A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Need Pentax 67 lens info



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 04, 06:19 PM
James Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Need Pentax 67 lens info

I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
Thanks
  #2  
Old October 15th 04, 10:35 PM
Shelley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?


I don't think your understanding that the "new" designs are sharper than the
"old" designs is necessarily correct. Some of the changes are primarily
cosmetic (e.g. metal collar vs. rubber collar). Other changes, as in the
45mm and/or 55mm lenses, are complete redesigns to make the newer lens
smaller and more convenient to use but not necessarily sharper. Still other
changes, as in the macro lenses, are improvement in the maximum
magnification ratio (1-4 or so in the older 135mm macro vs 1-1 in the new
100mm macro), again without necessarily making the newer lens "sharper."

I can't tell you the nature of every change to every lens without more time
and effort than I am able to expend and unfortunately I don't know offhand
of a web site or other handy source for that kind of information. Perhaps
someone else does.


"James Dunn" wrote in message
m...
I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
Thanks



  #3  
Old October 16th 04, 01:13 AM
Ken Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James Dunn wrote in message om...
I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
Thanks



The new design lenses are rubber focus on the barrel. Many have been around
for awhile. The are listed as "late", or 67, as opposed to 6x7, in places
like KEH and other used equipment sites. The older designs are metal focusing
barrels. The 55mm f/3.5 is metal, theres a 55mm f/4 mid design, and a 55mm f/4
late design. The latest is considered to be sharpest, but the oldest design
has the least wide angle distortion.

The newest designs are
generally considered to be sharper by folks who shoot lens charts or bend
over chromes with high powered loups, but older Pentax lenses have rarely
lacked high praise, with the exception of the odd lemons. Its rumored that
older quaility control was uneven, so if you buy older ones, make it from
a returnable source, and give a few tests. I recently picked up a 150mm that
has no new version, and was really impressed, having shot a home-made lens
chart test, and bent over the neg with a high powered loupe. The Carl-Ziess
lenses of a Blad are considered to be sharper, but I have heard time and
again that Takumars, ( and Always get SMC, Super Multi-Coated ) are warmer,
meaning not as antiseptically precise. The absolute best way to get a stinging
sharp result from any lens, is of course, a rock steady tripod, mirror lock
up, and a slight hand pressure to dampen the large focal plane shutter. And
I would recommend 1/125 for hand held normal lenses, and 1/250 for short tele.
  #4  
Old October 16th 04, 01:13 AM
Ken Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James Dunn wrote in message om...
I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
Thanks



The new design lenses are rubber focus on the barrel. Many have been around
for awhile. The are listed as "late", or 67, as opposed to 6x7, in places
like KEH and other used equipment sites. The older designs are metal focusing
barrels. The 55mm f/3.5 is metal, theres a 55mm f/4 mid design, and a 55mm f/4
late design. The latest is considered to be sharpest, but the oldest design
has the least wide angle distortion.

The newest designs are
generally considered to be sharper by folks who shoot lens charts or bend
over chromes with high powered loups, but older Pentax lenses have rarely
lacked high praise, with the exception of the odd lemons. Its rumored that
older quaility control was uneven, so if you buy older ones, make it from
a returnable source, and give a few tests. I recently picked up a 150mm that
has no new version, and was really impressed, having shot a home-made lens
chart test, and bent over the neg with a high powered loupe. The Carl-Ziess
lenses of a Blad are considered to be sharper, but I have heard time and
again that Takumars, ( and Always get SMC, Super Multi-Coated ) are warmer,
meaning not as antiseptically precise. The absolute best way to get a stinging
sharp result from any lens, is of course, a rock steady tripod, mirror lock
up, and a slight hand pressure to dampen the large focal plane shutter. And
I would recommend 1/125 for hand held normal lenses, and 1/250 for short tele.
  #5  
Old October 16th 04, 03:40 PM
Ken Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Ken Smith) wrote in message om...
James Dunn wrote in message om...
I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
Thanks



The new design lenses are rubber focus on the barrel. Many have been around
for awhile. The are listed as "late", or 67, as opposed to 6x7, in places
like KEH and other used equipment sites. The older designs are metal focusing
barrels. The 55mm f/3.5 is metal, theres a 55mm f/4 mid design, and a 55mm f/4
late design. The latest is considered to be sharpest, but the oldest design
has the least wide angle distortion.

The newest designs are
generally considered to be sharper by folks who shoot lens charts or bend
over chromes with high powered loups, but older Pentax lenses have rarely
lacked high praise, with the exception of the odd lemons. Its rumored that
older quaility control was uneven, so if you buy older ones, make it from
a returnable source, and give a few tests. I recently picked up a 150mm that
has no new version, and was really impressed, having shot a home-made lens
chart test, and bent over the neg with a high powered loupe. The Carl-Ziess
lenses of a Blad are considered to be sharper, but I have heard time and
again that Takumars, ( and Always get SMC, Super Multi-Coated ) are warmer,
meaning not as antiseptically precise. The absolute best way to get a stinging
sharp result from any lens, is of course, a rock steady tripod, mirror lock
up, and a slight hand pressure to dampen the large focal plane shutter. And
I would recommend 1/125 for hand held normal lenses, and 1/250 for short tele.


A think Shelley posted a more intelligent line of thinking. However the
reason I did go ahead and suggest the newer designs were generally considered
"sharper" was due to a months worth of reading posts from many groups, and
though its mostly opinion, there was alot of enthusiasm overall for newer
lenses. There is after all newer technology available, and Pentax probably
wouldn't waste their time on only cosmetics. OTOH the 165mm was mentioned
a few times as being a little soft.Others disagreed. Who knows. Again, the
older ones are brilliant lenses, have been raved about for years, and if
they have been cared for would definitly produce a sparkling image. You
would have to dig up a every post I read to find the occasional mention of
an older having more flare problems than the new version, but thats about
it as far as complaints.

This is a hard nut to crack from the speculation or
reccommendation side of the picture. The best thing to do, is buy and test.
I knew a woman still life photographer in New York, that shot 35mm for her
signature style. She choose Leica, would buy three lenses of a given focal
length, test, then return two. KAS
  #6  
Old October 16th 04, 03:40 PM
Ken Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Ken Smith) wrote in message om...
James Dunn wrote in message om...
I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
"old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
(not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
Thanks



The new design lenses are rubber focus on the barrel. Many have been around
for awhile. The are listed as "late", or 67, as opposed to 6x7, in places
like KEH and other used equipment sites. The older designs are metal focusing
barrels. The 55mm f/3.5 is metal, theres a 55mm f/4 mid design, and a 55mm f/4
late design. The latest is considered to be sharpest, but the oldest design
has the least wide angle distortion.

The newest designs are
generally considered to be sharper by folks who shoot lens charts or bend
over chromes with high powered loups, but older Pentax lenses have rarely
lacked high praise, with the exception of the odd lemons. Its rumored that
older quaility control was uneven, so if you buy older ones, make it from
a returnable source, and give a few tests. I recently picked up a 150mm that
has no new version, and was really impressed, having shot a home-made lens
chart test, and bent over the neg with a high powered loupe. The Carl-Ziess
lenses of a Blad are considered to be sharper, but I have heard time and
again that Takumars, ( and Always get SMC, Super Multi-Coated ) are warmer,
meaning not as antiseptically precise. The absolute best way to get a stinging
sharp result from any lens, is of course, a rock steady tripod, mirror lock
up, and a slight hand pressure to dampen the large focal plane shutter. And
I would recommend 1/125 for hand held normal lenses, and 1/250 for short tele.


A think Shelley posted a more intelligent line of thinking. However the
reason I did go ahead and suggest the newer designs were generally considered
"sharper" was due to a months worth of reading posts from many groups, and
though its mostly opinion, there was alot of enthusiasm overall for newer
lenses. There is after all newer technology available, and Pentax probably
wouldn't waste their time on only cosmetics. OTOH the 165mm was mentioned
a few times as being a little soft.Others disagreed. Who knows. Again, the
older ones are brilliant lenses, have been raved about for years, and if
they have been cared for would definitly produce a sparkling image. You
would have to dig up a every post I read to find the occasional mention of
an older having more flare problems than the new version, but thats about
it as far as complaints.

This is a hard nut to crack from the speculation or
reccommendation side of the picture. The best thing to do, is buy and test.
I knew a woman still life photographer in New York, that shot 35mm for her
signature style. She choose Leica, would buy three lenses of a given focal
length, test, then return two. KAS
  #7  
Old October 20th 04, 02:20 AM
James Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you all for replying. I guess that at this point the best question
I could ask is : Is there any particular one to avoid ? I also think I
heard that some are designed to be "soft focus" for portrature.
Also any comment on the Pentax 2X doubler.
  #8  
Old October 20th 04, 02:20 AM
James Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you all for replying. I guess that at this point the best question
I could ask is : Is there any particular one to avoid ? I also think I
heard that some are designed to be "soft focus" for portrature.
Also any comment on the Pentax 2X doubler.
  #9  
Old October 20th 04, 02:20 AM
James Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you all for replying. I guess that at this point the best question
I could ask is : Is there any particular one to avoid ? I also think I
heard that some are designed to be "soft focus" for portrature.
Also any comment on the Pentax 2X doubler.
  #10  
Old October 20th 04, 02:53 AM
Shelley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Is there any particular one to avoid ? I also think I
heard that some are designed to be "soft focus" for portrature.
Also any comment on the Pentax 2X doubler.


I'm not aware of any to be avoided. I've owned the 45mm, 55mm, 75mm, 75mm
shift, 105mm, 135mm macro, and 200mm. All have been outstanding lenses.

Pentax does make a 120mm f3.5 soft focus lens. It's about the same size and
weight as the 105mm "normal" lens but it takes a big (77mm) filter. I've
never owned one. I prefer to obtain a soft focus effect by using a Nikon
soft focus filter under the enlarger beause I can vary the degree of
softness that way, though the effect isn't exactly the same as using a soft
focus lens.

I've never used the 2X extender but I do own the 1.4X extender that I mostly
use on the 200mm lens to convert it to a 280mm focal length and thus avoid
buying and (more importantly, carrying) the 300mm lens. It works very well.
The problem to me with a 2X is the loss of two stops of speed.

"James Dunn" wrote in message
m...
Thank you all for replying. I guess that at this point the best question
I could ask is : Is there any particular one to avoid ? I also think I
heard that some are designed to be "soft focus" for portrature.
Also any comment on the Pentax 2X doubler.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Function of clamp knob on the side of the Pentax FA 50 mm 2.8 macro lens Ifan 35mm Photo Equipment 6 September 9th 04 03:14 PM
perspective w/ 35mm lenses? PrincePete01 Digital Photography 373 August 10th 04 02:21 PM
Mounting 80mm Enlarger Lens over Pentax 6x7 - Any Ideas How? Nelson Win Medium Format Photography Equipment 26 May 22nd 04 05:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.