Help me Choose a Pentax 67 Kit

I am a Hasselblad shooter. While I love the square for its formal qualities, there are times I would like a 6 x 7 format.

The Pentax 67 seems like it would work for me. Most of what I do is fine art work, portraits and on a tripod. No action or

street photography at all. YOu can get an idea of what I shoot here: http://johnkobeck.com

 

On the Hassy my main lens is the 80mm CF. I use that 90% of the time and the other 10% I use the 150.

 

So, based on that, what lenses would be compatible both in IQ (Zeiss quality) and focal length.

 

Secondly, as I scour EBAY I see many 67s for sale. The prices seem very good for both the lenses and the bodies. Is

there a certain model I should look for or avoid?

I immagine I should expect to have a CLA done on this camera.

 

Thanks

<p>Hi Jon, very briefly, avoid the very older models; these are labeled as "6x7" and do not have mirror lock-up (MLU). The later models are labeled as "67" and have MLU. These may still be serviceable by Pentax, though you need to check on this. The most recent "67II" would be the one to shoot for. I have both a 67 and a model II; the 67 had a CLA several years ago and is like new. Both of these have served me very well. If you go with the TTL finder, the metering on the model II is much improved over the older models and there is an auto exposure function.</p>

<p><br /> One problem with the older models is deterioration of the foam rubber light seals. These can be replaced professionally or even by yourself. There are kits available to do this.</p>

<p><br /> Unlike you I shoot mostly landscapes. The 55mm f4 lens is one of my favorites and is very sharp edge to edge. Avoid the much older 55mm f3.5 lens. The wider 45mm f4 is also good but I think the 55 is sharper. My 45 has some chromatic aberration in the far corners under high contrast but others do not seem to experience this. Regards.</p>

<p>Like Walter, I would recommend the 67II with the AE prism. As for lenses that will give you a similar FOV as your Hasselblad 80 and 150, I'd recommend the 90 and the 165/2.8. Check KEH to get an idea of prices.</p>

<p>For a standard lens, you probably want the Pentax 67 90mm f/2.8. It's an excellent lens and it's closer to the Hasselblad's 80mm in field of view than the other common "standard" P67 lens, the 105mm f/4.</p>

<p>The earliest P67 lenses (those from 1969-1978) are labeled "Takumar 6x7" and are often not as good as later versions. About 1979 several lenses were redesigned and the label was changed to "Pentax 6x7". About 1986 the last generation of P67 lenses were introduced, labeled "Pentax 67" (rather than "6x7"). Newer versions are consistently better except for those that were great to begin with, in which case any version will do.</p>

<p>As for camera bodies, Walter is nearly but not quite correct. The earliest Pentax 6x7s lacked the mirror lock-up feature, but it was introduced in the mid-70s, so a camera marked "Pentax 6x7" may or may not have MLU. The later "Pentax 67" and "Pentax 67 II" models always have MLU. The 67 II also offers aperture-priority mode, whereas the earlier models are manual-mode only.</p>

<p>The TTL pentaprism viewfinder with metering is quite nice but provides only about 85% coverage. I've also used the rigid magnifying hood (i.e. vertical chimney) finder, which is very nice, but like all such finders provides a reversed image.</p>

<p>Compared to the Hasselblad, you will find that the P67 is noticeably louder when the shutter fires, and also has more recoil. Despite this it is quite possible to shoot the P67 hand-held at faster shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Suggest getting a body with little wear, as Pentax 67s don't have the longevity of a good 35mm format body. Another lens option is the 90-180 zoom. It is plenty sharp but is not as fast as the 90 or 105mm (Double Gauss) counterparts. </p>

<p>For a 56x72 camera for portraits on a tripod, a Pentax 67 seems to my opinion not so recommendable as a camera where you may rotate the film-back to switch from landscape to portrait orientation.</p>

<p>I have two such pentaxes with a 75mm for landscape and a 150mm for portraits. No other lenses : wider, I don't like, and longer, I find too heavy. I use them exclusively hand-held, with the lateral wooden handgrip always attached for my left hand. I find it helps a lot steadying the camera, because I noticed on my first pictures and also on pictures posted on Internet by other photographers that the micro-shakes are mostly lateral (horizontal), meaning that they are caused by the shutter, rather than by the miror.</p>

<p>Both my pentaxes are very old and thus have no MLU, which I would not use anyway (hand-held). After all these years, they still work fine, except for some banding at the highest speed (1/1000). I had them CLA'd twice in 6 months two years ago, but the condition seems to come back soon, so I decided to let it so, and avoid using 1/1000.</p>

