Pentax 6x7 lenses

[flavio81]

The late SMC 135/4 Macro is distortion free and sharp, and light enough to carry around whole day in the bushes. It works well for portraits too.

I just ordered a 135/4 yesterday, will report my impresions once I get to use it.

flavio - the vast majority of user replies on the Pentax Forum are in relation to actual P67 camera use.

It used to be the case, but if you look carefully, for lenses from 90mm up, you'll see lots of users putting the lenses on K-1 and other cameras. I'm referring at the "lens reviews" section of the site:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html

Going the opposite direction, people have successfully adapted all kinds of vintage-look lenses to P67 bodies, including projector lenses.

Yes, i've seen it, but I never have seen results that would justify the trouble (& cost) over using regular Pentax lenses. People adapt things like 120/2.0 lenses but it doesn't make too much sense to me, for example 120/2.0 = 60mm = same physical aperture as a 168/2.8 (the 165/2.8 Pentax is far cheaper). Depth of field is already really really narrow with most P6x7 lenses.

 

[aoresteen]

My kit was the 45mm, the 55mm, the 105mm, and the 200mm. All were excellent lenses. The 105 came with the body I bought.

My issue was the crop that the penta prism viewfinder gave. I preferred the waist level finder, especially the 45, but vertical shots were impossible. I gave the entire kit to my brother and now use my Cambo 23SF & 'Blads mostly.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, i've seen it, but I never have seen results that would justify the trouble (& cost) over using regular Pentax lenses. People adapt things like 120/2.0 lenses but it doesn't make too much sense to me, for example 120/2.0 = 60mm = same physical aperture as a 168/2.8 (the 165/2.8 Pentax is far cheaper). Depth of field is already really really narrow with most P6x7 lenses.

I think there are two main reasons for adapting other lenses to the Pentax 67. One is for long tele work and the other is for lens character, like bubble bokeh.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I doubt you're going to find better tele lenses per se than the dedicated later ones Pentax themselves made, which also happen to have excellent bokeh. But someone might want a more "dreamy" look based on this or that old lens formula, so that kind of adaptation does occur.

The fellow who sold me my first P67 setup specialized in Celestron telescopes, the whole line of P67 equip of that time, plus Nikon tele stuff. His personal work also revolved around tele photography. His favorite setup was big heavy 8X10 Toyo G view camera with a massive tripod, with a superbly corrected Apo Nikkor 360/9 process lens on the front, and the option of several cameras at the rear plane, including both P67, Nikon film SLR's, and Nikon digital DSLR's. But he also adapted Celestron scopes for P67 usage.

The astro photography crowd made optional vacuum backs for P67's, which allowed backless 220 film to be held exceptionally flat and precise. A couple of their favorite lenses were the 300 EDIF and 400 EDIF 6x7 ones.

 

[blee1996]

I have adapted projection lenses (ISCO/Schneider Cinelux for 70mm film) and Petzval lenses to P67, mainly for their unique look when wide open. They were both quite cheap and I already have them, thus only need M65 helicoid and M65 to P67 adapter.

But I do think it is a bit too much to pay $800+ for Cinelux project lenses with custom built aperture control. There are already tons of great choices in short tele lenses of native P67 mount.

 

[Tom Taylor]

I just ordered a 135/4 yesterday, will report my impresions once I get to use it.

IMO the 135 Macro is a much underrated lens. I took this photo with it at an outdoor exhibit of Dahlia's at SF's Golden Gate Park pointed straight down over a fence using no flash or filter:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Either the 105 or 165 do fine closeups with an extension ring. I've done a little of that; but about 95% of that kind of work I've done with 4X5 monorail gear instead, so never had the incentive to buy the dedicated 6X7
135 macro lens itself.

 

[Alan9940]

@DREW WILEY Off topic from the recent posts in this thread, but as someone with 300EDIF experience I was wondering if you might be able to provide some insight on a question I've always had. In the past, I've seen multiple comments lamenting that the 200mm lens + 1.4x converter provides nearly the same results as the 300; or, close enough that one probably couldn't see any difference at normal print sizes and viewing distances. What say you?

