Pentax 67 two lens kit

[Grim Tuesday]

Those snaps from the late 55 are astonishingly good. Continuing my series of asking what people think about specific lenses that I've found good deals on, anyone have any thoughts on the late, 67 5 element 200mm F4 SMC?

 

[craigclu]

My late 200 is quite good. I haven't used my P67 gear much for a few years but I used to exercise the 200 quite a bit for sports when my son was downhill ski racing and playing soccer. It worked nice for that with a mono pod. The remote battery was important as my bodies seemed sensitive to being cold and I learned that the battery not being fresh or even a new one that wasn't quite up to snuff would have it hang on me.... Keeping the battery warm had it be very reliable in winter conditions.

 

[GLS]

Those snaps from the late 55 are astonishingly good

Thanks. The first one is Delta 100 in XTOL, and the others are Acros 100 in Pyrocat-HD.

As to the late 200mm f4, I have not used it but hear it's very good.

 

[johnha]

The late 200/4 is more practical than the earlier one, it focuses closer (i.e. closer crops for portraits) and probably has a shorter focus throw (fewer turns from close focus to infinity). It loses the built-in sliding hood but the front element is recessed a bit.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The late 200/4 is more practical than the earlier one, it focuses closer (i.e. closer crops for portraits) and probably has a shorter focus throw (fewer turns from close focus to infinity). It loses the built-in sliding hood but the front element is recessed a bit.

Most people seem to agree the late 200 is better optically at say, f8, compared to the 165 f2.8, but I guess the big question with it is how easy it is to focus with such a relatively dim max aperture and if this cancels out the effects of better sharpness. Decisions, decisions. I will probably end up just buying all the lenses and pruning ones I don't use, like what's happening to my Mamiya TLR and Hasselblad stables.

 

[craigclu]

By chance, I was moving a stack of prints just now and this was on the top. HP5+ in PyroCat, Ilford MG, P67 and 200 lens. Cheap scanner (Canon 9950F) but the dog hairs show crisply in the print.... Her mother left her holding the dogs between races.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Pretty nice shot. I went ahead and got my cyber monday $72 200mm SMC f4. It will fit in nicely with my $75 black friday 75mm f4. I was reviewing the list of lenses for the system and it almost seems like Pentax made two families of lenses, a fast one for portrait photogs and a slow one for landscape-takers. I am excited to try out my landscape set!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Alright guys, you know the formula. Another this lens vs that lens question. This time the lenses are:

105 f2.4 vs 150 f2.8

The 105 is half a stop faster and trades at $300, and is radioactive. The 150 trades at $100, is a half stop slower, a lot cheaper, not radioactive, a bit tighter frame. Lots of people give "35mm equivalent" FoV for lenses but I'm more familiar with 6x6. Would this lens be similar to a 120 there? Also, is it radioactive? And what's the deal about 150 vs 165?

 

[johnha]

The 105 is out of sight price wise in the UK and seems to suffer from yellowing due to the radioactive element. I much prefer 90mm as a focal length and use the 90/2.8 Leaf Shutter instead.

Comparing 6x6 and 6x7 formats for equivalent focal lengths is awkward due to the different ratios. I'd compare them (including the minimum focussing differences) between the 135/4 macro, 150/2.8 & 165/2.8 from:https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Telephoto-Primes-c37.html

 

[GLS]

The 105 is half a stop faster and trades at $300, and is radioactive. The 150 trades at $100, is a half stop slower, a lot cheaper, not radioactive, a bit tighter frame. Lots of people give "35mm equivalent" FoV for lenses but I'm more familiar with 6x6. Would this lens be similar to a 120 there? Also, is it radioactive? And what's the deal about 150 vs 165?

The radioactivity of the 105 due to the thoriated element is really not any danger unless you were to hold the rear element of the lens against your head for days on end. When mounted to the camera (or even with the rear cap on) the radioactive emissions will be completely blocked. The lens yellowing can also be removed via UV treatment. If you're really concerned about either then I believe the last SMC version of the lens does not contain the thoriated element, but you will pay more for it.

I do not own the 150, but the field of view will be very different; the 150 isn't really close to a 120 on 6x6. Probably closer to 135-140. I do own the 165 f2.8 though, and from what I have read it is the better lens than the 150.

Personally I would go for the 105. No other medium format lens quite has that same rendering wide open, and of all the "normal" lenses I have used for any system, this lens comes closest to exactly mimicking what my eyes see.

 

[abruzzi]

I think the 150/2.8 was just an earlier lens than the 165/2.8. I have the 150 and it has taken some very nice shots, but I don't have either 165 so I cant compare.

The comparison between the 105 and the 150 (or 165), if you don't like using mm equivalents, is essentially a "normal" and a "portrait" lens. On 35mm that a 50 and a 85, though the 150 is a bit wider. I'd agree that on 6x6 it might be equivalent to around 135mm or so.

Most of the cost of the 105 is due to reputation. Many modern photographers are obsessed with narrow depth of field and bokeh, and the 105 has that in spades. (as far as I know it has the largest aperture of any 6x7 lens.) Some of the 105s do yellow (I don't know if the later ones do, but the first generation does.), so be prepared to deal with that if you get a 105.

EDIT: here is one of my favorite shots with the 150/2.8. Delta 3200 handheld, wide open, at 1/30:



And on the same roll here is a shot with the 105, also wide open at 1/30:

 

[pressureworld]

Don't sleep on the 75mm F4. This was shot handheld. I also owned the 75mm 2.8 but loved the optics of the slower version.

 

[138S]

105 f2.4 sound like a good kit?

The 45mm is a good lens, but the 105mm 2.4 in particular is extraordinary, for portraits in special, it has an amazing bokeh, one of those lenses for what a Pro photographer may buy a camera without thinking twice. Of course with glass YMMV, but there are great artists around that rely in particular with that 105 2.4. Not Made in Japan, made in heaven. The shots I made I love the more were made with that glass.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have used a number of P67 lenses, all the way from 55 to 300mm. But my favorite simplified 2-lens kit is a 75/4.5 and 165/2.8.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The old 55/3.5 and the 135/4 are a pretty great pairing - the 55 has wonderful rendering of tonalities & should be kept well away from those who take pictures of grey cards and flat test charts etc.