GAS and the ridiculously cheap price of medium format gear got me again guys... I picked up a Pentax 67 body, TTL prism and wooden grip for $250. Just couldn't say no to an offer like that. I already have a pretty complete Hasselblad kit but I'm thinking of selling my 50mm FLE to make way for a few Pentax 67 lenses. Does a 45 f4 and a 105 f2.4 sound like a good kit? Any other suggestions?
Pentax 67 two lens kit
-
A
- Thread starter Grim Tuesday
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
What an offer! Congrats on the find. I have the 105mm f2.4 and can say it's a beautiful lens. My only gripe with it is that it doesn't focus close enough. For portraits I almost always keep extension tube 1 on it.
Also, keep an eye out for yellowing. A few days under a UV lamp should reduce the yellowing significantly. Mine still has some after a week, but it isn't noticeable in my images.
Also, keep an eye out for yellowing. A few days under a UV lamp should reduce the yellowing significantly. Mine still has some after a week, but it isn't noticeable in my images.
I do miss when this was the going rate for a kit with lens. I just picked up the 105mm and it only took me 10 years to give it a try. I usually shoot wide lenses, the big old 55mm 3.5 is a great sharp lens and goes for insanely cheap.
The 45 and 105 lenses would certainly make up a nice kit covering wide angle and the "standard" view. If sticking with primes, I might toss in a 165. Though I have several primes, my main kit nowadays for the P67 is the 45mm, 55-100mm and 90-180mm zooms. Both zooms are big and heavy, but provide options; and what about any P67 system is not big and heavy? 
I do not have the Pentax 67 but I do have a Mamiya 67.
I prefer a 3-lens kit. I shoot with a 50mm wide, 90mm normal, and 180mm telephoto.
The 45 is very wide (something like 22mm equivalent in 35mm terms), it is a very good lens if you like that width. I don't have the 105, prices are now very high and I prefer 90mm (the leaf shutter in my case but the newer 90/2.8 is better).
My most used lens is the 55-100, its range covers most of my needs, this and a 165 or 200 would probably be the only lenses I really need. I have recently bought a 90-180 but haven't had chance to form an opinion.
Generally the later '67' branded lens versions are best, but some are the same formula from the original 6x7 Takumars. Lens branding was not consistent, some didn't receive updated branding in step with the camera versions.
Check out the PentaxForums lens reviews here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html
My most used lens is the 55-100, its range covers most of my needs, this and a 165 or 200 would probably be the only lenses I really need. I have recently bought a 90-180 but haven't had chance to form an opinion.
Generally the later '67' branded lens versions are best, but some are the same formula from the original 6x7 Takumars. Lens branding was not consistent, some didn't receive updated branding in step with the camera versions.
Check out the PentaxForums lens reviews here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html
Everybody loves the 105 (the bokeh is to die for), but I owned the 90/2.8 and loved it. It is also sharper wide open than the 105, in tests. It is also smaller and lighter. I have some beautiful portraits made with it. I loved the lens, but the P67 camera itself was a love-hate relationship. .
I think Pentax can't make a bad lens. Pentax has amazing lenses. In 35mm i'm a happy user of many Pentax MX and a Spotmatic F, with the corresponding Pentax lenses.
i prefer the 55mm over the 45mm.
Why is that? Field of view or something about the lens?
Also, what do folks think about the 150 and the 75?
The original 75/4.5 is sharp but slow-ish, the later 75AL/2.8 is apparently better but much more expensive.
As has been said already, the 45mm is really bloody wide on 6x7. Instead I would recommend the 55mm f4 (latest version with the updated optical formula) for a more versatile option. I own that lens and optically it is beyond reproach (unlike the 45mm). Quite light for its size as well.
As for the second option, you will want that 105mm. In some ways it is the reason to own the system, as no other 6x7 format lens is that fast or has the same rendering wide open. Stopped down it is also very highly performing too.
If you can push for a third option I would probably recommend a 165mm; either the f2.8 or the f4 LS (leaf shutter) version. I own the former, and again it is a very good lens when you nail focus (not always easy). The copy I own actually belonged to Sam Haskins, which is pretty cool.
The nice thing about the Pentax 67 lenses is that they are nearly all very affordable, unlike Hasselblad gear. For my 135mm Macro Takumar I paid less than £100 all in (from Japan), and it was basically mint.
As for the second option, you will want that 105mm. In some ways it is the reason to own the system, as no other 6x7 format lens is that fast or has the same rendering wide open. Stopped down it is also very highly performing too.
If you can push for a third option I would probably recommend a 165mm; either the f2.8 or the f4 LS (leaf shutter) version. I own the former, and again it is a very good lens when you nail focus (not always easy). The copy I own actually belonged to Sam Haskins, which is pretty cool.
The nice thing about the Pentax 67 lenses is that they are nearly all very affordable, unlike Hasselblad gear. For my 135mm Macro Takumar I paid less than £100 all in (from Japan), and it was basically mint.
