Pentax 6x7 Costs

[Poisson Du Jour]

I finally decided to go with this one. It was the best looking one I found and has the biprism I like so well. I think I'll enjoy it as I did the other one. Moreover, I bought the late 75 f4.5 lens to go along with it.

P6x7 by David Fincher, on Flickr

It looks very neatly kept indeed. Probably best to now run a roll of transparency film through the camera to check the accuracy of the TTL meter, which has a 5-stop range and will show obviously under- or over-exposure if the meter has any age-related malaise (common for all 67 / 6x7 TTL meters but especially on cameras from the 1969 era).

The f4 to f4.5 lenses are a pita to focus in anything other than very bright light. I have the central-spot magnifier and the right angle viewer, either of which helps and cuts down the amount of to-ing and fro-ing of focus in the light I am accustomed to working in (soft/diffuse/overcast or plain dim!).

 

[ColColt]

I had the 45 f4 lens and it wasn't bad to focus, the 75 f4.5 I'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't think there would be much difference. Imagine an f5.6 lens!

Testing with transparencies are the only way to go with a new camera. I did that on my last two shooting Fuiji Provia. That's how I discovered a light leak in one of them-it was quite obvious.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The 45 f4 is my prime landscape lens, but when teamed up with a KSM polariser, things set decidedly very fiddly with focusing. I can get around this by focusing with the POL off, then attach it. Works well this way but there is always the risk of a gentle nudge to the lens throwing off the focus ever-so-slightly, enough to be highly visible at big enlargements. Lenses of f5.6 are terrible. The 67 really needs a better focusing screen for slow lenses.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk

 

[ColColt]

My other two bodies had the microprism and it was hit and miss with the focus until I got the split image screen for both of them. That was one of the reasons I went with this one-it had the split image screen, something old eyes need over the microprism.

I still do pretty good with the Leica rangefinder patch but, with the split image I can nail focus every time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 75/4.5 can be a tad difficult to focus in dim light, but that is easily solved with the clip-on adjustable magnifying eye piece onto the
pentaprism (on tripod, of course). Even better is the rigid chimney hood, but that is a chore if the camera is pointed down or in the vertical
position. I just did my suite of test shots with the 300 EDIF using the chimney hood due to its own exceptional precision. But that particular lens is so stellar that it might be sharper on my Nikon than almost any Nikon branded telephoto of equivalent focal length. (I ordered a Nikon adapter for it too, though exposures have to be taken on manual setting per f-stop). The later 55's are also very sharp, but weigh more and have dramatically more illumination falloff. It just wasn't my lens, it seems; but the 75 does have the right "feel" for me. I sold my 55 after taking only a few shots with it, though one of them sold well enough to pay for that lens many times over.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 75/4.5 can be a tad difficult to focus in dim light, but that is easily solved with the clip-on adjustable magnifying eye piece onto the
pentaprism (on tripod, of course). Even better is the rigid chimney hood, but that is a chore if the camera is pointed down or in the vertical
position. I just did my suite of test shots with the 300 EDIF using the chimney hood due to its own exceptional precision. But that particular lens is so stellar that it might be sharper on my Nikon than almost any Nikon branded telephoto of equivalent focal length. (I ordered a Nikon adapter for it too, though exposures have to be taken on manual setting per f-stop). The later 55's are also very sharp, but weigh more and have dramatically more illumination falloff. It just wasn't my lens, it seems; but the 75 does have the right "feel" for me. I sold my 55 after taking only a few shots with it, though one of them sold well enough to pay for that lens many times over.

 

[ColColt]

I had considered the 55 as another alternative or addition, rather. I hadn't read anything about light fall off with it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The falloff is pretty dramatic, about a stop and a half, typical of wide-angle lenses of that angle of view. There are center filters to correct this, but they would probably cost more than the lens itself at this point in history. Just depends how you feel about darkening toward the corners, which is obviously more an issue with chrome film than with negs. But if you do buy a 55, make sure its a late one. This is one focal length where the sharpness improved significantly post-Takumar. Those bargains won't last forever on really clean examples of this lens.

