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

[jwatts]

I shoot landscape and have the 45/105/200 (all latest versions except the 105). I have the extension tubes I use on the 105 for macro work. I use the 200 way more than I though I would. I'm extremely with that lens. As well as the range and quality that those 3 lenses + tubes gives me.

 

[DanielStone]

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

Still interested in some opinions if anyone's willing to share a past/current experience with this (seemingly fantastic) optic.

thx,
Dan

 

[wildbill]

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

Mine does.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Instead of buying a 100mm macro lens, buy a reversing adaptor and dock the 90mm f2.8. Somebody here in Australia on the Australian Film Photographers' Facebook page tricked up a 75mm 2.8 on a Minolta X700 for macro (!).
Next on the bucket list is either the viewfinder eyepiece magnifier or the right-angle viewfinder attachment -- either/both are for critical focusing of the central portion in macro work. Some older Takumar and the newer SMC Pentax lenses develop stiff focusing barrels over a long period of time; this will be more of a hindrance (a big hindrance) for macro work. Any focusing barrel intended for macro work must have a very, very light and precise touch (among others is the 90mm f2.8 but especially the feather-touch 75mm f2.8AL). Check out any prospects very thoroughly.

 

[Dan Quan]

Still interested in some opinions if anyone's willing to share a past/current experience with this (seemingly fantastic) optic.

thx,
Dan

Have you scanned the Dead Link Removed page?

 

[DanielStone]

Have you scanned the Dead Link Removed page?

Yup, looked there, and came upon my (initial) lens choice based upon those charts. I love my 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor as a "standard" lens for any 35mm photography I do. I enjoy close-up work, as I've become quite fascinated by more graphic work that involved ice, textural forms, etc in nature. Hence my question about the 100mm instead of the 105 2.4

 

[Dan Quan]

Yup, looked there, and came upon my (initial) lens choice based upon those charts. I love my 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor as a "standard" lens for any 35mm photography I do. I enjoy close-up work, as I've become quite fascinated by more graphic work that involved ice, textural forms, etc in nature. Hence my question about the 100mm instead of the 105 2.4

I was pretty sure you had, but I wanted to throw it out there just in case.

 

[DanielStone]

Thanks Dan, I appreciate the tip nonetheless

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both the 105 and 165 are decent close up; but you'll need one or two of those little auto-diaphragm extension rings. I've never tried the official 120 macro lens itself. The out-of-focus blur (bokeh) is much more smooth and pleasant than the 55 micro-Nikkor. Both these lenses
have eleven apertures blades, as I recall, as does the 75/4.5.

 

[yurihuta]

Ctein seemed to like his copy of the 100mm macro.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/09/pentax-67-100mm-macro-lens-review.html

 

[DanielStone]

Ctein seemed to like his copy of the 100mm macro.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/09/pentax-67-100mm-macro-lens-review.html

Thank you, I know Ctein is/was very 'picky', so I know he and I might seem about the same

-Dan

 

[DREW WILEY]

The main limitation of a 6x7 system for macro is the lack of movements. There's really no substitute for a view camera in this respect. I do
use the 105 P67 lens on the copystand for flat work. Having that extra 1-1/2 stops of focusing brightness helps. Otherwise, a bit of tinsel or
alum foil temporarily on the focus plane, with a laser pointer beam, makes critical focus much easier. I don't like to use the full strength of
the halogen copy lights until the shot itself. Never got into flash systems. For macro it also helps to have either an accessory eyepiece magnifier or the deluxe chimney hood with built-in magnification. The standard prism might not be adequate for critical focus.

 

[johnsey]

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)

Well I think most of us generally agree that you have the right idea for a kit.
At similar focal lengths you find many people on both camps 45 vs 55, 90 vs 105 and 165 vs 200. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them honestly. I have a variety of newer copies of primes from 45 to 300 and I use the 45 and and 165 LS for 90% of the shots. I opted for the 90 as I picked i up for half the cost of a 105.

 

[DanielStone]

The main limitation of a 6x7 system for macro is the lack of movements. There's really no substitute for a view camera in this respect. I do
use the 105 P67 lens on the copystand for flat work. Having that extra 1-1/2 stops of focusing brightness helps. Otherwise, a bit of tinsel or
alum foil temporarily on the focus plane, with a laser pointer beam, makes critical focus much easier. I don't like to use the full strength of
the halogen copy lights until the shot itself. Never got into flash systems. For macro it also helps to have either an accessory eyepiece magnifier or the deluxe chimney hood with built-in magnification. The standard prism might not be adequate for critical focus.

I agree wholeheartedly. Hence why I got myself a GX680 system two years ago . However I haven't shot a piece of sheet film since early December. I haven't shot much of anything since June, TBH. Roll film fits my photographic "needs" quite well right now... On the fence about even sticking with 5x7... Money's tight so rollfilm(when d****al doesn't work) seems to work quite nicely. Especially since I have a buttload in the freezer to choose from.

Borrowing an older 105 2.4 and a 150 2.8 from some friends. Testing things out. Got two rolls of E6 processed the other day... 6x8 from the Fuji is great, but the smaller Pentax 67(small being comparative to the massive GX680!) and SL66(until it's found a new home, if it does) are filling the needs quite readily right now

-Dan