Whats the real deal with the P67 200 and 300mm lenses

As I understand it the early 200 and 300mm lenses are very average,

and the latest version is tack sharp. Is this true ? If so Yikes

because i was just watching a late model P67 300mm lens that went

for $1400 on Ebay.

 

So far I have a 45mm and a 90mm lens. I want to add either a 165 or

a 200. Which is better ???

 

i also want to pick up a 300mm and a 500mm lens later, but if the

latest 300 is only marginally better I might go for an early lens.

My 90mm lens is really sharp. How do the early 200 and 300mm lenses

compare to it as far as sharpness.

I can only speak to the older 200mm, which is a very nice lens and certainly better than average. Remember that the 200 or the 300 will require even more attention to technique (tripod, MLU, cable, etc.) than the 45 or the 90.

Hi Troy. I have an older 300 Takumar SMC lens and I like it. It was purchased on Ebay, it was beat to hell, but optically was in pretty good condition. But when you are talking about the new 300 your are comparing apples to oranges. The new design is an EDIF lens. The only thing similar between that and the older lens is the name Pentax and the focal length (in my opinion). The new lens also has a built-in tripod mount, a definite plus. Regards.

I can only address your 200mm lens question. The older lens, 67mm thread, is an excellent optic, but it's close focusing isn't so hot. If you want to use this lens for portrait work you really need an extension tube. A better choice for portrait work is the new 200mm, 77mm filter thread, which focuses much more closely or go with either of the two 165 lenses f2.8 & f4 (the f4 is a leaf shutter lens).

Troy,<p>

Generally, I have observed mint condition normal 300mm lenses for P67 going for

$400-600 on Ebay. The one you refer to probably was the 300mm EDIF version which

is a nice piece of glass, indeed! I have used the 165mm, 200mm, and 300mm. All 3

are good lenses. My 300mm sold recently as I found I rarely used it, favoring the

200mm. I recently acquired the 165mm and like it, but I prefer the shorter tele FOV

on my other formats as well. On a tripod with excellent film and proper exposure and

stopped down to f/8, all of my lenses yield "tack sharp" results. The 165mm is 1 stop

faster and easier to hand-hold, which reduces sharpness on slow shutter speeds.

When I use the 200mm or 300mm, the camera sits on my Gitzo, no problemo! I also

use the 45mm and 90mm. Frankly, my "travel kit" minus tripod, includes the 45mm,

90mm and 165mm.

I also answered this on the MF forum, and I'm re-posting it here:

 

The early 200mm f4 lens is plenty sharp and contrasty. It's only weakness is that it does not focus very close without some type of extension tube or diopter added. IMHO, this lens is a good deal at the $200 or less that it can be picked up, relative to the cost of the newer lens. The 165mm f2.8 is faster and focuses closer, but it's not any sharper.

 

Unfortunately, ALL, not just the early, 300mm f4 NON-ED lenses are not the greatest. The ED-glass versions are noticeably better. But, as you saw, the ED versions sell for about 3X what the non-ED glass lenses sell for. So it's your call how much you will need to use the 300mm lens. Only you can decide if $400 or so for a less than stellar Non-ED 300mm lens is a better deal than $1100-$1400 for an ED 300mm lens.

Troy: Go for the 300 ED if you intend to stay in the format. I've have both versions, there's no comparison between the two. MFD on the 300 alone is worth it. Plus later on, you could pick up a 1.4 extender for versatility. Good close up lens w/tubes. Some say the lack of f45 is a minus, but it does not cramp my style. Good luck. mark smith

Whats the sharpness drop off like with the 1.4x tc

Actually the the 300 Takumar is very well corrected optically and is a sharp lens but has a so-so reputation due to its susceptability to shutter vib. Many attribute unsharpness to poor optics, when it is actually shutter vib caused. I have owned mine for over ten years and it did take some getting used to. One can publish shots with this lens if you know its limitations. It has problems with shutter speeds from 1/4 sec to 1/30sec. If price is no object, try the ED.

I always thought that my 200mm/4 newest version lens was a dog..it never took very sharp photos at all (always slightly soft), until the day I bought a RRS plate and a Gitzo G1410 to complement my Arca Swiss B1...

that was when I realized what a sharp piece of glass it was! :)