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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7?
-- Michael |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trade Pentax 67II for Pentax 645NII | Steve Bosell | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 21st 06 11:48 PM |
pentax 67II and tripods | M | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | November 14th 05 06:14 PM |
Pentax 67II vs. 645 | Matt Clara | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 10 | November 2nd 05 10:47 PM |
Pentax 67II vs. 645 | Noons | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | November 2nd 05 05:09 AM |
Pentax 67II vs. 645 | John | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | October 14th 05 04:03 AM |