Thank you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh no. The effect with a 200 plus teleconverter would be distinctly inferior. Been there, done that. The EDIF series, of which the 300 is the shortest example, are much better corrected. Like I earlier insinuated, every complaint I've read about these lenses was due to insufficient tripod and head support for something this bulky and heavy. But due to the rotating tripod collar, it is easier to balance the 300 EDIF than the previous 300 Takumar.

The EDIF's are distinctly sharper too, and significantly, don't have any halo with certain black and white contrast filters due to their nearly apo degree of correction. The older 300 Takumar style isn't a shabby lens at all, but does exhibit a bit of halo around high contrast edges with red filters; it works best with deep green filters instead. Color images also have a bit of halo (or "color fringing" in that case), not enough to be distracting in a magazine or book reproduction, but potentially evident in larger prints. Let's just say that the 300 Takumar is like a reliable ordinary Ford or Chevy, while the EDIF is a Ferrari.

I happen to print very precisely, and don't subscribe to that "normal viewing distance" BS. You can print any image as big as you want; but I like em crisp nose-up with reading glasses on. I'm fine with esthetic exceptions to that, but not as an excuse for sloppy camera use or haphazard enlarging technique. These 300 6X7 lenses will separate the men from the boys when it comes to tripod stability, in a manner shorter teles up to 200mm will not. Nor should 6x6 teles like for Hassie be compared with respect to tripod needs, which are significantly lighter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

IMO the 135 Macro is a much underrated lens. I took this photo with it at an outdoor exhibit of Dahlia's at SF's Golden Gate Park pointed straight down over a fence using no flash or filter:

View attachment 407929

I have the older 135mm macro(not really macro) and have never had the desire to obtain the latest version. It's a superb lens in my book.

 

[Alan9940]

@DREW WILEY Thank you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I forgot to mention that the 300EDIF does not have a hard stop at the infinity position like their previous teles. It actually rotates a bit beyond that, apparently to precisely accommodate certain selective wavelengths and their filters in astro photography. That fact might lead to some people setting infinity focus incorrectly under more ordinary situations. I routinely use the 300EDIF with an accessory flip-up prism magnifier to double-check the focus. It's remarkably crisp even wide open, and will focus much closer than the 300 Takumar too.

The 300 Takumars are ridiculously affordable right now, even in really good condition. I still keep one around, if I need to leave it behind in a car, for example, when I'm out hiking. It would be easy to replace if stolen.

The EDIF's are selling around half the price as they did a few years ago - still relatively expensive, however.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The 135 macro is a Heliar type design - and makes a whole lot more sense when you realise that it's intended to deliver a 1:1 repro size in an 8x10 print, not on the neg (which essentially every amateurish reviewer seems not to have managed to grasp).

Please excuse my ignorance but why does it make sense for this to be a heliar design [and why would they design this lens to produce a 1:1 repro in an 8 x 10 print?]

Also just to add my general 2 cents to this thread I have tried several of the P67 lenses and have some thoughts.

45mm f4 - perfectly good, and one of the cheapest ways to get truly incredibly wide medium format but cannot touch the Hasselblad SWC. Really, I don't think any retrofocus design can and until mirrorless digital, I think the SWC and Mamiya 7 biogon designs were truly in a league of their own.
75mm f4.5 - dim and disappointing, I have read a lot of hype on this lens and my extremely clean copy was just fine
90mm f2.8 - great standard lens and among the sharpest standard lenses I've used. Compared to other medium format standard lenses this beats the Mamiya C-series 80mm f2.8 and matches the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex Planars. It has nice character too. Camera handles great with it on as well.
200mm SMC - very sharp but aperture is not ideal for portraits.

My personal favorite lens for the whole system is a somewhat unique lens I found at KEH a few years ago by chance. It's a Pentacon 6 Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f2.8 that someone expertly converted to Pentax 67 mount. It easily matches and exceeds all other medium format portrait lenses for me. I believe there was a guy in Poland doing these conversions and he has now shut down, so if you see one of these anywhere I highly recommend snapping it up.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Opinions are obviously going to differ, depending on the application. I found the 75/4.5 to be superb. It is a little dim to view through compared to the faster P67 lenses, so an accessory magnifier and certainly a tripod are called for; but you get remarkable performance at a fraction of a Zeiss lens. And it's solidly built. Needs bigger filters (82mm); but I use those on my 300's too.