 

[ColColt]

The camera and lens came today...what a beauty. It looks better than my last one and I thought it looked great. I lucked out. I think KEH would call this one EX+. Ditto both lens. I still had my old strap and it's now on there and that handle taken off.

I had forgotten how heavy these cameras were being more use to the bantam weight Leica. Looking at the two of them side by side reminds me of an old cartoon characters in the "funny papers" from decades past-Mutt and Jeff if any old timers remember therm. One was short and stocky while the other tall and thin.

I'll put a roll of Tri-X through it tomorrow and see how things go. The light meter is spot on with my Gossen Luna Pro SBC. I did find the 75 f.4.5 was a bit dark looking through it shortly after it came but it had just rained and was very overcast. The sun finally popped back out and it looked better. No doubt about it I'm going to be on the lookout for a +0.5 diopter.

 

[ColColt]

The falloff is pretty dramatic, about a stop and a half, typical of wide-angle lenses of that angle of view.

How much of the frame does the vignetting cover? Is that just mostly at wide open?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is no image vignetting because it's a fixed lens, not a movable like a view camera lens. In other words, no part of the image is going to be cut off at any aperture, even the widest. But the level of illumination progressively recedes into the corners, just like nearly all true wide angle lens designs. Sometimes this effect bothers people, sometimes it doesn't. With the 75 lenses it's a minor issue. With the 55 and 45 lenses, it's fairly apparent, but no worse than in any other brand of equivalent MF focal length. I really wouldn't worry about it. Just get one anyway and have fun. The 55 is a superb lens. If you absolutely need to correct a lens that short for falloff, an 82mm center filter could be put on a step ring. Center filters aren't cheap. I never bothered, even though I own an appropriate 82. When things get technically nitpicky, I resort to large format gear anyway.

 

[ColColt]

I had the 45 f4 many years ago and can't recall a problem with it, but; there's lots of things from 1990 I can't recall. I've seen a few super looking 55 f4 lens lately and for a price I never would have thought. I'll have to pick up one and more importantly, neither were Takumar lens.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The 55mm f4 is an old Distagon design that really stands out, allowing giant enlargements to showcase the beauty of scene and format. The problem is the lens has an irksome bulk to it, is slow/tardy to focus (compare it with the precision focus of the 75mm f2.8AL) and is rather bland to look at. Of light fall off...well, I have several large framed prints where nothing of that sort is evident. The 45mm has a tiny bit of fall-off evident and this is easily fixed as required in post.

Over on the Pentax forums there was an observation that the 55mm lens may have had some variation. I don't know; haven't seen anybody nearby using one to have made a comparison. I, too, sold my 55mm after about a year and went down to the 45mm f4 (there are a few 'soft' specimens of this lens around).

Yes, the screw-on central spot magnifier is useful (if asking for trouble when it bangs me on the nose or pokes me in the eye...); so too is the right-angle finder -- I am very often not directly behind the camera, but to the side of it or below it is sometimes silly positions -- but I get the pic! I often call into use both of these accessories in the course of a long shoot. Both live in a tiny camera bag attatched to the tripod central column for ready access.

Those large format filters...I saw a Schneider 82mm centre filter IV for almost $700!!! Having a reputation as I do for regularly losing filters, imagine I would be in tears if I broke or lost such a pricey trinket...

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk

 

[DREW WILEY]

Falloff is simply an optical FACT with these wide angle designs. No ifs, ands, or buts. Has zero to do with batch variation, though the 55 did
improve above the years in several respect. It's inherent to the angle of view. Just shoot and print some chromes with it, with and without a center filter. The difference will be apparent. And being wider, a 55 will have this problem far more than an analogous 75. And of course, the 45 will be slightly worse. I think people just get used to darkening around the corners of wide-angle shots, just like they start subconsciously ignoring the tipping verticals. These characteristics can be used creatively. But this is obviously not a view camera situation where you can correct for perspective and plane of focus issues. And a PC lens for the P67 will be just as slow to use as a view camera, so spontaneity comes with its limitations. I sold my 55 a long time back, but they're so cheap at the moment, I might get tempted to buy one
again. Sometimes that falloff gave a nice characteristic to the image. Saying it can be post-corrected isn't always true by any means. With
color neg film, the underexpose in the corners might equate to a shift down the dye curve to the point the respective curve overlap, in which case it's almost impossible to correct them in PS. I'm a darkroom printmaker anyway.

