Pentax 6x7 lenses

[DREW WILEY]

They won't work handheld. They clip in around the eyepiece ring to the prism, and flip up to get out of the way when you want the full image. Right angle ones screw into the eyepiece threads instead, if I recall correctly; I use on of those on the copy stand.

The deluxe chimney hood finder has a bright built-in magnifier which covers the entire image. It saves quite a bit of weight compared to the prism finders, but is miserable to use for vertical compositions.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

They won't work handheld. They clip in around the eyepiece ring to the prism, and flip up to get out of the way when you want the full image. Right angle ones screw into the eyepiece threads instead, if I recall correctly; I use on of those on the copy stand.

The deluxe chimney hood finder has a bright built-in magnifier which covers the entire image. It saves quite a bit of weight compared to the prism finders, but is miserable to use for vertical compositions.

Thank you was afraid of that

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

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!).

Thanks !

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

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.

Are you speaking of Arizona or somewhere else?
I have correspondents in AZ, and all I know to date is that it is a desert environment, bedecked with cactus, wildflowers and...snow (!).

Quelle horreur! They log these beauties in the US!?


Those redwoods down here, all three plantations, were never intended to be logged. It is believed to have been an experimental, observational undertaking; the original cut and thrust has likely been lost to the passage of time; there is no information about the plantations currently to assist in 'looking back' almost 90 years.
They do have coupes of plantation timber — not S. sempervirens, but 'garden variety' pine, for logging. The stands in the Great Otway National Park are about 15-20km inland from the coast in a known very high rainfall area with year round coolness (within the plantation), and certainly tall enough to catch the tempestuous maritime climate that area is known for. I must say it is a fascinating, even eerie experience, to walk among these giants in the dim light. But you have to be lucky with the peace and quiet! Asian tourists wander and run and titter and scream and carry on with their cameras — adorned with Hello Kitty toys... Goodness me, it's nice when everybody has left and peace descends once more among the giants and the cold, still air.

__________________________________________
Just located this piece with Google:

The Redwood Forest in the Great Otway National Park features a plantation of Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwoods), planted in 1936 by the Forests Commission Victoria as an experimental timber project. These impressive, towering trees, located near Beech Forest on Binns Road, offer a unique and awe-inspiring experience in Australia, with many visitors describing the environment as a quiet, mystical, and wonderland-like place despite their relatively youthful age compared to their Californian relatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've tried my view camera ground glass magnifiers with the bare 6X7 screen itself - didn't work either. You really need the shading of some kind of hood. The compact folding hood has a basic meniscus flip-away magnifying glass in the middle, but is a pain in the but for vertical compositions too. I really don't need to accessory magnifier very often except for the 75/4.5, and ironically the 300 EDIF, which is plenty bright,
but with such shallow depth of field, especially if you use it relatively wide open for selective focus, that you want to be certain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, Taylor. Arizona is mainly inland desert, but with extensive Ponderosa pine forests at the higher elevations. Sequoia semipervens naturally grows only on the mid and northern California coast - the damp ocean fog belt. There are some sizable planted groves on the Hawaiian Islands,
where the climate is similar in certain mid-elevation areas.

But Giant sequoias (Sequoia gigantea) occur in a number of discrete groves at a limited elevation range (about 6,000 ft) exclusively on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada range of California. Many of the groves are isolated, but a few famous ones get highly visited in Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks.

Yet another famous tree species is the Bristlecone Pine. These are the oldest trees on earth, which occur way up high under arid semi-desert conditions, around 11,000 ft elev in the White Mountains of the California/Nevada border, and several other similar locations in Nevada and western Utah. These trees are all gnarly and twisty (highly photogenic), and barely look alive; some are over 5,000 years old.

Another interesting local tree is the Radiata pine, which grows naturally only at a few rocky points along the mid California coastline, where it resembles a stunted distorted Bonsai garden. But when farmed sheltered from the wind it grows extremely straight and consistent, and makes an excellent moulding and siding wood. It is farmed mainly in Chile and New Zealand.