I've seen those Sonnar 180 conversions up for sale. I don't do enough MF portraiture to warrant it. The 165/2.8 is very good in its own right. But when it comes to portraiture, I'm more of an 8x10 guy anyway, or else Nikon and an 85mm lens at the other extreme.

 

[Alan9940]

Not that one would necessarily buy a camera body to get a brighter view, but I found that my "slower" 67 lenses were infinitely easier to focus when I moved from a 67 to the 67II. My old eyes needed that brighter view!

 

[Tom Taylor]

I have the older 135mm macro(not really macro) and have never had the desire to obtain the latest version. It's a superb lens in my book.

I have the newer or "late" version but both have the same optics and are real bargains price-wise:

"The SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6×7 135 mm f/4 is a manual-focus close-up lens introduced in 1971 for the Pentax 6×7 medium format system, with a cosmetically updated version released in 1989 under the “67” branding. Despite the “Macro” label, it offers a maximum magnification of 0.31×, making it more of a close-focusing telephoto than a true macro lens. Both versions share the same 5-element, 3-group optical design and are known for their Heliar-inspired rendering, with excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh.

The lens stops down to f/32, focuses as close as 75 cm, and uses a 67 mm filter thread. It weighs around 620–645 g, measures 91.5 × 95 mm, and includes an 8-blade automatic diaphragm. There’s no internal focusing or “A” setting on the aperture ring, so metering is manual or stop-down only. The front element is deeply recessed, reducing the need for a hood, though a PH-SA67 clip-on hood was available. It was typically supplied with the S90-140 soft case and metal push-on cap.

In use, the lens is praised for its sharpness across the aperture range, especially from f/8 to f/16, and its low distortion and lateral color thanks to the nearly symmetrical optical formula. The bokeh is described as “Heliar-like”, with a gentle falloff and pleasing background separation. While not a 1:1 macro, it excels at close-up portraits, flowers, and product photography, especially when paired with extension tubes for higher magnification. Downsides include purple fringing wide open, limited macro capability, and darkening of the viewfinder when using heavy extension due to light loss.

In short, the SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6×7 135 mm f/4 is a refined close-up lens—not a true macro, but a sharp, lightweight, and optically elegant tool that brings a touch of vintage character to medium-format close-up work.

135mm macro lens for the Pentax 6x7 system. The original TAKUMAR 6x7 version is slightly heavier than the later PENTAX 67 version, but optically they are identical."

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have the newer or "late" version but both have the same optics and are real bargains price-wise:

"The SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6×7 135 mm f/4 is a manual-focus close-up lens introduced in 1971 for the Pentax 6×7 medium format system, with a cosmetically updated version released in 1989 under the “67” branding. Despite the “Macro” label, it offers a maximum magnification of 0.31×, making it more of a close-focusing telephoto than a true macro lens. Both versions share the same 5-element, 3-group optical design and are known for their Heliar-inspired rendering, with excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh.

The lens stops down to f/32, focuses as close as 75 cm, and uses a 67 mm filter thread. It weighs around 620–645 g, measures 91.5 × 95 mm, and includes an 8-blade automatic diaphragm. There’s no internal focusing or “A” setting on the aperture ring, so metering is manual or stop-down only. The front element is deeply recessed, reducing the need for a hood, though a PH-SA67 clip-on hood was available. It was typically supplied with the S90-140 soft case and metal push-on cap.

In use, the lens is praised for its sharpness across the aperture range, especially from f/8 to f/16, and its low distortion and lateral color thanks to the nearly symmetrical optical formula. The bokeh is described as “Heliar-like”, with a gentle falloff and pleasing background separation. While not a 1:1 macro, it excels at close-up portraits, flowers, and product photography, especially when paired with extension tubes for higher magnification. Downsides include purple fringing wide open, limited macro capability, and darkening of the viewfinder when using heavy extension due to light loss.

In short, the SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6×7 135 mm f/4 is a refined close-up lens—not a true macro, but a sharp, lightweight, and optically elegant tool that brings a touch of vintage character to medium-format close-up work.

135mm macro lens for the Pentax 6x7 system. The original TAKUMAR 6x7 version is slightly heavier than the later PENTAX 67 version, but optically they are identical."

