Pentax 67 lenses: what I'm eyeing (and seeking opinions)

[DanielStone]

Hey all,

Gonna keep this one short. I'm looking at Pentax 67 lenses, in particular the following:

1. 55mm f/4 (latest, 1986 version, SMC 67, 77mm thread)
2. 105mm f/2.4 (latest, 1989 version, SCM 67, 67mm thread)
3. 200mm f/4 (latest, 1989 version, SMC 67, 77mm thread)

I'll be sc@nning primarily, but plan to keep printing in the darkroom as well.
Trying to keep a small(ish) kit. I'm going to keep my GX680III 6-lens kit for when I want to shoot more "LF oriented(aka movements needed)" shots.

thx,
Dan

 

[snapguy]

55

The 55mm sounds pretty swell to me but of course it depends on what you photograph.

 

[Hatchetman]

Looks like a good setup. I have the 55 and 200. (and 90 LS)

 

[DanielStone]

The 55mm sounds pretty swell to me but of course it depends on what you photograph.

I photograph mostly out in nature, and but occasionally some people-related shots as well. With my LF work, I've tended to favor longer FL lenses most of the time(300,350,450mm lenses, on 4x5 and 5x7)

-Dan

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Daniel. The 55's have quite a bit of illumination falloff. But the later versions are indeed very sharp. Avoid the old-style Takumars. 105's are generally very sharp, and fast enough for handheld shooting with some films. 200's vary, so again, do stick with later ones. But I've found 165's to be sharper, faster, and obviously a little more compact than 200's. The extra speed and potentially shallower depth of the 165 make
it an excellent portrait lens, or for analogous usage in nature closeups where you might want selective focus using wide apertures.

 

[DanielStone]

Thank you Drew. I seem to remember you mentioning P67 stuff in the past, and hoped you'd chime in on this topic. I know you're a perfectionist when it comes to technical regiment(as I am), so your thoughts are appreciated . I've been reading up on the different lenses, but was checking out this site here, and (sort of) based my choices based on the notations(right column) about each lens/series.

Dead Link Removed

-Dan

 

[DanielStone]

I would say my "style", if I could say I have any, is similar to this guy's work(much of it shot on a Pentax 67):

Dead Link Removed
(see Lifestyle category)
Although I've never shot anything commercially(but worked on a good number of commercial shoots), I'd certainly entertain it down the line. Film shooting, of course!

 

[Len Robertson]

Another source with information on Pentax 67 lenses:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html

Len

 

[Chrismat]

Those are the same lenses I have for my Pentax 6X7. I believe my 55mm is from 1988 or 1989. It's a very sharp lens. I used to have the older version of the 200mm (67mm filter) but since it could not focus any closer than 8 feet I used it the least, but I did get some nice images from it. I upgraded to the newer version of the 200 (77mm filter) about a year ago. I use the 105mm the most, probably because I enjoy shooting with normal lenses no matter what the format. I haven't had any desire to get any other lenses, these three fit my shooting style nicely.

 

[craigclu]

I have these lenses, too. I built a system many years back by buying systems and selling off the pieces (mainly lenses) that were duplicates after testing. I found that there was more variation by sample than I was accustomed to with other camera systems. I had a 55 (later version) that was not sharp at all and kept another that was very sharp. The 105's (I bet I had 5 or more of them) were quite consistent. I have a later 200 that is very sharp. I believe the optical design was the same on these as the earlier ones (I forget?) but the earlier one that I had was not as good. For what it's worth, I had 2 of the 45's and neither seemed worth keeping as they were quite soft. Perhaps another sample variation but the 55 was much better than either of them. I also never owned a 135 macro that seemed sharp and I had a number of these go through my hands. As mentioned, the 165's seemed consistently good.

