"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