Yes, about the best bargain in the Pentax 67 lens lineup. I figure that since they are both the same configuration, and the main difference was just the esthetics and slightly better coatings, I'd just stay with the tried and true old version. Since the font elements set far back in the lens the lens barrel itself acts as a lens hood. Doing mainly closeup work or a normal shot one would not really need the fancy coating. I could be wrong, but I'm happy with what I have.

 

[Lachlan Young]

why would they design this lens to produce a 1:1 repro in an 8 x 10 print?

For reasons that I'd hoped should be quite obvious.

Among other sectors, the Pentax was aimed at the bits of the commercial market that were using sheet formats for things like table-top, portraits and the like. A 1:1 (or heading that way) on an 8x10 neg that was then contact printed was not uncommon, but general everyday commercial practice didn't regularly need people or things repro'd above life size on an 8x10 glossy (as opposed to e.g. scientific illustration, where Pentax probably would have pointed you in the direction of their P67 microscope adapters etc). It also conveniently makes for a much less challenging length of helicoid to need to support.

a heliar design

A Heliar or a Planar/ Xenotar derivative are two designs that were used in macro lenses of the era (in the case of the 135, intended likely as a step up from the tessar derivative that Pentax had used in 35mm). The focus transitions of Heliar designs (at wide apertures) are perceived by some as particularly good and they can get very sharp when stopped down. There also seems to have been a bit of mystique around Heliar design lenses in Japan for much of the 20th century, though how much that swayed Pentax in choosing the design over a Planar derivative is probably pure conjecture.

I believe there was a guy in Poland doing these conversions

He's still active from what I can tell. Couple of others worldwide as well. It isn't just CZJ and projector lenses, people are converting the various Hasselblad & Rollei Zeiss/ Schneider glass (as opposed to others who convert P67 bodies to Hasselblad mount). I have a slight suspicion that the original conception of the Hasselblad F lenses was something Zeiss came up with around the time they were considering going with Pentax as a camera manufacturing partner & that Hasselblad & Rollei made clear their displeasure (hence the choice of Yashica who didn't have a competing medium format SLR system in the market) - just as the Contax 645's lenses probably were initially intended for Hasseblad's H-series, before Hasselblad went with Fuji as a manufacturing partner (the last Hasselblad F lens introduced was a Fuji zoom).

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Opinions are obviously going to differ, depending on the application. I found the 75/4.5 to be superb. It is a little dim to view through compared to the faster P67 lenses, so an accessory magnifier and certainly a tripod are called for; but you get remarkable performance at a fraction of a Zeiss lens. And it's solidly built. Needs bigger filters (82mm); but I use those on my 300's too.

I've seen those Sonnar 180 conversions up for sale. I don't do enough MF portraiture to warrant it. The 165/2.8 is very good in its own right. But when it comes to portraiture, I'm more of an 8x10 guy anyway, or else Nikon and an 85mm lens at the other extreme.

Same here, I like that 75/4.5 very much.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Horses for courses...
It was an immediate 'pass' for me when I picked up the 75/f4.5. Similar with the 75-shift lens, considered to be of limited application in the absence of a complementary fixed or variable offset tilt (e.g. Canon's TS-E lenses).

Personally and from long experience, I consider f3.5 to f4 (tops) to be the limit for effective, accurate focusing in marginal light, and particularly when using a polariser. A centre-spot magnifier would then be essential to facilitate accurate focus. Being a rainforest photographer and frequently in dim, dank and irritating surroundings, I would be absolutely hobbled and aggitated with a 75 f4.5, which is why I didn't hesitate to pounce on the faster 75 f2.8AL version. I consider that every kit should have at least two, ideally three, f2.8 or faster lenses over the older, slower lenses, irrespective of perceived or actual optical performance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, a 75/2.8 is a very expensive lens these days, while an accessory prism magnifier is comparatively cheap. I photograph in deep dank forest too - our redwoods; and that's exactly where I most often use the 75/4.5. But I have no use for polarizers except at a copy stand. Plenty bright, regardless. I'm also accustomed to composing with an 8x10 view camera in the woods, with exposures themselves often at f/45 or f/64.

Handheld, I'm more likely to opt for one of my Fuji 6X9 RF's, though I've done a certain amount of P67 105/2.4 work handheld. But by all means, if one can justify the cost of a 75/2.8, go for it. The fast lens I use the most is the 165/2.8.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Well, a 75/2.8 is a very expensive lens these days, while an accessory prism magnifier is comparatively cheap. I photograph in deep dank forest too - our redwoods; and that's exactly where I most often use the 75/4.5. But I have no use for polarizers except at a copy stand. Plenty bright, regardless. I'm also accustomed to composing with an 8x10 view camera in the woods, with exposures themselves often at f/45 or f/64.

Handheld, I'm more likely to opt for one of my Fuji 6X9 RF's, though I've done a certain amount of P67 105/2.4 work handheld. But by all means, if one can justify the cost of a 75/2.8, go for it. The fast lens I use the most is the 165/2.8.

Yes, I have seen the 75/2.8AL listed for $6,300 here in Australia, NIB. In Japan, there is rampant profit taking; what a nice racket that is. Apparently doesn't stop the cashed-up collectors snapping at the heels of the dealers for mint specimens of the 75/2.8AL. Such extravagant prices are lunacy, even as a discontinued lens, albeit a lens whose optical performance is up there with the rest of the 67 system ED lenses. I cannot recall when I bought mine, but likely around 18 years ago for $900, mint, NIB, with all papers.

The accessory (flip-up) magnifier which I have is rarely used now, but I regularly use the right angle viewing attachment when I get myself in awkward (read: stupid ) positions. We have redwood forests here Downunder too — three in Victoria, grand stands of Sequoia sempervirens planted experimentally in 1936 — and they grew. And grew. And grew... What were those early botanists thinking!? Exposures within the redwoods can run out to 3-6 minutes on Velvia 50; naturally, a POL filter is not used in these dark environments, but regularly used in rainforests to differentiate tonal values of green and cut out highlights.

_________________________________________________________
• Look up!
Sequoia sempervirens plantation,
Great Otway National Park, Victoria, Australia
Quick iPhone pic then run before the rain! Strewth, it was bloody cold too (minus 2°c)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Coast Redwoods grow remarkably quickly, and are farmed for timber. The tallest tree ever discovered on earth was just uphill from where I live.
Now there's not even a stump, just a little plaque off the in weeds hard to find. Every last old growth redwood tree in this area was logged, and all the present groves are second growth. What has mainly taken their place are groves of eucalyptus trees - talk about a fire hazard!

The Giant Sequoias in the Sierra are considerably bigger in volume. The grove near my hometown just survived another big fire; but many of them did not further south in Sequoia Natl Park a couple years ago. The fires in recent years have gotten so hot, and the flames so high, that the fire reached into the crowns of the trees hundreds of feet up, and burned them from the top town - trees which previously survived centuries and even thousands of years of fires along the ground. Times are changing.

In the redwoods, I'm accustomed to an 11-12 stop dynamic range when the sun is out, so have to be picky about even the black and white film I select (generally TMax). But when the fog is still present, typically till around noon, it's like a natural softbox, and better suited for color film or a more nuanced b&w treatment. I like it all. Along the ridges, we get some cloud forest effects, where it literally rains under the redwood trees and old growth firs, which are basically fog collection machines, keeping the ecosystem moist.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

How is that magnifier in use ? Can it be used hand held ?

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

How is that magnifier in use ? Can it be used hand held ?

It is chiefly recommended to use the magnifier with the camera mounted on a tripod. This ensures you can concentrate fully on the tiny central spot in the viewfinder. I cannot say if it is useable handheld — I gave up any hope of steadily handholding the 67 many years ago!

The magnifier is attached by unscrewing the dioptric lens holder — the knurled ring that is visible on the 67's prism/pentaprism. It is then placed on the magnifier mount, and the caboodle is then in turn screwed back onto the viewfinder. As you may imagine, this can present a safety hazard — to you and to the camera, in the event of a heavy bump; it could damage or strip out the thread on the viewfinder where it is attached, or be bend out of true if the camera should fall. Best practice suggests that you attach it when and where necessary, then remove it, especially when stowing the camera in a pack.

Same comments apply to the right-angle viewing attachment which is bigger, bulkier but generally easier to use (and won't poke you in the eye unexpectedly!).