 

[flavio81]

Falloff is simply an optical FACT with these wide angle designs. No ifs, ands, or buts.

No. There are wideangles and wideangles. Case in point, my Mamiya 55/4.5, for the RB67, does not have perceptible falloff wide open. Another case in point, my Canon FL 19/3.5R also shows little falloff wide open.

It depends on the designer choice. You can have almost zero falloff, at the cost of a very big front element assembly. On the other hand -and this is not only on wideangles but also in normal lenses- vignetting is sometimes intentionally added by the lens designers to improve corner performance.

 

[ColColt]

It seems the consensus is the 55 f4 is not a good lens to have in your bag, from what I gather. If the image quality is what I've read it to be in various places I could overlook any shortcomings such as weight or falloff. I wouldn't imagine it would be any heavier or slower to focus that the 75 f4.5 although I've never had the 55.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 55 balances just fine and I've shot it handheld. It's more a question if that's the angle of view you like or not. They're remarkably sharp. It's distinctly heavier than the 75/4.5, which is a superb lens in its own right. Focus in bright light or on a tripod is no problem with either. In dim light, handheld, I'd ideally want a 75/2.8, but that's pricey. The "normal" 105/2.4 is very bright of course. My lens budget is smashed for the year due to that recent 300 EDIF purchase, which was far more a priority for me than a 75/2.8, since I mainly shoot on a tripod and lean more toward long lenses than wide angles. And when it comes to wide angles, part of the reason P67 lenses are so cheap at the moment is that a number of film users per se are switching to more ergo lightwt cameras like the M7. But I never have felt comfortable with rangefinders, find the "bokeh" of the P67's lenses far better, want to option for long lenses, etc. I had a bit of trepidation buying that
300 EDIF since I already have the older 300, but now that I've fooled around with it and looked at the negs under magnification, have no
more regrets. It's an incredible lens. But I still like the old 300 for general black and white use. I don't have to be so paranoid about it, if
something bad happens.

 

[ColColt]

According to KEH's website the 55 weight in at 4.5 oz. more than the 75 f4.5. That's late model 55 vs. Takumar 75 f4.5. I can see me getting the 55 in the future along with the 165 f2.8.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

...I'd ideally want a 75/2.8, but that's pricey...

$1,400 at last look. That's NIBWW. I think they're becoming rare now; the dealer I bought mine from hasn't seen a 75AL for a good half-year now. P67 owners are hanging on to them a bit like heirlooms!!

 

[ColColt]

I know where there's one for less than $900 but I ain't tellin'

 

[ChuckP]

The new 55 does take a 77mm filter while the 75 uses 82mm. That 82mm is one of the reasons I've avoided the 75. Like everyone else I'd love a 75 f2.8. Hard to justify the cost but you have to consider that it will probably hold a good resale value. Not like buying a new sofa. My 55 is a very sharp lens. I bought the Pentax lens hood. What do others use for a hood?

 

[Hatchetman]

What do others use for a hood?

My hand? I dunno. I can't justify paying $100 for hood on $250 lens.

 

[ColColt]

They're a little cheaper than that.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pentax-6x7-...od-/281780253152?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368

 

[ColColt]

Speaking of the 55 lens, I'm looking at thes two and wondered which would be the best. They're comparable in price. One has 8 elements in 7 groups and weighs 25.6 ounces and is the late model...

Dead Link Removed

The other has 9 elements in 8 groups and weighs 21.7 ounces

Dead Link Removed

Both are post-Takumar lens.

 

[Hatchetman]

This may have some information on the late version. I have that, but don't have anything else to compare it to.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-55mm-F4-Lens.html