But the more photogenic coastline trees are native Cypresses, like Edward Weston famously took pictures of at Point Lobos. Many of those have also been planted as wind breaks for ranches and military installations.

 

[flavio81]

To continue the Review, i purchased the 135/4 and the 90/2.8 LS (Leaf Shutter) recently, i'll give my impressions on the haptics/ergonomic side.

135/4 Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar:

Well, this lens is light enough, objectively it is heavier than the petite SMC 6x7 90/2.8, yet it doesn't feel too much heavier. Now, it is not compact, it has a protruding nose, but handling is acceptable.

The problem for using this lens in some cases, i've find, is that the focus throw is very quick. I tried to portrait a subject more or less 10m far (across the street) and focusing was hard because just turning the ring a little bit throws away the focus.

I like that it has an integrated hood, that is, that the front element is protected.

I find it a smaller a lighter alternative to my 150/2.8, but i'm not that enthusiastic. And yeah, it focuses very close, but I have extension rings if I need to focus any lens close.

90/2.8 Leaf Shutter (LS)

So, i had the oportunity to hold this one against my petite SMC 6x7 90/2.8 pancake lens (let's call it "pancake" from now on).
The 90/2.8LS is similarly sized to a 105/2.4, and doesn't feel much heavier than the pancake lens. The pancake lens is a smaller lens and feels smaller.
Unlike the pancake, the front element is recessed (GOOD), well protected against accidental scratches/etc.

The aperture ring, being bigger in diameter and more generous in dimensions, is a pleasure to move around.

The build quality seems better overall, the fluted focusing ring feeling better than the rubber focusing ring on the pancake. Nothing rattles, the shutter cocking lever has no play at all. Overall the build construction is remarkable and I'd say that this one, together with the 55/3.5 SMCT, is one of the most pleasing to behold lenses on the system.

Focus throw is noticeably slower than the pancake, affording more precision (GOOD). This also has the consequence that the depth of field scale is wider and thus easier to use (GOOD).

Lens shutter is easy to use once you read the instructions, it really leaves me scratching my head to think there are people unable to understand how to use this lens. Speeds are 30,60,125,250,500.

So far the only thing that i don't like is that it has only 5 aperture leaves (NOT so good), while the rest of the P6x7 system lenses have 8 or more aperture blades (save for the 165LS). On the other hand, all my Bronica ETR lenses (all with leaf shutters) have 5 aperture leaves too, and the Mamiya C TLR lenses had the same limitation too, so it is really common on the land of the central leaf shutter (except for the Mamiya RB67 system lenses, which have more blades).

I haven't done image comparisons with the pancake, and won't be able to because I sold the pancake today. So the 90LS will be my new 90 from now on.

So my score in "likeability", that is on "would I buy this lens again if it was stolen?" in the scale of 0 to 10 so far is:

45/4 lens: 9
55/3.5 lens: 8 (only because of the size)
90/2.8 lens: 9
90/2.8LS lens: 9.5
135/4 lens: 4
150/2.8 lens: 8
200/4 lens: 7

 

[Lachlan Young]

the only thing that i don't like is that it has only 5 aperture leaves (NOT so good), while the rest of the P6x7 system lenses have 8 or more aperture blades (save for the 165LS). On the other hand, all my Bronica ETR lenses (all with leaf shutters) have 5 aperture leaves too, and the Mamiya C TLR lenses had the same limitation too, so it is really common on the land of the central leaf shutter (except for the Mamiya RB67 system lenses, which have more blades).

It sounds a lot like the difference between the number of aperture leaves in a Seiko #0 shutter (Bronica, Mamiya TLR, probably the Pentax too) and #1 Seiko (RB-67). On the other hand, they could have taken the early 1970s Zeiss approach and used a reuleaux triangle aperture...

 

[flavio81]

It sounds a lot like the difference between the number of aperture leaves in a Seiko #0 shutter (Bronica, Mamiya TLR, probably the Pentax too) and #1 Seiko (RB-67).

Good observation.
This shutter is called "Copal-C", in the user manual. "Copal C special SLR shutter"

On the other hand, they could have taken the early 1970s Zeiss approach and used a reuleaux triangle aperture...