There are great quantities of P67 gear being sent through the auction site over the past few months. Serious sellers are offering greatly reduced prices from just 6 months ago so it appears to be a good time to be a buyer. Find an adapter and a 645 body, giving your lenses double duty and you'll enjoy the quick handling and bright viewfinder. Have fun!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The SMC Pentax 55mm f4 is a stellar performer with an old Distagon design and even spread of illumination (same with the 45mm). It, and it's wider brother, the 45mm f4 "just" pip the 75mm f2.8AL in a couple of places but not visible optically unless testing on-bench, critically. The downside is the weight of the lens and its awkward grip; it is a fat thing to get a handle on. The 105 and 200mm lenses are good performers but nothing out of the ordinary. The more you pay in the SMC-P lens line-up, the more you will get. Consider the 90mm f2.8 (LS or non-LS version, slightly different optics between them) as a versatile all-rounder and easier to focus in low light than the f4 lenses. My kit has plateaued out now (and will stay that way!): (55mm sold recently; used extensively for early landscape work) 45mm f4, 75mm f2.8AL, 90mm f2.8, 165mm f4LS with excellent filter size interchangeability with my Canon 1N system (this may be a factor to you if you want to cut down on multiple filters over systems).

 

[Fixcinater]

I have an early Super Tak version of the 105mm, still an excellent lens.

Have the late model 45 instead of the 55mm, the 45 doesn't hide the fact it is really wide, still an excellent lens.

Don't have the 200, have a 135 Macro and 300, will likely be trading them both in for a 165.

 

[DanielStone]

Poisson,
I have primarily 77mm filters left over from my forays into Mamiya land some years back. My RZ negs are still some of the sharpest ones I have in my archives. Especially that 110, and the 180...

I've heard about P67 sample variation issues in the past. Maybe some trial and error testing is in order.

My P67 body came in the mail today. I miss having that integrated hand grip that the 67ii has. But I'll give this some workings out before I decide if a 4x price difference between this body($250) and the ~$1k going rate for a 67II body is worth it simply for that grip... Probably not. I have the metered finder on this body, somehow the finder seems smaller than I remember the 67II finder being. Am I correct in this?

-Dan

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

"Sample variations" with the camera could be taken as meaning how it has been treated. Things can go wrong with age e.g. if the shutter speed dial is left on a figure for an extended period of time, the result could be very erroneous. TTL meters are pot luck; you can always buy a minty replacement on FleaBay (mind you, at very rude prices...). Of lenses, there is a small sample variation with the 45mm f4. It's a good idea that if you are buying on the second hand market, that you ask to see transparencies or negatives shot with that lens to ascertain if any inherent softness is present, especially around two-third outward from centre. The very best of the 45 lenses are bitingly sharp right across the frame: I print to 80x70cm or so and everything is very visible.

The TTL meter for the Pentax 67 bears no relationship to the meter on the 67II -- a completely more refined beast and many 'togs do like that model for the meter alone. Get your hands on a light meter (spot/incident or both) if you are using transparency film; variations in TTL readings occur with age and treatment (e.g. turn the shutter speed to X or B when the camera is not in use. Personally (and everybody has their own work methods!) I do not allow the 67's TTL meter to do any critical work for me (pre-dawn and evening afterglow situations are fine), leaving that to a Sekonic L758D (my second after the long-serving first came to recent grief...). Load a roll of transparency film and test out your meter and record the results. The range is 5 stops (+ and - 2.5 stops from zero).

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you want to be able to return a lens if it is not up to snuff, I highly recommend KEH.

 

[destroya]

i have the three lenses you asked about. all are the latest SMC design. and for me all 3 are very sharp, nice contrast and color and no light falloff. lucky? maybe. but as mentioned about, buy ffro KEH and have a return/replacement option that you cant get on ebay. remember, mint/ excellent on ebay is at best bargin at KEH.

i have 2 other lenses but the three above are the ones i use 97% of the time as they give me the best coverage and results for what i shoot with them which is mainly landscape. alsi, they use 77 or 67 mm filter size which works great. the 300 i have uses 87mm and i do have one orange filter for that. but not having to buy new filters made a difference for me as far as which to buy. I agree also that the price of the lenses are falling and that s ok with me, but i think the 3 lenses you mentioned are the only three i really need. the 300 and 165 might need to be sold.

get em and shot em. thats the only way to really tell.

