Pentax 6x7 Lens

ColColt · Jun 7, 2016

I just ran across an absolute LNIB Pentax 6x7 75mm f2.8AL lens for under $900 and fighting hard not getting it. I've read it's a superb lens and highly coveted...must not give in!!

Alan Gales · Jun 8, 2016

Just under nine hundred for a normal to moderate wide lens for medium format 6x7? I think I would pass. Now a LNIB Cooke triple convertible in Copal shutter 8x10 lens for $900? I'd be all over that!

I guess it just depends upon what you want.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 8, 2016

Stop procrastinating, sweetheart.
I paid $1,440 MINT+W 3 years ago, and it is my standard prime. It's an asph lens and beautifully balanced — far removed from the often cumbersome and clumsy weight/girth of other 67 lenses.

In a few words, truly, madly, deeply... bloody marvellous.

splash_fr · Jun 8, 2016

I payd 1300 Euros for mine and don't regret doing so!
It is so good!

dpurdy · Jun 8, 2016

I have looked at this lens for a couple years and under 900 mint is a good price for it... that said I am very happy with my 75 4.5 and it is probably worth about a hundred bucks.

mweintraub · Jun 8, 2016

dpurdy said:
I have looked at this lens for a couple years and under 900 mint is a good price for it... that said I am very happy with my 75 4.5 and it is probably worth about a hundred bucks.

Agreed. I have the 75mm 4.5 SMC because the 2.8 would cost more than my entire kit. I'm very happy with the 4.5 sharpness. I do wish for the faster lens for the focusing assistance, but I think I'm going to upgrade the ground glass to the Maxwell screen.

ChuckP · Jun 8, 2016

Don't forget that it will hold a good resale value. Not like buying a new couch or something. I just picked up a 75 f4.5 and it does seem like a very nice focal length to use. My photography doesn't support justifying the expense of the f2.8al upgrade. Now if I was doing a lot of large prints it might be different. Or needed the smaller size for very long hikes. Or faster speed for hand held pictures. Or smaller depth of field for artistic purposes.

DREW WILEY · Jun 8, 2016

That's about the going rate at the moment for a clean version of the 2.8. They were almost impossible to get for awhile. I'd love to have one but can't justify the expense, since I normally use a tripod and the 75/4.5 is itself optically superb with lovely bokeh, just dimmer to focus; and I recently tanked my allocated 6x7 budget with the equally coveted 300 EDIF. Both 75's weigh nearly the same, though the 2.8 uses smaller 67mm filters versus 82mm. The only way to significantly save weight on the P67 is to switch out the heavy prism for a magnifying hood or folding finder - both clumsier to use and tripod mandatory, but distinctly brighter and more accurate to focus.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 8, 2016

Yes, dimmer to focus. And that's a problem. An f4.5 lens is an f4.5 lens and irrespective of its sharpness or bokeh, it will be a PITA to focus in dim light. As a rainforest photographer I must have not just one but two f2.8 lenses in the kit ready to swap-in over an f4 ultrawide. A polariser, standard in all of my work, doesn't help with an f4 lens, but it is nowhere near a pain with the 75 f2.8AL. True, I do have additional focusing aids (central spot magnifier and right angle viewer) but all this does is make the process slightly easier at the expense of slowing everything down. Ergo, the brighter f2.8 vs f4/f4.5 will often be the tipping point to purchasing the more expensive lens in spite of the perceived attractions of the cheaper SMC Pentax 67 version.

DREW WILEY · Jun 8, 2016

The dimmer 4.5 lens is largely a non-issue for me, since on tripod I can simply use an accessory magnifier with the prism, or the chimney hood which is plenty bright even in low light. Nor is it an issue handheld for infinity subjects, where focus is assured anyway. Handholding with a slow
film plus a significant contrast filter attached, that is another story, where an extra stop of speed might be invaluable. This obviously depends on your
priorities. Mine is more in the large format arena, and at this point in life I'm trying to be budget-neutral. In other words, if I want a new lens, I try to sell a less needed item to offset the expense. Hopefully I won't choke on my own words this weekend, while I'm toting my SLOW 75 through deep
woods, along with the 300. So far, its prints have been consistently excellent, and that is all that really counts.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 8, 2016

Yes it may well be a non-issue, but as I read it those circumstances are the same as mine what with the ability to use a magnifier or right angle finder. But a chimney hood is out of the question with all of my work produced in portrait orientation. Can you imagine if I bend over low to squint into that, the leeches will bite me on the bum!

My beef is that so many people go for the slower lenses in economy alone, but their lack of experience catches them out in less than ideal light where dim focusing is not only slow and challenging, but can also give rise to strident, unwarranted riticism of the P67 system (another profound indicator of a lack of experience). Budget will always be a consideration for people, but they must also "look ahead" in addition to looking back at problems they experienced with slow lenses. Certainly if budget considerations permit, I advise skilled photographers to go for the faster lenses so you are well equipped to handle circumstances when and where they come up. At a pinch, I would ditch my much-loved 45mm f4 for an f2.8 version if such a luxury were available!

mweintraub · Jun 9, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
The dimmer 4.5 lens is largely a non-issue for me, since on tripod I can simply use an accessory magnifier with the prism, or the chimney hood which is plenty bright even in low light. Nor is it an issue handheld for infinity subjects, where focus is assured anyway. Handholding with a slow
film plus a significant contrast filter attached, that is another story, where an extra stop of speed might be invaluable. This obviously depends on your
priorities. Mine is more in the large format arena, and at this point in life I'm trying to be budget-neutral. In other words, if I want a new lens, I try to sell a less needed item to offset the expense. Hopefully I won't choke on my own words this weekend, while I'm toting my SLOW 75 through deep
woods, along with the 300. So far, its prints have been consistently excellent, and that is all that really counts.

This. And Cost.

Poisson Du Jour said:
Yes it may well be a non-issue, but as I read it those circumstances are the same as mine what with the ability to use a magnifier or right angle finder. But a chimney hood is out of the question with all of my work produced in portrait orientation. Can you imagine if I bend over low to squint into that, the leeches will bite me on the bum!

My beef is that so many people go for the slower lenses in economy alone, but their lack of experience catches them out in less than ideal light where dim focusing is not only slow and challenging, but can also give rise to strident, unwarranted riticism of the P67 system (another profound indicator of a lack of experience). Budget will always be a consideration for people, but they must also "look ahead" in addition to looking back at problems they experienced with slow lenses. Certainly if budget considerations permit, I advise skilled photographers to go for the faster lenses so you are well equipped to handle circumstances when and where they come up. At a pinch, I would ditch my much-loved 45mm f4 for an f2.8 version if such a luxury were available!

Agreed about the unwarranted criticism, but disagree about choosing the slower lenses on economy alone, I can say that that's a big issue with some people, including me. It's not like the 2.8 AL is a little more, for me it was a lot more. I think I paid $175 for a mint with hood Late SMC 75mm. A 2.8 AL is over 5 times that amount based on the price in this thread. Right now as I'm not using the P67 for business I won't see returns on my use of the lenses. If/when that happens, the 2.8 might be in my future!

ColColt · Jun 9, 2016

The cost of the lens is not a factor with me, it's whether I really need it or not. I have two 90's, the f2.8 and f2.8 LS lens, 165 f2.8, 55 f4 and 75 f4.5. If I were still doing weddings, family reunions it would be a no brainer to opt for the f2.8 or if I got out more than I do. I suppose it primarily depends on needs and what and where you photograph.

DREW WILEY · Jun 9, 2016

Using a chimney hood for vertical compositions is indeed literally a pain in the neck! But I've done it to save pack weight, including with a nice machined right angle mounting bracket in lieu of a tripod head. Not so bad on day hike when I can afford the weight of a tall wooden tripod too,
plus a pan/tilt head. When I'm not carrying an 8x10 on weedkends, I have to make up the pack weight with a bunch of other stuff. At my age,
constant training is necessary for being in shape when the long backpack trips arrive. I'm not a fifty year old teenager anymore!

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 9, 2016

mweintraub said:
Agreed about the unwarranted criticism, but disagree about choosing the slower lenses on economy alone, I can say that that's a big issue with some people, including me. It's not like the 2.8 AL is a little more, for me it was a lot more. I think I paid $175 for a mint with hood Late SMC 75mm. A 2.8 AL is over 5 times that amount based on the price in this thread. Right now as I'm not using the P67 for business I won't see returns on my use of the lenses. If/when that happens, the 2.8 might be in my future!

That price is reflected in its optical performance. It's not a cheap and clunky plastic-y showpony dollied up with a fluoro-coloured price tag. If you're not operating in a professional capacity and selling your work, then the lens will obviously not pay for itself and will simply burn a hole in your pocket. For others that do produce and sell their work, the lens is a valid consideration. Mine has paid for itself 3x or 4x now despite earlier misgivings until I had spoken with two other P67 togs using the lens and evaluated the results. To my knowledge we all use the 75AL as our standard lens for its speed.

DREW WILEY · Jun 9, 2016

The 75/4.5 might even be a tad better corrected optically than its far more expensive cousin. It generally easier to correct a lens at a smaller aperture, and this slower version is free of the allegedly very slight distortion of 2.8. But one of the very desirable features of the P67 system is in
fact its selection of fast lenses. I realize this every time I hand shoot it with my 105/2.4 or 165/2.8. And even the much stiffer price of the 75/2.8
is well below the likes of Zeiss lenses for Hassie, Contax, and Rollei - in other words, not out of line at all for pro medium format equipment, with
nothing to apologize for in terms of performance comparison. The system per se has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. It is very ergonomic
and affordable overall, but a tad heavy, with a noisy hard mirror slap that you have to understand how to tame. But the selection of lenses is very
good indeed unless you need to synchronize flash with the entire selection. I don't shoot flash anyway; and even if I did, it would probably be in
focal lengths where there do offer a leaf-shutter option.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 10, 2016

On today's shoot around the Otways hinterland rainforest, the 75AL came into its own in the ghastly wet and dark conditions. The KSM C-POL made things darker, but still easier to focus than the f4 that I initially planned on using (once, until I lost my patience...). Then I have to battle to keep the P67 dry in the steady rain, and pick off leeches, and ensure I don't tumble off sliprock into the frigid water!! So exposed two rolls of Vaudeville Velvia and x1 of Provia 400X; that's my hit-up of E6 for today on the cusp of a long weekend (the Queen's Birthday long weekend, no less). Tomorrow I will ride my BMX-on-steroids. Yep! Still at it. To my Grade 4 teacher many,many years ago: "when I grow up, I want to be a BMX bike rider.". To wit: "Gabby, Gabby, you can't do both.".

Adieu.

mweintraub · Jun 10, 2016

Poisson Du Jour said:
That price is reflected in its optical performance. It's not a cheap and clunky plastic-y showpony dollied up with a fluoro-coloured price tag. If you're not operating in a professional capacity and selling your work, then the lens will obviously not pay for itself and will simply burn a hole in your pocket. For others that do produce and sell their work, the lens is a valid consideration. Mine has paid for itself 3x or 4x now despite earlier misgivings until I had spoken with two other P67 togs using the lens and evaluated the results. To my knowledge we all use the 75AL as our standard lens for its speed.

The 4.5 is not a bad lens. None of the available P67 lenses are bad. I find nearly all MF lenses amazing. I find them on level with the high end Gold ring Nikon or Red ring L Canon lenses. I do find it funny when people say the 90mm LS is not as sharp as the non-LS and it's kind of a waste. The non-LS is a great lens based on antiquecameras.net's ratings. (B+) and the LS version gets a B. Um. If it's still better than 135 lenses, I see no problem with that.

That's great. Yeah, If the P67 starts making me money, I'll probably get the 2.8 AL and maybe the 165mm 2.8 to complement the 165mm LS I have.

DREW WILEY · Jun 10, 2016

Ghastly wet hinterlands. Yeah, that's me, tomorrow. But it depends on the elevation and time of day. The fog can clear off the beaches, but then as one hikes uphills, drippy dark cloud forests become the treat. On the same hike one can encounter gentle natural softbox conditions, outright rain
(our redwoods and firs and naturally engineered to turn fog into rain around their root systems), and then when the sun comes out, often twelve stops of contrast between deep shadows and highlights on forest details. Since I'm out mainly for exercise and photographic fun, I'll be toting the
75/4.5 and 300EDIF with their matching filter size, plus the same big Ries tripod I normally use for 8x10. Yeah, under such circumstances I would
love to own the 75/2.8, but it's one of those newer P67 lenses that has indeed held its monetary value, and never seems to come up as a bargain.
And when I car travel to backpacking destinations, I generally have a 4x5 system in the pack, but my quickie snapshooting P67 gear left behind in the
truck. Under such circumstances, it would be my older beater lenses, including the ordinary 300, which is fine for basic black and white work, and
not my new crown jewel 300EDIF. Same would apply if I did own the 75/2.8. But looking over an old catalog last night, none of these lenses were
cheap back when they were new. So nobody should confuse current bargain-status with quality per se, or optical performance.

destroya · Jun 10, 2016

I have wanted the 75 2.8 for a long time but have had a hard time justifying it. I am very happy with the results I am getting with the latest smc 4.5 75mm. B&W negs are very sharp and print very well. slides come out with great color, no fringing and perfect contrast, just what I want for slides. So yeh if i won the lottery I would get one, but for me $1000 buys a lot of film.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 10, 2016

destroya said:
I have wanted the 75 2.8 for a long time but have had a hard time justifying it. I am very happy with the results I am getting with the latest smc 4.5 75mm. B&W negs are very sharp and print very well. slides come out with great color, no fringing and perfect contrast, just what I want for slides. So yeh if i won the lottery I would get one, but for me $1000 buys a lot of film.

A lot of film?? How lucky. Here, $1,000 doesn't pay for one 80x70cm print's production, matting and framing!!
That's why all work produced must be top notch, not freestyle, carefree snapshots in B&W. It's a job that has to pay, and the pay depends on the time and quality expended. Everything has got to pay for itself over time. It's a valid observation though that if you're satisfied with the slower lens, stick with it. The faster lenses, as I've explained previously, hold their own in conditions that present difficulty (dim/low light), ergo, getting an image "over the line" quicker and with less fuss than the f4 lens. And "niceties" like the spring-loaded aperture ring and the pinky-delicate focusing precision and the 67mm filter...all add up to some convenience.

I do not know how much the 75AL lens cost when it was first released, but that would have been around the time of the Pentax 67ii camera (whenever that was). I thought the 75AL was included in that as a basic starter kit (oh lord, I am seeing huge price tags already...). I don't know really.

DREW WILEY · Jun 10, 2016

Slow versus fast lenses have little or nothing to due with image quality, just convenience. Most MF brands consist of nearly exclusively lenses in the
f/4 or less max aperture category, with maybe only a token "normal" in the bigger aperture range. I only briefly owned a 55 for my P76 - hardly a
fast lens; but my fifth shot with it hit paydirt, and not long after I simply sold the lens. 6x7 is marginal for serious enlargement anyway. I get by;
but any day of the week I'd rather be printing from sheet film. The whole point of MF is bagging shots that with otherwise escape the slower setup of
bigger cameras, as well as having compact gear that is easier to shoot on rainy day, during high winds, roadside quickies, ability to optionally handhold, travel convenience, etc. - all valid reasons, but overall still with a glass jaw once in the boxing ring with bigger film and full plane of focus
and perspective controls, and the opposite direction less fluid and spontaneous than 35mm gear. I like it all, and get excellent results with all. You
just choose the right gear for the right circumstances, then try to make the most of it in the darkroom. But when it comes to economics per se,
120 film is an outright bargain compared to 8x10, especially with color film.

DREW WILEY · Jun 10, 2016

(postcript)... The 75/2.8 has always been expensive and uncommon, never a standard package option. It is always optically unique among P67 lenses
in being hybrid - that aspheric element is allegedly actually plastic! That why the things cost around a thousand bucks instead of four thousand.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 10, 2016

From Phil on Pentax forums. This additional information may be of interest to readers.

[...]
The 75/2.8 is a complete ground up redesign of the 75mm focal length.
These are the improvements over the older 75/4.5 lens:

- Length has been reduced from 81mm to 66mm.
- Maximum aperture has been increased from f/4.5 to f/2.8.
- Minimum focusing distance has been reduced from 70cm to 41cm.
- Filter thread has been reduced from 82mm to 67mm.
- Aspherical lens elements have been added to reduce distortion.
- The hood was redesigned to allow the use of a polarizer with the hood attached.

The 75/2.8 takes full advantage of the wide/normal 75mm focal length and is the perfect one-lens option. Its handling, optics, speed and size make it the most useful and versatile lens made for the Pentax 6x7 system.

CLOSE-UP WORK: The 75/2.8 excels in close-up work due to its excellent minimum focusing distance of 41 cm (16.14 inches) and the AL elements.

MACRO WORK: The 75/2.8 will also give you the greatest magnification of any Pentax 6x7 lens when reversed. Unfortunately the 75/2.8 is so new the Pentax 6x7 extension tubes/bellows guides were not updated with the magnification specifications for this lens. I would guess you can easily get over 3x magnification with the lens reversed and all three extension tubes used. More if you use the lens reversed on the 6x7 bellows.

FILTER: The 67 75/2.8 uses 67mm screw in filters. You can’t use Pentax 6x7 67mm bayonet filters on this lens.

CASE: The 67 75/2.8 comes with the S90-140 soft case.

HOOD: The 67 75/2.8 uses a plastic tulip style bayonet mount PH-RBJ 67mm hood. The hood mounts on the outside rim of the lens front and has a removable "window" on one side to adjust a polarizer filter.

I can't validate that the lens has plastic asp lenses. My understanding from reading somewhere is that both asp elements are glass and very thin.

And then, the price trend (!):
I fancy I would have been very, very happy paying $700, but it didn't work out that way at all!

Alan Gales · Jun 11, 2016

ColColt said:
The cost of the lens is not a factor with me, it's whether I really need it or not.

I don't think it's whether you need it or not. You want it and are just trying to justify the costs.

You can ask all you want but it all depends upon you. I wouldn't want it. I don't even care for the Pentax 6X7 cameras but I'm not you. All I know is that I probably overpaid on my 14" Commercial Ektar lens. It's a normal lens for 8x10. I don't regret it at all because it's my favorite lens and I get excited every time I mount it on my camera. I'm not a pro and I'll never make money from it but the lens makes me happy and that's all that matters.

Pentax 6x7 Lens

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency