
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7 300mm F4: Same but multicoated
SMC Pentax 67 300mm F4: Same lens than the latter introduced with the Pentax 67 camera. Drop of "Takumar" name in all lenses, "Pentax" from now on, and also lengthy "Super-Multi-Coated" is transformed into "SMC".

 

[Alan9940]

I've not used one but I'd expect the combo to be heavy and unwieldy without a tripod mount on the lens - which is why I stopped at 200mm. The latest 200mm also focuses much closer than the previous 200mm.

Without a doubt! I had a friend that tested his P67 300mm on a tripod with the mirror locked up and, if you looked closely, you could see that shutter vibration caused a very slight blur in the negative. Would this be visible in any normal size prints? Dunno. But, it's there.

 

[Hatchetman]

Assuming you are not talking about the ED(IF) version which is a completely different thing.

I have the SMC version. Lack of a tripod mount is a real problem. Otherwise it is light, cheap, and pretty sharp.

 

[halfaman]

I purchase a 300 mm ED recently for a very good price but test is still pending (damn COVID-19!). Long and heavy mount in a big and heavy camera, on the very limit of what a "normal" photographer can stand. With the teleconverter the size is really ridiculous even it has a tripod mount. It doubles the weight of the 200 mm SMC version (800 grams Vs 1650 grams).

My interest in any longer lens of this system is down to "0" for now on.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have both, so can give you a decent summary of the differences. But first let me note that, in either case, unless you have a lens this long VERY solidly supported on a heavy tripod with equally stiff attachment at the top, it won't make a bit of difference. Nearly every "sharpness" complaint I've heard (like Alan's observation in a previous post) was due to vibration due to an inadequate support. I mount mine DIRECTLY to the platform top of the same wooden Ries tripod as I use for an 8x10, or else an equivalently solid large CF tripod with a platform top. Now for the differences: The older 300's are decent lenses and currently an extreme bargain, if you want something that won't give you a heart attack if it gets damaged in use or stolen. You can do high quality black and white work with these, and they are OK for color too if the final image is not highly enlarged (plenty sharp for magazine work, for example). The newer 300EDIF is, well, one stunning optic. It was scarce for awhile because it was prized by widefield astrophotographers. There is far less color fringing than the ordinary MC 300 - nearly none a stop down, so you can make big color enlargements with no noticeable fringing, and not even a bit of halo when strong contrast filters are used in black and white photography. Another advantage is that it focuses much closer range than the older 300, so allows you to home in on details right across a road or whatever. Both have nice "bokeh", but the EDIF version especially so, since it is a solid performer even wide open. How do I mount mine - I use BOTH the tripod collar and the camera body thread, and unitize these onto a single solid hardwood & phenolic properly-shaped bar that in turn has a 3/8-16 thread to accept the tripod turnknob from below. Rock solid. I'm giving a hint. If you have a choice between getting bitten by a rattlesnake and buying the heaviest ballhead on the market for use with this lens, take the rattlesnake - it will be less grief. Do it right, and you'll have a wonderfully fun, exceptionally sharp system. I also happen to have a good Nikon adapter for this lens. But at high shutter speeds where mirror lockup is not necessary, I have successfully rested both these lenses on a jacket or baseball cap atop a car roof or fencepost, and semi-handheld them.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I bought one of the earlier 300mm lenses at a swap meet many years ago, when they were quite a bit more expensive than now. It had a problem with the infinity focus stop, so I sent it to Pentax USA for repair. They did a wonderful job, disassembled and cleaned the lens, reset the focus stop correctly and rebuilt the sliding lens hood for $100. I used it a few times, more to try it put than anything. With no tripod support for the lens, I could not avoid my fear that the stress placed on the camera by the large weight imbalance might damage the camera mount. Later, I bought a 400mm EDIF, which has also received little use. I conclude that I just do not "see" in telephoto, since most of my work is with landscapes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One thing I forgot to mention is that older telephotos of maybe all focal lengths have a slight focus shift if a deep red filter is used. At infinity, you need to set them just shy of the infinity mark, but not way over to the IR mark. This is not the case with deep orange or deep green. The 300EDIF seems perfectly corrected for all visible wavelengths. But it will focus past the infinity mark, presumably for certain astronomical usages. I don't think it's due to any potential dimensional stability issue of the lens. I was out with this lens yesterday.

 

[Alan9940]

I don't think it's due to any potential dimensional stability issue of the lens. I was out with this lens yesterday.

Don't know specifics regarding the P67 300mm versions, but IIRC my Hasselblad CF 250mm lens focuses past infinity due to possible thermal expansion. When using this lens, I always verify critical focus in the viewfinder, even when the subject is at infinity.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I haven't seen a bit of difference between cold and hot conditions with respect to the infinity mark itself being spot on. So I have to assume the ability to go past that mark is either a "me too" provision for "just in case" recalibration, or else is related to non-visual wavelengths toward ultraviolet. Someone would have to track down the engineer to find out.