 

[resummerfield]

i have the three lenses you asked about. all are the latest SMC design. and for me all 3 are very sharp, nice contrast and color and no light falloff.....

I have those same lenses, too, and all are very sharp. The only P67 lens that I've used with less than stellar performance was the 300/4, and that's probably because I always used it hand-held.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 300/4 is a fine lens for black and white use, esp with a strong filter on it to reduce any secondary spectral fringing. If you want to cure that and get a really superb lens for color photography too, then the EDIF 300 will do the trick, but I can't justify that on my budget yet. It's a popular lens for amateur astrophotographers. They also prefer the 67II because there's far less battery drain with mirror lockup over their long exposure times. Otherwise, I don't see any significant advantage over the previous P67 body - just a few more bells and whistles
that wouldn't mean anything to me personally anyway. I always use handheld spotmeters. I'm prone to leave a well-worn 6x7 system in my truck while off backpacking with a 4x5 rig. If the truck gets broken into, it won't be the end of the world, cause nothing in there would be
expensive to replace. I keep a cleaner backup P67 system in storage, just in case. The 300's need much much more solid support than even a 200. In fact, I use the same tripod as for 8x10. If you do need to use a 300 off-tripod, then support it well with something like a pillow
or soft jacket on a rock or fence-post, like a skilled rifle sniper would do, and obviously keep your shutter speed fairly high.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The 67 is ideal for e.g. star trails but bulb mode is an active battery drain (5-6 hours with a fresh battery).
BUT... There is a way around this!

Pentax 67 battery eliminator for long exposures:
http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/pentax/use.htm

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm ... that looks interesting. But the mere fact that Pentax EDIF lenses are preferred for expensive "widefield" astro setups should set to rest any nonsense gibberish about Pentax being a second-string lens maker. These lenses are also being used on expensive digi backs specifically made for astro equatorial mounts, rather than Pentax bodies per se.

 

[Hatchetman]

300mm has no tripod collar!! Crazy. It would be a great lens if it had one.

 

[DanielStone]

Does anyone here have experience with the 100mm macro lens for the 67 system?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

MLU on Honeywell Pentax 6x7 bodies took the same form as it does on the later versions, the difference being the cosmetic finish of the early vs later (1989-onward) bodies. Both versions use solenoid activation (and thus are a battery drain) by pushing up a small button on the size of the mirror box. I am not aware of any Pentax 6x7 or later 67 using the MLU that you describe.

 

[sbjornda]

3. 200mm f/4 (latest, 1989 version, SMC 67, 77mm thread)

That one is my favourite walk-around lens. It is light, easy to focus, and my copy is very sharp. It's a bit too long for studio head shots, though, so if you plan on doing any of those, one of the 165's is likely a better choice (the LS one is logical if you plan to use flash).

I also have the 150 but it's nothing special. I have the 135mm macro but I haven't used it enough to decide whether it's really any better than extension tube(s) on the 105 or 200 - the 135 on its own really doesn't focus very close.

On the wide side I went for the 45mm instead of the new 55mm. I understand it's not as good optically, but it's a lot of fun.

Sterling

 

[jovo]

I have the 45, 55, 105, 135, 200, and 300mm lenses. If I had to keep only three, I would choose the 45, 135, and 200. I almost never use the 105 or the 300, but as I have 'em, I feel I have an adequate kit and they're available if needed. The 45 is a bit smaller and lighter than the 55, and the 135 has a macro capability. If you typically choose to shoot wide, medium tele, or greater, choose the lenses that fit those expectations. I am very satisfied with the whole shebang.