Pentax 67 75mm AL

[removedacct3]

By sheer coincidence I came across several topics on several boards about the Pentax 67 75mm F/2.8 AL lens. A little search on eBay confirmed the buzz. The lens can be found but you'll pay a premium penny for it. I know that Pentax and Takumar are well known for their lenses, but is this Pentax 67 75mm F/2.8 AL that special? I like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Takumar never made any lens.
Takumar isn't the name of a company. It is a "brand" name like Nikkor is for Nikon.

See: Dead Link Removed

 

[whlogan]

Its my all time favorite on my 67.... just seems to have a sparkle that some of the others lack.... I guess its the way I see... I just like it best. When i shot Mesa Verde, it was the "Horse" lense for that outing..

Logan

 

[fastw]

Got one last year, but it wasn't sharp at all, so returned it and kept using the 135 macro and the 55. 135 is just so much sharper and more contrasty and only cost me $80. Really wanted to like the 75 but it wasn't meant to be I guess.

 

[splash_fr]

I bought mine new from a Pentax dealer in germany. Well worth every penny!

 

[removedacct3]

I forgot which board I read this. But there was someone saying that this lens was Pentax's attempt to rival the Contax Zeiss image rendering.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've thought about getting one. It has an excellent reputation, and would be nice for quick focusing in low light or handheld shooting. But since
I mostly shoot the P67 on tripod, the 75/4.5 works wonderfully for me, and is certainly optically superb for considerably less money.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... but I don't know anything about that Zeiss lens comparison nonsense. My own philosophy is that if you want a dramatically richer negative, go to 4x5 rather than go broke. The later P67 lenses are pretty damn crisp, and some have the advantage of speed, allowing either easier viewing or shallower depth of field - which, combined with typically eleven aperture blades, amounts to relatively pleasing out-of-focus highlights (bokeh). Otherwise, everyone has their preferences; and the P67 has its own ergonomic handling characteristics which many people
like. Its a proven, affordable, abundant, and very reliable system. Maybe not the snob appeal of Hassie or Rollei.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm like Drew and have the older f4.5 version and it's a peach. Now, I'd gladly take a 75mm f2.8 version, but I'm not going to shell out big money to do it. Not when I have no complaints about the f4.5 version I have. I use both Hasselblad and Pentax 67 and they both have great glass. My old 500C with 80mm Planar is certainly easier to carry around than the Pentax with 105mm or 90mm, but that 6x7 negative is something again. If I made square pictures/prints I could get by with my Hasselblad or even my Rollei TLR, but I don't print square or shoot square. I end up cropping to 6x4.5 for the Hasselblad. Yes Virginia, bigger is better and a 6x7 negative trumps a 6x4.5 every time. I hear folks talk about getting newer Pentax lenses, because they are better. I have both, new and old and find that they are all good. Plus, the Pentax 6x7 lenses are dirt cheap compared to anything that has Zeiss stamped on the front. John W

 

[araucaria]

I have this lens and its perfectly sharp wide open if you happen to get something into focus (just kidding), it outresolves the grain on kodak negative film but you can see some glow around fine details (I haven't tried slides). Stopped down it only gets sharper. I don't think you can ask for more.
When I get a pentax67 to nikon f adapter I will post some samples. Although I already held it infront of the d800 and compared it to the pc-micro 85 2.8 just for fun, so the plane of focus wasn't really leveled, and the resolution was about the same (contrast couldn't be checked because light was entering between sensor and lens).