First lens - 55, 75, 90? Mostly landscape work

[tijean]

As soon as I have a few more pennies saved, I think I'm going to

finally take the plunge and buy an 6X7 (newer of the old series with

MLU) but I am having trouble deciding on a lens. I am a one lens kind

of shooter, which is handy considering my budget. I used the 50/2.0

that came on my old K-1000 in the neighborhood of 8 years before

getting another. I am interested in the slight wide to normal range.

 

I read a bit on this forum about the 75 4.5 and was sufficently

scared off. What about the 55 3.5 and 4? A bit wide, but possibly a

good thing, considering that the 6x7 will be dedicated mostly to

landscape/nature work. There was also some talk about a 75 2.8 but I

cannot seem to find it listed for sale anywhere. Any thoughts on it's

availability/price/quality? I guess the last to consider (from what I

know thus far) is the 90 2.8.

 

I do have to admit, I am leaning towards the slight wides. Okay, on

with the wisdom. Please? Feel free to pawn me off to posts I missed

(I read the topic list and a few threads down to 2003) or websites

that would be useful.

 

Thanks!

[francois_gauthier]

To get the equivalent in 35mm format, you roughly divide by 2.

 

If you really want only one lens, the 75mm F2.8 is probably the way to go (slightly wide or 'just right'). If after a while, you want to add a super wide and/or normal, the 45mm and/or 105mm F2.4 are nice complement.

 

Now, lanscape people usually prefer it wide but not too much. 55mm is about 28mm equivalent in 35mm and perfect for that. The 90 F2.8 is usually the cheapest lens on the market and often comes with the camera. It is therefore a nice value to start with or to add to your 55mm.

 

Since the 75mm (F2.8 version) is younger, rarer and probably a lot more expensive, the 55mm (not sure what version) should be the way to go for you. Keep a eye open for an occasion to get the 90mm at low price.

 

Often in lanscape, a narrower view is better and that second lens could be worth it. (maybe 20% of your shots)

[steve_levine]

I shoot simlilar subjects with my P6x7. I own the 55,90 & 165. I do the majority of my landscapes with the 55, but I also love the 90mm. For me, the 55 and the 90 cover a lot of ground,and they are all I often take on trips.

 

The 55 equals a 28MM WA and the 90 equals 45MM or a slightly wider than normal lens. I always shoot stopped down a few stops, with MLU and a tripod,and I get great results ! Enjoy your P67.

[douglas_green1]

You could get the older, slower 75mm f4.5 for less than $150 om nice shape if you shop carefully. It's an outstanding lens, although slow and surprisingly bulky. I believe that the complaints on this forum were actually about excessive barrel distortion on the NEWER 75mm f2.8 lens

 

In any case, I personally really like the older 55mm f3.5, but I am NOT a one-lens kinda guy, and for me, the perfect minimalist outfit is the 55mm f3.5 and the 135mm f4 macro, which I also use as a portrait lens.

[ilkka]

I agree on the perfect minimalist set up of 55 (mine is F/4) and 135. But I could not leave it at that and eventually wanted to get something longer (300), shorter (35) and in between (90). But really, the 55 and 135 is a very good combination.

[dave_cheng1]

75mm/4.5 would be my choice if I could have only one lens. I have the

55mm. It is simply too wide most of the time for me. Occassionally 75mm

may be not wide enough but in most cases it is just right. Each time

I mount my 55mm on my camera it won't stay on long at all. But the 75mm seems always remain on my camera much longer. That tells me it is the one if I can have only one.

 

Besides, 75mm/4.5 is one of the sharpest lens among all Pentax 67 lenses. It is wide enough for most lanscape shots yet not too wide for people shots as well. It is a little bigger but actually weighs less than the 55/4.

[sumo_kun]

I would recommend the 75mm f2.8 AL. I LOVE this lens! I was going to buy a 105mm as a first lens like everyone else but the shop didn't have it in stock so I got the 75mm instead. To tell the truth, at first I wasn't too happy with it cos it was pretty expensive and there was something always bugging me about it possibly being too wide and I was wondering if I should have got the standard 105mm instead. I pretty much bought it on impulse (same for the camera) as I was so eager to get out and taking photos with this beast of a camera. When I actually took it out for a spin though I was proven VERY wrong. I think that this focal length (and 45mm)is my favorite. Whatever I look at just seems to fit really nicely in the finder. The optics are also reputed to be on a par with the legendary new 55mm. I do landscapes and urban cityscapes/details and I only have a 45mm and 75mm lens but I fins that these two lenses are pretty much all I need. I sometimes want a longer lens like the 200mm but I haven't needed it enough to justify buying it yet.

