Zeiss 300/4 for Pentax 67?

[leo_driscoll]

I went to ebay (reluctantly) to learn about the current selling

prices for Pentax 67s. Why? I would like the luxury of the "new"

feather-weight Fuji point-and-shoot 645 when I next shoot Aso-san

(volcano in Kyuushuu, Japan). But I unexpectedly found "Pentax 67

Carl Zeiss 300/4 Sonnar-Beautiful Pro lens". To buy or not to buy?

Will I get sharper/better contrast/richer colour etc. travel slides

with the Zeiss 300/4 vs. my current 165/2.8?

 

Anyone have any experience or information?

 

Lowenherz

[psartman]

Try the Pentax 67 Forum: http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1549

I suspect this is a custom modification. The difference in perspective between 165 and

300mm is more important than any difference you'll see in optical quality, I'd bet.

[george_rhodes]

I have no personal experience with either of the lenses you're asking about. Having stated that, the 300 is twice the focal length of the 160. They're probably both optically very good, but which focal length do you prefer? Would you want only one of the two focal lengths? Why limit yourself? I use the 90-180 zoom and the 300 ED Pentax lenses, in order to cover that whole range. Also, how much will the Zeiss 300 cost you? The Pentax 300mm f4 ED is optically superb, but expensive at roughly $2,200.00 at B&H. Depending on the price of the Zeiss lens, if given the choice, I'd prefer the Pentax 300 ED over the Zeiss. If the Zeiss 300 is considerably less expensive than the Pentax 300 ED, then it sounds as though it would probably be a pretty good deal.

[kevin_ing]

Just took a look at that auction...

 

This is an East German Pentacon 6 (6x6) Carl Zeiss Jena 300mm Sonnar that has been modified to fit a Pentax 67. This particular lens is of the latest type that was manufactured up until Pentacon discontinued this line of products.

 

The new mount looks like a pretty rough machining job. You also have a nice big silver surface facing back at the film, so I would worry a bit about contrast loss. I also hope that they've machined it to extremely tight tolerances where the lens axis is exactly perpendicular to the film plane... otherwise one side of the frame will be permanently out of focus (may be able to compensate through stopping the lens down). And the aperture will be manual stop-down which makes it troublesome to use for fast action unless you shoot wide open or close to wide open.

 

That said, the 300mm Sonnar is a very nice lens. They are generally well built and operate smoothly unless they've been abused. It is a sharp lens... but mine is not quite as sharp as the 180mm Sonnar in the same mount. The 300mm does seem to exhibit some chromatic abberrations towards the edges of the frame... but these should only be a problem if you blow up really large.

 

A Pentax lens would probably be a better way to go unless the price difference is too great (I'm not familiar with P67 stuff, so I don't know what the lenses go for) or if you really want to try a Sonnar, or just want this lens as a novelty piece.

[jeff_drew4]

Leo,<p>

A few comments: I saw the lens on ebay as well. It's an older Jena model. If you get a

300mm Pentax SMC version, I think you will be happier in the long run. It's not rare to

find other telephoto lenses that have been custom mounted in P67. They are not

necessarily bad lenses, but a recent vintage OEM lens is tough to beat. I have used

the Pentax SMC 300 and been very pleased. The ED model is even better! For travel, I

would leave out the 300mm and tripod in favor of your 165mm. Lastly, if you want a

645 rangefinder for travel, go for it. Remember the compromises of 645 vs 6x7 and

rangefinder vs. SLR. Yes, checkout the Pentax 67 forum for lots of info.

[leo_driscoll]

As Kevin guessed, I was primarily interested in the Zeiss 300 because it's a bargain on ebay (~540). Also I shoot a lot of landscape slides with the 165- a lens mostly famous for shooting mannequins in Paris ;-)

 

The Zeiss 300 would however, as Paul and George observed, provide critical focal length in shooting mountains and seascapes.

 

But Kevin's caveats as well my own style (mostly hand-held shooting)will keep me off ebay (for a while ;-). I'm mostly a mountain biker and I'm not keen on jettisoning Gatorade in favor of stuffing my Linhof tripod (however elegant) into a backpack.

 

But I'm still intrigued by bringing along the "new" Fujifilm 645 point-and-shoot. Here are good descriptive links to the GA645Zi. I would even give up a flask of John Powers in Ireland and instead wear this titanium wonder on a hunt.

 

http://photographic.com/filmcameras/21/

 

http://photographic.com/filmcameras/21/index1.html

 

http://photographic.com/filmcameras/21/index2.html

 

Now if Fuji could recreate this 645 technology as "roku nana" (6x7) then I would seriously consider returning to ebay to sell my Pentax 67 ;-)

 

Why? I was nearly blown off the highest cliff in Europe in Dhún Na Ngall (Ireland) last summer as I tried to keep a grip on this machine and hold on to life mane-e-mane with an Atlantic-perfect storm. Also let's admit it. The Pentax 67 is Arnold Schwarzenegger's favorite ;-) Even though I was born a lefty and like the ergonomic grip, I would like to be able to fall back on the GA645Zi instead of fall off a 900-foot cliff.

 

So thanks all, for your superb help with decision making. This forum is a luxury for me. I usually post on BikeForums.net where there is a different culture (with some interesting variants ;-) If anyone here fancies anthropology, you may enjoy my thread on bikeforums.net,

 

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=79348&highlight=Scheisse

 

A final question- any information or thoughts on the GA645Zi?

 

 

Lowenherz