chris___10 Posted January 14, 1999 Share Posted January 14, 1999 Well, i did it. I sold my Hasselblad and bought a Pentax 67 with the penta prism and the 135 f/4 macro. I just got it about and hour ago. I had a couple questions. When mounting the lens, it seems to take more force and was a little rougher then it was with my blad or say a 35mm. Is this normal with the P67? I have used a P645 and it also took more force and was rougher (it was a fairly well used camera that I rented from school) The second is, does the film advance also normally require more force then say a blad or 35mm? If this is all normal, great. I really like this camera, and I think I will love the lens. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomark Posted January 15, 1999 Share Posted January 15, 1999 Yes. I think Pentax had a very brutish sort of photographer in mind when they designed this. Both the lens and the film advance have a good deal of resistance compared to 35mm. I don't know how it stacks up against the Hasselblad. I have heard that you need to be a little gentle with the film advance. People used to shooting 2 frames a second with a manual 35mm have been known to mess up the winder mechanism--I have not had any problem in the couple of years with mine. This may be fixed in the new model. <BR> I really hope you enjoy this camera.<P> Best wishes<br> Mark< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_crumpler6 Posted January 17, 1999 Share Posted January 17, 1999 Truely a MAN'S camera!! If he lenses slipped off and on like my nikons, and the wind lever flipped as easily as the nikons, I would feel that the p67 was flimsy, which it ain't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trace_dibble1 Posted January 17, 1999 Share Posted January 17, 1999 Congratulations, Chris, on parting company with that limp-wristed, image conscious Hasselblad gang. If you're anything like the rest of us beer drinking, raw-meat-eating Pentax 67 users, you'll find that a few days of pulling on that film advance lever will increase your testosterone level to the point that buttons will be popping loose on your bowling shirt. <p> As the above real men have mentioned, the P67 is, by design, a robust instrument, capable of withstanding unimaginable punishment--at the expense of such effeminate creature comforts as "silky-smooth lens release mechanisms" <p> I have the 135 F4 you mentioned, and it's an excellent optic. Very sharp--perhaps too much so for portraits (but then, us good ol' boys don't take "portraits" anyway; we take "mug shots"). For macro, You may want to pick up an extention tube set to get down to 1:1. And if you have a few hundred left over, I'd get the 55 F4. It may be the best lens, overall, in the P67 stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_crumpler6 Posted January 18, 1999 Share Posted January 18, 1999 Trace and Chris <p> The 55mm F4 is a super lens, probably pentax's best lens. I've had mine for a little over a year and I am continully amazed at the sharpness of the negatives/prints I am getting! The 55 stays on the camera 80-90% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_rasmussen Posted January 19, 1999 Share Posted January 19, 1999 Chris: Several of my lenses were much more difficult to mount when new than they are now. They seem to wear in. My 300 was very tight at first but is now much smoother. Still, none of my lenses mount as easily as 35mm equipment. SR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcelo_p._lima Posted January 24, 1999 Share Posted January 24, 1999 Hi everyone, <p> It seems that the Pentax 67 is a great camera indeed and I'm targeting one for myself as well. <p> But I have a question regarding the lens.. A lot of people out there seem to have the 55 f/4 and there are very few mentions of the 45 f/4. Is the 55mm much sharper, and the 45mm a lousy performer ? I don't understand the clear preference people hold for the 55mm.. <p> Thanks, Marcelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_crumpler6 Posted January 25, 1999 Share Posted January 25, 1999 Marcelo: <p> A lot of users seem to like the 45mm. The differences to the 45 (which I don't own) and 55 (which I do), are: <p> 1. The 45mm takes huge filters 10omm and is very heavy. The 55 takes 77mm filters and is still a bit heavy. <p> 2. The 45mm is wide enought to create some unpleasent distortions if not handled carefully. The 45 is the equilivent of a 21mm in 35mm and the 55 is the equilivent of a 28mm. I got the 55 because I like the 28mm focal lenght in 35 and I used it a great deal. <p> 3. The new 55 f4 is an extremely sharp lens, as good as any currently being produced in MF. The design is diffraction limited at f22. The 45, is not apparently quite as sharp, realizing that that evaluation is second hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_sabo Posted January 25, 1999 Share Posted January 25, 1999 Marcelo, <p> I have both the 45 and the 55. I had the 55 first, but got the 45 because I wanted a wider view. I have not done a critical side by side comparison, but have had no complaints with the 45. I generally carry the 45 and leave the 55 at home. Yes, you must be careful with camera position to avoid distortion, but it's little different with my Canon 20mm in 35mm format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patti Posted January 25, 1999 Share Posted January 25, 1999 The 45mm is an excellent lens. Choose between it and the 55mm on the basis of which angle of view you prefer, not concerns about differences in quality. The filters for the 45mm are, as Gene Crumpler says, "huge", but they are 82mm, not 100mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_crumpler6 Posted January 25, 1999 Share Posted January 25, 1999 Chris: <p> I guess that the older version of the 45mm had the 100 mm filter size. The newer one has the 88mm!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patti Posted January 25, 1999 Share Posted January 25, 1999 Gene, <p> Nope, the current version of the 45mm lens has 82mm filters. I'm not sure about any earlier versions of the 45, but I believe that the older version of the 55mm lens had 100mm filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_crumpler6 Posted January 26, 1999 Share Posted January 26, 1999 Chris: <p> The first sign of creeping dementia is forgetting which filter fits on which lens!?!? <p> Gene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_drennon Posted January 26, 1999 Share Posted January 26, 1999 I have the 45mm but do not own the 55. I can't imagine the 55 being significantly sharper than the 45 but I guess I'll have to break down and buy a target and run the test. <p> I wanted the 45 specifically for the ability to distort while maintaining straight lines, this lens is great for that. It is a little heavier than the 55 but I also have a 165LS which is quite a bit heavier so it's all relative. If you like 21mm (35mm equiv.) perspective you'll love this lens and keep it on the camera all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_lewis1 Posted March 3, 1999 Share Posted March 3, 1999 45mm vs. 55mm vs. 45mm etc. If you by chance buy lenses based on their focal length, filter size is not really an issue. If having multiple filter sizes in the bag causes difficulty, get all 82mm filters and use step-rings to deal with those issues. I have both of the lenses in question and both perform well when used within their limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now