Pentax 67 Lenses

<p>I currently have a Pentax 67II with the 55mm, 135mm macro, and 300mm lenses. I'm debating what lens to get in between the 55 and 135mm. I used to own a 105mm long ago, but I'm wondering if I should get a 90mm or even a 75mm to fill in the gap better? Which normal lens is the better lens- the 90mm or 105mm? The 75mm might be a bit too wide, but having a 105 and 135mm so close to each other- well. The 75mm lenses are quite cheap now on Ebay, while the other two are still a bit expensive for used lenses. What you think?</p>

<p>75 would really be normal for the 645 format. Most of the 67's I've seen for sale had the 105 as normal lens, but if you wanted a slightly wider view the 90 would still be good. For many years my dad used a 90 as the normal lens on his RB67 (same format as Pentax 67II) and was satisfied with the coverage. </p>

<p>the 75 equals a 35mm; 90 = 45mm, and 105 = about a 50mm. The 105/2.4 and 90/2.8 are pretty close, but for myself, I prefer the 105 as its brighter and better to focus with.</p>

<p>Honestly, I would get the 75 AND either the 90 or the 105, since they are so reasonably priced as compared to their (in my opinion) intrinsic worth. Between the 90 and the 105, the 105 will give you a slighter greater "compression" effect that may be more pleasing in portrait type scenarios. </p>

<p>If you only want to get one at a time, I would get the 90, and put the 75 next on the want list, then followed by the 105.</p>

<p>The 6x7 system is somewhat limited by DOF issues, so if that is a concern, like in landscapes, the 55-100 zoom is a better choice than the primes. This zoom is as sharp as your 55mm. I used to own primes only, many years ago but switched over to the 55-100 and 90-180 for better landscape depth. </p>

Scott, I deliberated over the same question when I put together a Pentax 67 kit (nearly 20 years ago!). As primarily a scenic

photographer, I had usually found the 50mm lens in 35mm format to be somewhat tight, so I favoured the wider or 'looser' view offered by

the 90mm lens. And the 90 fitted better with my 45mm, 165mm and 300mm. In addition, I reasoned that the 90mm lens was more

compact in size, focused quite a bit closer, and, as the much newer design of the two, might be sharper. I bought mine new, and was

certainly pleased with the results it gave me. However, as I came over time to do more portraits, at times I wished for the longer

perspective of the 105mm. And the 105mm is no slouch in sharpness either; I recall the 1999 (I think) test by Popular Photography rated

it as 'excellent' at most apertures and a pro told me that he considered his 105 to be very sharp indeed. Certainly, either lens will have better contrast than your 135 macro, plus they're much more compact and provide brighter viewing. Make sure you get a later production copy with the Pentax 67 designation and check it against a bright specular light source for hazing on the elements which seems to afflict many lenses, I think due to either humidity deposits or heat volatilising the helicoid grease. I sold most of my kit when I eventually switched to the Mamiya 7 system but bought a like-new 105 as a portrait lens for the body I kept, for a low price. It's a very nice lens and does offer slightly brighter viewing and the shallower depth of field.

<p>A vote for the 90, for you...<br>

Keep in mind there are two 75mm lenses (well, a third if you count the shift lens), and both the f/4.5 and f/2.8 are excellent. I only have experience with the f/2.8, marvelous. While the 105 is popular, IMO the 2.8/90 is superior. Smaller, light weight, close focus, sharp... what's not to like?<br>

There is also the 100mm f/4 Macro, one of the last lenses released, and really outstanding. There's a screw-in front insert that sometimes is omitted in a sale, but should be included. It allows 1:1 macro; without it you focus down to 1:2.<br>

I have been using these lenses on a Leica S, where the digital sensor shows up lens quality. I just tried the 90 and 105 recently, with the 90 doing surprisingly well. I have not used the 2.8/75 on this rig yet but the 45, late 55, 90, 4/100, 2.8/165, and late 4/200 are great. The 135 if fine, but the 4/165 LS is disappointing.</p>

<p>I use RB67 so same format. I find 90mm a good all-purpose compromise (equiv to 45mm in 35mm terms), but a slightly longer focal length would be more pleasing to the eye IMO. I'd choose 105mm if the optical quality is good (no idea).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I went back, and forth between the 75mm, and 105 for this shot. In the field I find myself reaching for both. In this case the extra length acted as the perfect crop for the tree. The SMC Pentax 67 105mm 2.4 lens is not just a 50mm equivalent in 135 Photography. The 105mm 2.4 has a quality about it, and a very smooth, useful out of focus zone that is unmatched.</p><div></div>

<p>The 105mm lens is very good, always had one of those when I had my Pentax 67II. I did try a Takumar 75mm lens and didn't really rate it too highly compared to the 45mm and 55mm lenses. The newer 75mm f2.8 lens seems to be much better optically than the older version.</p>

<p>The Takumar 75mm Aspherical f/2.8 is a much sharper lens than any of the other 75s in the line.<br>

Worth the extra bucks by a long shot.<br>

JD</p>

<p>The Pentax 75 AL is sharp, no doubt but the 75 Takumar f/4.5 and the 55-100 zoom @ 75mm seem to be very similar to the 75 AL in performance. </p>

<p>Steve could be right as far as the 55-100 zoom is concerned but my experience with the older 75mm that I replaced with the 75mm AL was that the AL was considerably shaper.<br>

Admittedly only a one lens sampling though.<br>

JD</p>

<p>We are fortunate that there are only a few so-so lenses in the Pentax-67 lineup, and even those have their defenders! So it can come down to choosing a useful focal length and enjoying the results. Special needs such as macro focus, optical shift, small apertures, or soft focus stand out as exceptions.</p>