Pentax 67 lenses

I know there are several generations of lenses for the Pentax 67. Is the most recent the only ones worth having? Or are the SMC Takumars a good investment too?

What are you looking to get? I have eight lenses from 45mm to 200mm and they are a mix of new and old. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that they are just like women in that they are all good, but just somes a little better than others. My 75mm, 135mm and 200mm are the older version and I find no reason to do any upgrading for any of those. Likewise for my 55mm! I have the second version and find it all the lens I could ask for. My 45mm is the newest along with my 165mm LS lens, but I find my 45mm lacks a little in the contrast/sharpness range until I get to between f8 and f11. It's still one mighty fine lens regardless. Like I said in the beginning, "They are all darn good"!

I'm looking at getting 55, 75, 105, and 200, SMC takumars. Possibly a 135 macro, and possibly a 45 replacing the 55.

I have a mixed set of old and new, consisting of 45, 75, 90, 135 and 400/4. The 75 and 400 are old type, the others new. I cannot really see much wrong with the older lenses, and handling wise they are all the same to me as well. As others have said, these are mighty fine lenses. I plan on getting 200/4 and maybe 300/4 lenses eventually. What I need first is a set of extension tubes. I suggest you get that as well, as the minimum focus distance on the macro (and all the others, for that matter) can be a bit limiting.

I also have a mix. new.. 55, 135, 165 and old 90LF, 75, 105. I think the new lenses are lighter. My old 105 has yellowing from that radioactive glass but is still great.
Actually the newer 135 and 165 lenses I have are the two I have most doubts about regarding sharpness across the range of fstops..
Dennis

timhenrion said:

Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

Am I right then to assume that as long as I get a SMC Takumar for the mentioned lenses I am getting the latest formula and coatings?

SMC Pentax 67 lenses have a higher degree of refinement (coating and element design) over the Takumars, even though they are based on old Biogon and/or Distagon optical layouts. A few are true stellar performers and still command a big price (and weight). There are maybe only two Takumars that really surpass the later designs of the SMC Pentax varieties. Pentax was on a winner with most of the lenses and limited only by the technology of the time.

I cite the 45mm, 55mm, 165mm, 105mm and 90mm SMC Pentax 67 (the modern naming for the lenses that came out from 1989-1990 onward) lenses as examples of the best of the best. They are regularly found at auction or pro-level second hand dealers, but should ideally be inspected by hand for faults such as dust/dirt, scratched rear elements, bent or broken aperture coupling lever, deep scours of the mounting flange, jammed aperture ring, damaged front filter threads (or bayonet filter engagement nibs) and fungus — a lot of these things can be found during routine inspections; rough treatment by professionals is usually par for the course for these big and very well built lenses, but a surprising number I have seen have been in terrible condition (and advertised as "Mint –"!!). My favourite lens is the squat and easy handling 45mm; I really should be getting prints around 1m across from it, only that the budget doesn't extend that far...

I wouldn't necessary shy away from the old Takumars, apart from my dislike much earlier on of the rather unfriendly knurled feel to them. A number of lenses also had thorium rear elements which should liven up your conversation if you start talking about a pale yellow tinge!

Poisson Du Jour said:

My favourite lens is the squat and easy handling 45mm...

Click to expand...

+1. Can't argue much with that. I paid $250 for mine, in absolutely excellent shape. They are out there, if you can wait patiently.