The only bad points I can think of for getting teh 75mm f2.8 AL as a first lens are that it is relatively expensive (worth it though!) and that it is quite hard to get. If you are like me, I'm sure you want to be taking pictures ASAP. Everything else about this lens is just perfect! It's also smaller than the older 75mm f4.5. I don't think that they can be found used very often so you probably need to buy new. I actually got mine in Japan. Anyway, to finish things off, I'd say just get this lens! You won't be disappointed!

[gus1]

Jessica,

If you are a one lens user, you may want to consider a fixed lens medium format camera. I use and am very happy with the Pentax 67, but if you like the 6x7 format, you may want to try a used Fuji GW670III, which has a fixed lens. Or you may want to try the Fuji GA645ZI, which is a smaller format, but still much larger neg. than 35 mm and is a great travel camera with a zoom lens

[tijean]

Great, I'm back to where I started - wanting one of each! :-)

 

Thank you so much for all of the information. I am trying to use my 35mm/DSLR shooting preferances to choose a lens, which isn't a great idea because this is a whole different beast with a whole different purpose. For a first lens, I guess I would rather have a bit too wide than not wide enough, as the 6x7 format will not suffer nearly as much cropping a tiny bit like 35mm and digital.

 

Okay, so the plan is a 90 and then possibly a 55 later on. This will be about like a 45mm and a 28mm, which is really perfect for how I shoot out in the field. I use a 31mm and 50mm for 35mm work now and my only complaint about focal length is that the 50 is just a hair too long. I will consider picking up something longer if I feel the need - when I start seeing lots of shots I need a 200 for AND when my wallet has refueled.

 

As for the 75/2.8: Definately out. It sounds like an absolutely superb lens, but IF I could find it, I couldn't afford it. It'll have to be religated to the "one day" list for now. The main reason I can now get into a 67 system is because of the falling prices, but this puppy bumps everything out of the "doable" bracket real fast.

[stemked]

Jessica,

 

As a Pentax 35mm user who went down the same path (well, almost, I really wanted to do macro so the 135mm was top on my list at the time) you may want to keep an eye out for the 6X7 to 35mm adaptor. Yes, it is pretty strange using a huge lens on a 35mm body, but its nice to travel with your 6X7 and have a 35mm backup. I've used this combo and been very happy with it. New this adaptor is expensive so the used market is where you want to find it.

 

Once again this shows the remarkable talents of Pentax engineers. I certainly appreciate their vision!

[steve_rasmussen]

Since you do mostly landscape work, I suggest saving a few more pennies and get the 55-100 zoom. It is super sharp, very low distortion and has f/32 DOF. I guarantee there will be times when you wished you had f/32, once you had bought the 75mm f/2.8, 55mm, 90mm or 75mm f/4.5.

[ilkka]

The only problem with the zoom lens is that it is HUGE. And the lens hood is even huger. You can stack the 45 and 2.8/75 on top of one another and the combination weighs 15% less and is about the same height as the zoom alone. And that's without the hood. 95 mm filters are not exactly small and cheap either.

[john_macpherson]

Jessica - I have used the P67 for years. Bought the 55, 75, 105, 165 macro and 200. I sold all of the lenses except the 55. I use it exclusively for landscape and nature work. Love it, use it, rate it highly, sharp and contrasty. I have had images enlarged to over 1.5 metres wide and they looked great. If I want a longer lens effect I crop the 55mm frames to 645 and I still have a stunning image. For me the 55 is the one to go for. Not too wide, but wide enough to give you great sweeping images when you need them. And it has good depth of field. Too many people use the P67 like it was a grown-up 35mm. Big mistake. Treat it like a scaled down 5x4 and you will be rewarded with astonishing images. I have a Fuji 69 and it is a great camera, like its 67 sibling, and with a lens so sharp you could cut yourself, but using split filters on it for serious landscape work is a no-no. Get the 55mm f4 and your 67 MLU body and you'll be a very very happy woman.