P67 Takumar 400/4.0 info needed

I have a chance to buy a Pentax 67 400mm Takumar lens in extremely good condition. Before I make a commitment, I wanted to check with this group for opinions about the lens.

 

<p>

 

I know that this thing is big and heavy, and that it's not the current ED model, etc. But it's not clear to me what size filters it takes (front? rear?), or what the overall quality is. (I'm buying this long distance, so I don't have a chance to see the lens in person.) I've heard a few comments from people that the current 300/4.0 is "a little bit soft", so I'm concerned that I'll have that problem with this lens.

 

<p>

 

Any and all comments would be greatly appreciated!

 

<p>

 

 

Lou

I have no experience with this lens, but here's a little info from and older Pentax catalog. Optical construction is 5-5, manual diaphram only, 12 degree angle of view, minimum focusing distance of 8 meters (26.24 feet), minimum aperture is 45, overall length is 287mm (11.3 inches), weight is 2,570g (5.67 pounds), and filter size is 77mm.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

 

<p>

 

Joel Collins | jwc3@mindspring.com | http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3

I recently acquired one of these lenses, and have yet to be satisfied with it. It is quite a bit softer than either my 45 or 75 at middle apertures, and it is prone to shutter shake.

It has a 25ft minimum focusing distance (25 feet!!!), and uses the outer bayonet to mount, which can require more than a little patience.

Add its weight, and difficulty in setting up with smaller to mid sized heads, and I now realize my better choice would have been a 135 or 165 with a teleconverter.

Just my $0.02

Regards,

Mike Mahoney

I believe that Joel Collins got something mixed up when he wrote that the filter size of the 400:4.0 is 77mm, because it just doesn't make sense. A 400:4.0 must have a filter size no smaller than 100mm. 400 divided by 4 equals 100, right? Did Mr Collins read all the other data too from the wrong source? I don't know, because I have never ever used any Pentax equipment or even looked in a Pentax catalog. But I sure know that lenses usually don't defy the laws of physics.

The 77mm filtersize is correct! The old 4,0/400 use rear filters like the 4,0/600 and 4,0/800. These lenses also uses the

77mm size, only the newer ED models (400 and 800) have 67mm filters at the end.

 

<p>

 

Reinhar

To Mike Mahoney: The 400mm and the 600mm are both difficult to use because of the outer bay mounting and shutter harmonics. Before you discount the optics of the 400, try what I did to get sharp pictures from my 600mm. Use two tripods. One on the camera and one on the lens. One other tip is to not use the rear filter unless absolutely necessary. They degrade the image slightly, but only at wide open to moderate f-stops. SR

The information I have provided is correct. I found it at: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~jrf/pentax67.html which has a lot of useful Pentax67 information. To see my information source, click on the "Brochure Pictures" link to see scanned images of some older brochures. The last image contains information about the older lenses, including the 400/4.

 

<p>

 

BTW, this web page also has images of the rare and very expensive marine housing for the P67.

 

<p>

 

Joel Collins | jwc3@mindspring.com | http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3

Steve: Thanks for your suggestion regarding two tripods. I am guessing that the tripod collar to camera distance is greater on the 600, permitting the use of two tripods. As the tripod collar on the 400 is less than 3 inches from the camera tripod mount hole, two tripods would be difficult, but your posting got me to thinking about some kind of bracket joining the collar and body, then mounting to a tripod.

I'm sure that the Pentax 400 optics are superb, and the softness I'm getting is more related to my technique ( or lack of !) than any lens defect.

I am beginning to wonder if my tripod and head combo is adequate (Manfrotto 055 with a 168 ball head).

I'm also going to try a faster film to get higher shutter speeds.

Thanks Again.

Mike Mahoney