Triangle would imply 3 leaves... But in any case the aperture shape does have curved sides. I'll try to take a pic later.

 

[itsdoable]

...

Triangle would imply 3 leaves... But in any case the aperture shape does have curved sides. I'll try to take a pic later.

Zeiss made lenses for Rolleiflex with a triangle aperture in the 70's

It actually has 9 blades, grouped in 3.


Martin Scorsese used them in the movie Taxi Driver, if you want to see what that bokeh looks like.

5 blades aperture were popular on German lenses in the 70s, they even advertise how attractive the out of focus highlights looked. It was a departure from the 16+ blades aperture of previous non-automatic aperture lenses, and as it was a modern look, marketing took advantage of that. Thier lens shutters had 5 blade too.

 

[flavio81]

Martin Scorsese used them in the movie Taxi Driver, if you want to see what that bokeh looks like.

I guess the Taxi itself was powered by a Wankel engine, then...

(This is a joke for the truly nerd people)

5 blades aperture were popular on German lenses in the 70s, they even advertise how attractive the out of focus highlights looked.

I think German sense of humor is more sophisticated than I thought...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Many P67 lenses used apertures with 11 blades, having good bokeh. And of course, if you combine that with longer lens lengths of relatively large maximum apertures, like the 165/2.8, you can obtain a shallower depth of field popular for portrait effects. My 300/4 EDIF has wonderful bokeh, and it's so well corrected, it can be used wide open. The depth of field wide open would be equivalent to a hypothetical 75mm f/1 lens on a 35mm camera wide open.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Mmmm. What?? I have scant interest in aperture blade numbers, their size or their shape. The real joy for me it being out there, interacting and recording the natural environment. I don't even know how many blades my rav-fav firecracker SMC Pentax 67 75mm f2.8AL lens has; should I dig it out and have a fiddle??

My 300/4 EDIF has wonderful bokeh,

I have a correspondent in Arizona who speaks very, very highly of that lens.

 

[Abbazz]

135/4 Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar:

[...]
I find it a smaller a lighter alternative to my 150/2.8, but i'm not that enthusiastic. And yeah, it focuses very close, but I have extension rings if I need to focus any lens close.

I find extension rings a bit difficult to use because it is quite cumbersome to unmount the lens, insert the right combination of tubes and put the lens back before every use. The extension rings also take a substantial amount of space in the bag and require additional exposure (the exposure factor is due to light loss and varies between x5.1 and x7.1).

I much prefer the Pentax Close-up Lenses, which are high-quality dedicated achromatic diopters, meaning that they are made of two elements for better correction of chromatic aberration. There are three of these 6x7 Close-up Lenses, which mount in front of many 6x7 lenses using the 67mm filter threads and let you focus them much closer: the S82 Close-up Lens which is +1.22 diopters, the T132 which is +0.76 diopters and the T226 which is +0.44 diopters. The S82 is more for the 90mm or 105mm lenses, the T132 gives good results on the 135mm, 150mm, 165mm lenses, as well as on the newer 5 element 200mm Pentax lens, while the T132 is dedicated to the old 4 element 200mm Takumar. You can use them for close focus shots or very tight portraits (see this post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...ts-shoulder-up-neck-up-etc-2.html#post3515157). They take almost no room, are easy to screw in front of your lens and don't require additional exposure. The only issue is that they are quite rare nowadays outside of Japan.

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[DREW WILEY]

Going back to that triangular aperture in post 60, I happened to see a movie last night in which one of those cine lenses was used, the color version of Capone. Well photographed. Bright lamps in the background didn't have a smooth round bokeh like typical multi-bladed apertures, but a unique unnerving almost medieval spiked-ball look - fitting for dramatic night scenes with machine-guns going off. Not like a reticle filter star effect either, like one sees in astro shots.

 

[flavio81]

Going back to that triangular aperture in post 60, I happened to see a movie last night in which one of those cine lenses was used, the color version of Capone. Well photographed. Bright lamps in the background didn't have a smooth round bokeh like typical multi-bladed apertures, but a unique unnerving almost medieval spiked-ball look - fitting for dramatic night scenes with machine-guns going off. Not like a reticle filter star effect either, like one sees in astro shots.

Cine people are the most dificult to understand to me.

For example many people using cine lenses are obsessed with anamorphic stuff. With anamorphic lenses, out of focus highlights ("bokeh") are oval, not round. Yuck! Puke! Yet they LIKE that effect and pay absurd amounts of money for these anamorphic adapters.

It's like optical masochism.

 

[itsdoable]

Cine people are the most dificult to understand to me.

For example many people using cine lenses are obsessed with anamorphic stuff. With anamorphic lenses, out of focus highlights ("bokeh") are oval, not round. Yuck! Puke! Yet they LIKE that effect and pay absurd amounts of money for these anamorphic adapters.
...

Bokeh and out of focus tastes have differed in the past, like the hexagonal shape being the most popular during the start of the auto aperture phase. Round Japanese style is currently in. And it is about taste, as we do not see bokeh with our eye's visual scanning system, it really only manifests on 2D pictures.

The anamorphic squeeze is different from background to foreground, creating a look where the background appears farther away, as in the above sample, showing more detail along with separation. More 3D pop if you are into those vague descriptions. However, cine is about motion, and that is where the anamorphic look plays a big roll, as the background, with a different squeeze, moves at a smaller differential rate. That and the characteristic flares, which play a role in motion, but are usually avoided in still. In still images, you tend to stare at the flare, or bokeh. In cine, it provides motion, and you tend to concentrate on the focused subject.

Different medium, different tastes. Someone's ugly is another's beautiful. It makes the world interesting.

 

[flavio81]

The anamorphic squeeze is different from background to foreground, creating a look where the background appears farther away, as in the above sample

I don't know if the two samples had the same angle of view. Most likely, not, due to different aspect ratio yet same crop.

The background can be made to appear farther away simply by choosing a lens with wider angle of view (a shorter focal length lens).

However, cine is about motion, and that is where the anamorphic look plays a big roll, as the background, with a different squeeze, moves at a smaller differential rate.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[flavio81]

I find extension rings a bit difficult to use because it is quite cumbersome to unmount the lens, insert the right combination of tubes and put the lens back before every use. The extension rings also take a substantial amount of space in the bag and require additional exposure (the exposure factor is due to light loss and varies between x5.1 and x7.1).

I much prefer the Pentax Close-up Lenses, which are high-quality dedicated achromatic diopters, meaning that they are made of two elements for better correction of chromatic aberration. There are three of these 6x7 Close-up Lenses, which mount in front of many 6x7 lenses using the 67mm filter threads and let you focus them much closer: the S82 Close-up Lens which is +1.22 diopters, the T132 which is +0.76 diopters and the T226 which is +0.44 diopters. The S82 is more for the 90mm or 105mm lenses, the T132 gives good results on the 135mm, 150mm, 165mm lenses, as well as on the newer 5 element 200mm Pentax lens, while the T132 is dedicated to the old 4 element 200mm Takumar. You can use them for close focus shots or very tight portraits (see this post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...ts-shoulder-up-neck-up-etc-2.html#post3515157). They take almost no room, are easy to screw in front of your lens and don't require additional exposure. The only issue is that they are quite rare nowadays outside of Japan.

Cheers!

Abbazz

I find the shorter extension ring very convenient, because it still allows a wide focusing range. I often left one permanently mounted to my 200/4.

I agree that really high quality close up lenses are ideal, but those are hard to get, as you mention.

 

[flavio81]

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

They won't work handheld.

I have the magnifier (the one that screws to the prism eyepiece) and it is perfectly usable handheld.
However, it adds more bulk to the camera when you want to store it on a typical camera bag, with the magnifier attached.

The deluxe chimney hood finder has a bright built-in magnifier which covers the entire image. It saves quite a bit of weight compared to the prism finders, but is miserable to use for vertical compositions.

The chimney hood is great.

And i agree with you with the vertical usage. Not easy at all!