Pentax 6x7 55 3.5

[Grim Tuesday]

What's the deal with this lens? It's 1/2 to 1/3 the price of all the other wide angles for Pentax 67. Is it really that much worse?

 

[dourbalistar]

I haven't shot the newer versions, so I can't speak to direct comparisons, but perhaps buyers/users prefer the size and weight of the f/4 variants. I have the S-M-C version, and it has a gigantic 100mm front filter thread. Bigger and heavier, but lighter on your wallet. I doubt the image quality is commensurate with the price difference.
https://antiquecameras.net/pentax6x7lenses.html

 

[DREW WILEY]

That particular focal length dramatically improved post- 3.5, so it's logically not much in demand. Just depends on whether your priority is upon a bargain price or better performance. You're comparing an OK lens with a couple later generations of really superb ones, which also seem to be well priced at the moment, compared to what they once were at least. The Pentax Forum explains it well.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's a fantastic lens if you aren't a pixel peeper in the corners at wide apertures - but it's not a tripodists' lens either. Its imperfections make it great, just as the last 55/4's perfection makes it great too - in other ways. Everything about the 55/3.5 is oversize however - filters lens hood etc. I'd never, ever part with my Super-Takumar (yes, pre SMC!).

 

[Randy Stewart]

Including the 3.5, there four versions of 55mm for the Pentax 67. The last two are nearly identical in image, the very last being almost equal performance across the entire image, and its predecessor being a hair sharper in the center area but less so in the edges and corners. The early 55mm 3.5 is sharp enough in the center area but falls off quickly into the edges and corners. A lot of P67s are used for landscapes, which means filters. The 100mm filter size is an odd size, so few vendors make them at all, and then at huge prices. Pentax originally sold 100mm filters for the lens, but those were swept up many years ago. Thus the lower price on the lens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What does "Pixel Peeping" vocabulary have in common with an "analog" forum, Lachlan? I guess if you put one of these 55's on one of their digital 645's and moved it to a different section, there could be a legitimate conversation of some kind. A prolific user of the 55/3.5 was Yoshikazu Shirakawa with his famous picture books of the Himalyas, Alps, and North American deserts and mountains. Even in those books you can easily detect the limitations of that lens. But that was all prior to any other P67 option in that focal length.

 

[dourbalistar]

What does "Pixel Peeping" vocabulary have in common with an "analog" forum, Lachlan? I guess if you put one of these 55's on one of their digital 645's and moved it to a different section, there could be a legitimate conversation of some kind. A prolific user of the 55/3.5 was Yoshikazu Shirakawa with his famous picture books of the Himalyas, Alps, and North American deserts and mountains. Even in those books you can easily detect the limitations of that lens. But that was all prior to any other P67 option in that focal length.

I'm pretty sure he meant it in the idiomatic way, as in, to closely inspect darkroom prints with a loupe. If you prefer, how about "grain gawking"?

 

[moto-uno]

^ +1 , Peter

 

[MattKing]

Or if you prefer, and with a tip of the hat to PE's memory, "grain grokking"

 

[Lachlan Young]

What does "Pixel Peeping" vocabulary have in common with an "analog" forum, Lachlan? I guess if you put one of these 55's on one of their digital 645's and moved it to a different section, there could be a legitimate conversation of some kind. A prolific user of the 55/3.5 was Yoshikazu Shirakawa with his famous picture books of the Himalyas, Alps, and North American deserts and mountains. Even in those books you can easily detect the limitations of that lens. But that was all prior to any other P67 option in that focal length.

Yeah, it was just a way of saying 'over-investigating the edge resolution in your preferred reproduction medium' - I can think of several perjorative terms for it...

As it is, I'm pretty sure it's just a bit of field curvature - like plenty other wide SLR lenses of that period (the 21/4 Super Angulon R as just one example) the optical choices seem to have been high centre resolution & field curvature, or less curvature but poorer overall resolution. At least it doesn't have the sometimes questionable edge sharpness in all focal lengths caused by the MF SLR's with their double folded film paths.

More importantly however, the right kind of aberrations/ sharpness behaviour can improve an image - the enduring popularity (I recall there's actually a waiting list for renting certain specific serial #'s) of Panavision's C-Series anamorphics shows this rather clearly. To put it simply: the visual grammar and metaphysical characteristics of the 55/3.5 suit what I want to say visually much better than a lens with notionally 'better' spec sheet.

 

[Ariston]

It's a little selfish of me, but I prefer that the masses all keep lusting after the same few "perfect" lenses, so the others remain cheap. I have lenses and filters with scratches that I can't get to affect the photos, no matter how I try.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I only got about 6 shots out of my P67 55. One of those shots soon proved to be worth more than my entire MF investment. But then my brother wanted to use that lens, so I loaned it to him until his death, and then finally sold it. He loved that lens. I just gravitate more to the 75 focal length.