Last edited:
I've had multiple 45 and 55 examples go through my hands when I was building the system many years back. Mostly used gear so you never really know the individual lens history (one of my 45's was new from Rbt White, though) and the 55's were better, optically. I was always left just a bit wanting when printing from the 45's negatives. Not bad but they didn't have thatextra snap you wish for in medium format prints. Some subsequent testing on the last of each showed almost a 10 lpmm difference and I only still have the 55. P67 optics had a reputation for some variability so perhaps that was what I was seeing, too.
I couldnt have said it better myself. Its not a knock on the 45, its just that the 55 is THAT good! get the latest version and its all you will need.
as mentioned above, a lot of the latest version for the 67 lenses are very inexpensive. notice I didnt say cheap. they perform very well, just that the are not as expensive as others. the latest 200mm which is a awesome lens, can be had for less that $200 in great condition. same with the 74mm 4.5 while not fast, its a very great rendering lens.
MattKing
Moderator
I use a 50mm and a 65mm (along with 140mm and 180mm) on my Mamiya RB67.
I don't find the 50mm to be objectionable, but I tend to the wide end of the spectrum - my 65mm is my "standard" lens on that camera.
All of which may actually make it more difficult for you to decide
.
I don't find the 50mm to be objectionable, but I tend to the wide end of the spectrum - my 65mm is my "standard" lens on that camera.
All of which may actually make it more difficult for you to decide
.Have you ever owned any of the first version of the 55 f4? I see one for sale for a good price ($125) and am wondering if I should jump on it.
I would definitely recommend holding out for the last version, as it really is that good. It has "SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4" on the barrel, as opposed to the "6x7" in the name of all the other versions.
More info here: https://antiquecameras.net/pentax6x7lenses.html
Oooh thanks for that link! I also see a nice deal on a 75mm f4.5 -- $75. If my end goal is to get a 45 or 55 and a 105, should I hold off on the 75 or is it worth it in its own right? The optics certainly seem good enough and I like the focal length (60mm is my favorite Hasselblad lens) but I just wonder from people who have all three if they ever use their 75 with such a dim aperture.
I do not own the 75mm (either version), but I'm sure it would be a useful focal length. At that price you can't really lose, but if you have to prioritise I would say put the money towards a telephoto 3rd option instead.
The 75/4.5 was my first lens (it was on the body when I bought it), $75 sounds a good price. It's fairly light and reasonably compact. I now have the 55-100 zoom which means I don't use the 75 as much as before. The 75 is a very useful focal length as a walk-round option. The aperture isn't a problem, it's just that the 55-100 offers as good (or better) for a similar aperture.
I sold my original P6x7 with TTL years ago with the 105 lens and a Sunpak flash, all for $280 Canadian. Seeing what they are selling for now, I feel kind burned by what I got for it. I now have the P67 II, but I'd gladly go back to the original camera, since the II version has given me issues. But I'll keep it regardless. I have the 55mm (last version), the 105mm, the 135mm macro, the 200mm, and the 300mm. Overall the lenses didn't cost me too much.
Everyone disses the 55/4 6x7 and I think it gets an unfair rap. I have this lens, the “middle child” of the 55mm series and I believe it’s an outstanding performer. If the newer 55/4 “67” is better, it can only be slightly so. I have zero incentive to upgrade. If you see a good deal on the “6x7” 55/4, I say grab it.
Here’s an example on a handheld non-MLU Honeywell P6x7 on 320TXP
As for a second lens, I’d say either the 105/2.4 or the 90/2.8. As an aside, I hear the 55-100 zoom is outstanding, that may be on my Christmas list.
Everyone disses the 55/4 6x7 and I think it gets an unfair rap. I have this lens, the “middle child” of the 55mm series and I believe it’s an outstanding performer. If the newer 55/4 “67” is better, it can only be slightly so. I have zero incentive to upgrade. If you see a good deal on the “6x7” 55/4, I say grab it.
Here’s an example on a handheld non-MLU Honeywell P6x7 on 320TXP
As for a second lens, I’d say either the 105/2.4 or the 90/2.8. As an aside, I hear the 55-100 zoom is outstanding, that may be on my Christmas list.
Thanks for the thoughts Alan, I may well get it, it looks optically quite good. It appears we live in the same town in Maryland. Say "hi" if you see me out with my new Pentax 6x7!
Excellent, I certainly will! I’m in the College Gardens area, the shot above was in the woods adjacent to my house. One of these days I want to go back to downtown DC with the 6x7.
Cheers!
I'm not trying to put down the 6x7 lens, I'm just saying the last version is noticeably better, and that is the truth according to every source you will find. If you are happy with it though, then that's all that matters.
Here are some examples shot with my "67" version:
The 55-100 zoom is very good, doesn't really lose out on speed compared to primes (unless you're lucky enough to own the 75/2.8 and later 90/2.8) and should be a perfect walk-round lens. However, it's quite large and attached to the camera means the combo needs a fairly large bag. A two lens kit with smaller lenses allows me to use a much smaller bag - 55/4 & 90/2.8 L/S in my case or 45/4.5 & 75/4.5. A third lens would be a 165/2.8 (portraits) or either of the 200/4s (if I want a general longer lens).
I've tried a wide & tele two lens kit (55 & 165) but I don't use the longer lens enough.
I've tried a wide & tele two lens kit (55 & 165) but I don't use the longer lens enough.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |