Pentax 6x7 Lens

[ColColt]

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.

There you go, that's all that matters. I did make a partial living years ago doing weddings and portraits with the 6x7 system but the 75mm wasn't part of the repertoire back then-only the 45, 90 and 165 lenses. I've gained the 75 f4.5 only within the last six months and have no gripes about the quality it produces. With a yellow filter and lower light it can be a slight but achievable problem.

 

[mtjade2007]

......... I've gained the 75 f4.5 only within the last six months and have no gripes about the quality it produces. With a yellow filter and lower light it can be a slight but achievable problem.

I have a 75 f4.5 too. It is probably the sharpest lens I have among all my P67 lenses. Here is a recent shot I got from this lens of mine. Note that this is a raw image right out of my scanner with no sharpening applied. You can see the dusts on the image still. The only thing I did to it was an auto levels by Photoshop.

 

[ColColt]

It's a fine lens for sure, bought one myself about a year back but still have my heart set on the f2.8 version some day.

 

[mtjade2007]

It's a fine lens for sure, bought one myself about a year back but still have my heart set on the f2.8 version some day.

This is completely understandable. I have a Contax RTS-2 system with a 85mm f2.8. But a 85mmf1.4 was so inspiring that I eventually acquired a NOS 85mmf1.4 unused in the original box. Well, over the years I found that I used the f2.8 far more than the f1.4 one. I can't explain why I wanted the 1.4 so bad yet I picked the 2.8 and left the 1.4 at home most of the time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With the P67 there's quite a difference between trying to focus using 4.5 vs 2.8 with a wide-angle lens unless one is using a tripod or simply aimed at
an infinity subject. I can understand the dilemma. But this is not an issue with me personally because I normally use a tripod. The slower lens is not
optically inferior, and sells for a just a fraction of the faster lens. Just depends on your priorities. If I could buy a 75/2.8 as reasonably as the 4.5,
that would be a different story entirely.

 

[ColColt]

I suppose it depends on your style. I typically shoot on bright sunny days and overcast. Some days it's what Kodak use to call "cloudy bright, no shadows" type of day. In those situations f4.5 is enough and as mentioned, that lens is certainly not inferior.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

f4.5 vs f2.8: apples and oranges.
Dissimilar in optical construction and much improved in handling. If you never expect to photograph in low light or be plagued by the infuriating imprecision of a dim viewfinder by a slow lens in less than ideal conditions you work in (even with hyperfocal, it still is not precise), then the f4.5 version will be OK. The f4.5 version is an old design frequently referred to as a clunker, lumped into the same basket as a few other unwieldly lenses, the 55mm being one good example. Apart from its appealing amount of viewfinder brightness, even with a polariser, it has some nice little touches: the f2.8AL has a light-touch focusing action, spring-assisted aperture movement (rather than a conscious force to shift aperture, just a gentle finger-nudge), a filter holder at the rear, and an overall smaller, lighter and more agreeable handling. In short, it's not really just about aperture and focal length, but they are part of the equation! You do pay for all of these improvements though, so it is purely a matter of suitability to your dominant style of photography, ahead of desire (the f2.8AL may be eye-candy, but its cost must be justified for many people who cannot see it paying its way).

 

[Film Smells Good]

f4.5 vs f2.8: apples and oranges.
Dissimilar in optical construction and much improved in handling. If you never expect to photograph in low light or be plagued by the infuriating imprecision of a dim viewfinder by a slow lens in less than ideal conditions you work in (even with hyperfocal, it still is not precise), then the f4.5 version will be OK. The f4.5 version is an old design frequently referred to as a clunker, lumped into the same basket as a few other unwieldly lenses, the 55mm being one good example. Apart from its appealing amount of viewfinder brightness, even with a polariser, it has some nice little touches: the f2.8AL has a light-touch focusing action, spring-assisted aperture movement (rather than a conscious force to shift aperture, just a gentle finger-nudge), a filter holder at the rear, and an overall smaller, lighter and more agreeable handling. In short, it's not really just about aperture and focal length, but they are part of the equation! You do pay for all of these improvements though, so it is purely a matter of suitability to your dominant style of photography, ahead of desire (the f2.8AL may be eye-candy, but its cost must be justified for many people who cannot see it paying its way).

View attachment 159809

Those are really interesting points that I never really consider! Usually when you're lusting over lenses, those other points get forgotten.

For folks that have both, do you find you use both of them still?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was in deep shade in the redwoods a week ago using the 75/4.5. No problem with focus. Tripod and a supplementary magnifier of course, which would be necessary regardless due to the deep shade and slow film speed. But I also had along the 300 EDIF, which being very long is visually far
brighter even at the same viewing stop. Since it has a very shallow depth of field in such conditions, I used the bright chimney finder with it, which
is the most acute focus device they offer. Could have used that on the 75 too, but opted for two camera bodies rather than switching lenses, since it
was an exercise day and I wanted to squeeze in a fair amount of mileage into the afternoon, with as heavy a pack as possible, and not just shots.
No way I can afford the faster 75 on this year's gear budget. Hard to say if they'll all be snatched up further down the line.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I was in deep shade in the redwoods a week ago using the 75/4.5. No problem with focus. Tripod and a supplementary magnifier of course, which would be necessary regardless due to the deep shade and slow film speed. But I also had along the 300 EDIF, which being very long is visually far
brighter even at the same viewing stop. Since it has a very shallow depth of field in such conditions, I used the bright chimney finder with it, which
is the most acute focus device they offer. Could have used that on the 75 too, but opted for two camera bodies rather than switching lenses, since it
was an exercise day and I wanted to squeeze in a fair amount of mileage into the afternoon, with as heavy a pack as possible, and not just shots.
No way I can afford the faster 75 on this year's gear budget. Hard to say if they'll all be snatched up further down the line.

****

The longer you wait, the more you'll likely hand over for the f2.8AL! The price is trending upward, indicating it is still in demand and people are prepared to pay for it as a useful 'big ticket' item, for some, if only to salivate over it, lust over it, gloss over it, brag over it...whatever!!

Redwoods! I have also photographed Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens : Coastal Redwood) here in Victoria (planted in 1936 as an experiment to see how well the species grew in a near-coastal climate). I did not own the f2.8AL then, and made one pic with the f4/45mm, focusing with the polariser minimized. Early on in the shoot I did have reasonably brigh light and shifting shadows, clouding over later to the point where I needed a torch to navigate through the redwoods! And I couldn't focus!! The Redwoods here (visitors from the USA are often surprised to see them here in Australia!) are interesting because they co-exist with an adjacent/intermingling riverine cool-temperate rainforest environment, where there is often heavy fog and precipitation — features that are seemingly favourable to Sequoia.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Coast redwoods are basically fog collection machines; and the entire ecosystem collapsed, including the streams and fisheries, once they were mostly cut down. The tallest tree ever discovered was up atop the ridge behind where I'm at the moment. It was chopped down so a scientist could count the rings. Now not a single old-growth redwood is left on the central coast of Calif, but quite a bit of second growth and planted groves. There
are also quite a few planted groves on the foggy mid-elevations of Hawaiian Islands, which otherwise even scenically resemble this area, even if the
lower beach elevations are hot and tropical. 6x7 photography is a fun diversion for me, and a nice travel format. But my preferred gear in the redwoods, which I'll be toting this coming weekend, is an 8x10 for the sake of not only exceptional tonality and detail, but the choice of very long scale black and white sheet films. ... Meanwhile, what has replaced the redwoods locally are something from your part of the world - eucalyptus.
It's all over these hills, and the worst choice conceivable as residential shade, because it burns like hell, and is responsible for the worst urban fire
in this country's history about twenty years ago. My dad claimed eucalypts were first imported by the owner of a matchstick company. Figures.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... minor error someone will pounce on .... There are a few old growth redwood preserves slightly south of SF Bay, but not again till the northwest
corner of California. But I grew up in the Sierras, near several groves of Giant Sequoia, not quite as tall, but far more massive.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Coast redwoods are basically fog collection machines; and the entire ecosystem collapsed, including the streams and fisheries, once they were mostly cut down. The tallest tree ever discovered was up atop the ridge behind where I'm at the moment. It was chopped down so a scientist could count the rings. Now not a single old-growth redwood is left on the central coast of Calif, but quite a bit of second growth and planted groves. There
are also quite a few planted groves on the foggy mid-elevations of Hawaiian Islands, which otherwise even scenically resemble this area, even if the
lower beach elevations are hot and tropical. 6x7 photography is a fun diversion for me, and a nice travel format. But my preferred gear in the redwoods, which I'll be toting this coming weekend, is an 8x10 for the sake of not only exceptional tonality and detail, but the choice of very long scale black and white sheet films. ... Meanwhile, what has replaced the redwoods locally are something from your part of the world - eucalyptus.
It's all over these hills, and the worst choice conceivable as residential shade, because it burns like hell, and is responsible for the worst urban fire
in this country's history about twenty years ago. My dad claimed eucalypts were first imported by the owner of a matchstick company. Figures.

The Sequoia grove here will never be cut down. A Heritage Protection Covenant was placed on them in 1978 when logging was encroaching on the surrounding forest (before being incorporated into a National Park). The sequoia grove is all of and nothing more than a curious attraction now both for local people who have only ever known them to grow overseas and fine them adjacent to a rainforest, and to the visitors who admire tall, stately hardwoods. Weddings, as well as Sunday picnics, are frquently held in summer amongst the cool, rolling ground of the Sequoia.

I love eucy bear rub! It's the bespoke chest rub for nasty coughs. Yes, eucalyptus is a virtual firebrand, but so too are elms and oaks, as demonstrated by the devastating bushfire in the mountain hamlet of Marysville here in 2009 where it wasn't the tall eucy forests that caused a problem, but the century-old elms and oaks that required focused efforts to extinguish when everything else was burnt to a crisp.