<p>But (as - me too - am rather old) I had the eyepieces adjusted exactly to my sight, so that I don't need to keep my glasses on when framing ; otherwise, it's difficult to see the whole picture, because the viewer is rather wide angle; but since this means that the groundglass with its microprisms is shown very large, it is excellent for precise focusing (one of the best I have experienced). </p>

<p>Paul</p>

 

<p>I use several <strong>67</strong> bodies and many of the lenses. The 135 macros get the most work. I'd say the 90 mm SMC 2.8 is most comparable with the 80mm CF. The 165 LS is handy if you like flash.<br>

My entire work output for over two decades. All handheld.<br>

Enjoy.</p>

<p>For whatever reason I am not allowed to refer you to the best research archives for this camera and the lenses. If you google "pentax 67" they both come up. One provides a complete and extensive run down on the bodies over the years and one has an excellent chart on all the various versions of all the lenses. </p>

<p>Sorry I cannot be more specific but I keep getting blocked even when just typing the names as opposed to dropping in actual links.</p>

 

<p>My suggestions for lenses are the 45mm, 90mm, and 135mm macro. I used that combination extensively with both a 67 and a 67II. The 67II with AE prism is a very nice body. I also had the 90-180 zoom at one point, and as Steve points out, it is very sharp. Also very big, as you can imagine. Interesting (or maybe not) that I shoot H-blad now, and gave up the 67 some years ago. I love the square.</p>

<p>I purchased the Pentax 6x7 soon after introduction. I had the Macro 135mm lens and the 75mm wide. A 2x-extender, tubes and filters incl a polarizer.<br>

I liked that the film was in a straight line,. I wanted the rectangular format. I wanted a large 35mm. Well it turned out i hated the camera. The weight, the bulk, the two lenses and body needed a shipping crate, not a bag on my shoulder. I hated to proof as i always needed another piece of paper as only 8 frames fitted a 8 x 10 sheet. Getting pro work done a chore and added expense.<br>

The camera was superb! True you needed spare batteries. Using a Mamiya RB or RZ version, was much nicer for me!<br>

In retrospect i would add a little to my Hasselblad system. It's a nicer camera, the lenses are sharper(OK but only a bit), flash is a dream. Service stuff that needs it. Add spare body and maybe a newer lens or two.<br>

The H-system to me is really a Fuji. I think I would not go that way unless going towards a digital..</p>

<p>Complete specs: http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/pentax67/lens-info.html. The other (blocked) site also has ratings.</p>

<p>I have the P67 with the 165mm, 105mm and 55mm which work well for portrait/figure work. I've used the 90mm and 135mm but prefer the slightly longer lenses. All my lenses are the later SMC Pentax series rather than the ancient SMC Takumar series, which can be in really rough condition on the used market. The P67II is newer but it costs quite a bit more and doesn't seem to offer much more other than lighter weight and perhaps better hand-holdability. Neither model has a hot shoe, making them problematic for studio work. <br>

As others have stated, with a prism you loose a lot of edge visibility in the viewfinder. So when framing your shot you need to compose slightly outside the field of view to take advantage of the full negative. That's tough to do when hand-holding; I've ended up with a lot of shots more 6x6 in composition than 6x7! Also, of my six 120 cameras, the P67 is by far the most tedious to reload. But it's an excellent camera you're sure to enjoy.</p>

 

Well to be honest, one of the bog attractions for me switching to the P67 is Aperture Priority. I REALLY

wish that Blad had that option. And an internal meter

The 67II has a superior focussing screen, but if you put a Beattie screen in a 67, it will be as good. If you can afford the

extra price, the 67 II is the better camera.

<p>I think your effort to land a 67II would be worth a little wait if that is what you will face. The 67II is lighter, the AE meter is one of the best in photography. I use a vertical magnifier finder for critical work when I know the edge is a priority. I've had my 67II since, 1999, and I've yet to have any problems with it. It is, LOL, overdue for a CLA, but you wouldn't know it. Doing a CLA now would be for the purpose of preventative maintenance, I already found a source to do this. I've learned to meld with the process of operating the 67II, So there's nothing to me that is an issue to hold me back from getting the job done. Although one should be selective as to what lenses to bring on a trek. I recently rigged a strap through the top loupe of the camera pack, and when I've found my scene, I hang the strap holding entire pack around, underneath the quick release plate before sliding the camera on. This might be overkill, but I feel that this acts as a damper at the tripod head at the source of the possibility of vibrations, plus its comfortable to access filters and lenses at arms length. Great camera, wish I was on the trail with it now.</p>

Well, after much soul searching I have decided not to abandon the Hasselblad but rather embrace it. I need to resist the

constant urge to buy new gear and I think the Pentax was just a whim. The Blad is indeed a fine camera and truthfully for

the work idonthe square is most appropriate. The only drawback is the lack of AE but I can live with that