Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7?
--
Michael

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

Michael writes:

Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7?

AFAIK there are no lenses "specifically made" for 67ii, so the answer you want
to hear is, yes.

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

On 2008-07-10 19:30:32 -0400, Toni Nikkanen said:

Michael writes:

Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7?

AFAIK there are no lenses "specifically made" for 67ii, so the answer you want
to hear is, yes.

Thanks
--
Michael

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

"Michael" wrote in message news:2008071023380916807-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
On 2008-07-10 19:30:32 -0400, Toni Nikkanen said:

Michael writes:

Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7?

AFAIK there are no lenses "specifically made" for 67ii, so the answer you want
to hear is, yes.

Thanks
--
Michael



I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very unimpressed
with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little contrast and
dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the sharpest
lens they make. And I had traded in a Hassy 501C for that system so I could
AFFORD lenses at all! What a waste of time and money.


--
Alex - xenarshooter

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

"LGLA" wrote:

I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very unimpressed
with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little contrast
and
dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the
sharpest
lens they make.

That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX
quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a US$600
(EX quality at KEH) lens, and might have a better chance of competing. You
have to read the fine print and think: the 135/4.0 only goes down to 1:3.2
(it's not even a half-arsed macro lens) and is advertised as "also does well
as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to almost 1:2,
which is at least respectable.

And I had traded in a Hassy 501C for that system so I could
AFFORD lenses at all! What a waste of time and money.

My condolences.

Yet the P67 is the camera of choice (well, second to the P645) over here
amongst landscape photographers, and they crank out jawdroppingly gorgeous
work shot after shot after shot. Maybe you should check the reviews and the
experience of other users, and get the lenses that actually perform in that
system. There are quite a few. And many are affordable. I've seen great work
with the 45/4.0 (US$500 or so at KEH in EX grade; a lot cheaper than a SWC),
for example.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

"David J. Littleboy" writes:

That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX
quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a US$600
(EX quality at KEH) lens, and might have a better chance of competing. You
have to read the fine print and think: the 135/4.0 only goes down to 1:3.2
(it's not even a half-arsed macro lens) and is advertised as "also does well
as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to almost 1:2,
which is at least respectable.

Pentax made a good macro for the 645 system: The 120/4. It goes all
the way to 1:1 (at 39cm) and produces magnificent results. Too bad
they never released a similarly performing lens for the 67 system.

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ...

"LGLA" wrote:

I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very unimpressed
with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little contrast
and
dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the
sharpest
lens they make.

That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX
quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a US$600
(EX quality at KEH) lens, and might have a better chance of competing. You
have to read the fine print and think: the 135/4.0 only goes down to 1:3.2
(it's not even a half-arsed macro lens) and is advertised as "also does well
as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to almost 1:2,
which is at least respectable.

Yes that is some insight I do agree with, however, which 100mm F/4 macro
are you referring to? F/2 compared to F/32?

And I had traded in a Hassy 501C for that system so I could
AFFORD lenses at all! What a waste of time and money.

My condolences.

Thank you, it's been dreadful. Especially at my financial level.

Yet the P67 is the camera of choice (well, second to the P645) over here
amongst landscape photographers, and they crank out jawdroppingly gorgeous
work shot after shot after shot. Maybe you should check the reviews and the
experience of other users, and get the lenses that actually perform in that
system. There are quite a few. And many are affordable. I've seen great work
with the 45/4.0 (US$500 or so at KEH in EX grade; a lot cheaper than a SWC),
for example.

Learning the "culture" of the equipment.

I bought the 67 new in '97, last year they were made. But I won't be going back
because that thing is too heavy, including lenses. I'd rather go with 4x5 or 8x10
....or even a 'koni omega rapid' 200 for 67 and 6x9. However it's spelled. Right
now I shoot a Rolleicord Va, and it's very sharp. Also, I have always admired the
idea of a Bronica GS-1 oufit.

HEY! Thanks for the reply!

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



--
Giant_Alex })))*
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
 

LGLA wrote:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"LGLA" wrote:

I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very
unimpressed
with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little
contrast
and
dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the
sharpest
lens they make.

That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX
quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a
US$600
(EX quality at KEH) lens, and might have a better chance of competing.
You
have to read the fine print and think: the 135/4.0 only goes down to
1:3.2
(it's not even a half-arsed macro lens) and is advertised as "also
does well
as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to
almost 1:2, which is at least respectable.

Yes that is some insight I do agree with, however, which 100mm F/4 macro
are you referring to? F/2 compared to F/32?


I believe he's talking about magnification rather than aperture.

Greg
--
Support the Lo Desert Proto Sites:
http://lodesertprotosites.org