105 f2.4 or 90mm f2.8 for 67 ?

[john_dowle1]

<p>Hi any opinions on which of these two lens I should choose as first buy for my Pentax 67 ? Any particular strong or weak points with either of these two ? I wouldn't of thought so but I'll ask anyway.<br>

Thanks in advance for any advice or help as usual.<br>

John.</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>Both are excellent lenses. It's really just a question of whether you want a slightly wide or slightly long standard lens. I bought the 105mm since I wanted a good lens for 3/4 portrait shots. The 105mm also makes an excellent short tele on my Pentax 645n.</p>

[richard_]

<p>even though the 105 is only slightly faster than the 90, it is (to me) significantly brighter in the viewfinder resulting in better/faster focusing. Otherwise both are similiar.</p>

[dougmiles]

<p>They're both fine... The 90 is the newer design, less common, and is smaller, and focuses closer. Its focal length is almost exactly the same as the film diagonal, so it's the "natural" normal lens choice, like 43mm is for 24x36. In either case, enjoy!</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>A generic response would be "it depends on what you like to shoot". I shoot landscapes, which can include portraits of trees. Since I have the <strong>SMC Pentax 67 75mm f/4.5, </strong>I chose the <strong>SMC Pentax 67 105mm f2.4</strong> for a narrower angle of view. <strong>SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4, </strong><strong>SMC Pentax 67 200mm f/4 </strong>round out my kit. All are used for landscape, although I usually only carry Three in the field.</p>

<p>You may already know, but here is a lens guide for the Pentax 67 system. The 105 f2.4 and the 90 f2.8 are listed as equals optically. They have the same filter size. The 90 focuses closer, and is lighter. So, choose the angle of view that you think you will prefer. The equivalent angle of view in 35mm terms is listed in the guide.</p>

<p>You can Google <strong>Pentax 67 Lens Guide</strong>. Photo.net would not allow a link to the site . . .?</p>

<p> </p>

[denniswms]

<p>Of those two my first buy would be the 90. Works for anything horizontal from a single head and shoulders to a full length group shot of 20. <br>

...but if I was starting from scratch knowing what I know I'd get a 135macro first. For any subject two people or smaller it's the most useful lens money can buy made for the 67. Equally at home shooting horizontal or vertical. <br>

As second lens I would get the 90, then a 165 leaf, a second 135, a 200, and then a 55.</p>

[dougmiles]

<p>I've enjoyed the P67 system for many years, and have the 45, both 55/4, 75/2.8 AL, 90, 100 Macro, early & late 105, 120 Soft, 135 Macro, 165/2.8, 165/4 LS, early & late 200/4, and the plain 300/4. That 75 AL is one of my all-time favorite lenses on the big Pentax.<br>

I have an adapter to use these lenses on the Leica S2 medium-format digital SLR. I think the S2 puts more pressure on lens optical performance than the P67. No great testing, but in real-world use at mid-apertures the 45 and late 200 are quite excellent, the 100/4 Macro is excellent even wide open, while the 165 LS was disappointing (I was at f/6.7 - f/13). It's "good", just not as crisp as I expected from using the others; maybe mine's a slightly off sample, but it looks fine. I plan to try some of the others eventually, noting that the S2's standard lens is 70mm.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>About the bold font in my post. It happened when I copied my lens descriptions from the P67 lens guide. I would undo bold if I could, but it's too late. This is an interesting and informative thread as the subject expands beyond normal lenses.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>I use my 105 for handheld portraits and action work and it does well for those subjects. I don't own a 90mm. Both the 90 and 105 are limited in landscape work because they do not have small stops like the zooms (90-180 & 55-100). If you need small stops regularly, skip the 90 and 105 and go with one or both zooms. They are at least as sharp as the normal lenses.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Steve, When making comparisons between prime lenses and zoom lenses: Are you suggesting any given lens is typically stopped down to its smallest aperture, or perhaps opened up one stop for optimum image quality? I'm sure there are many variables, but what is your experience here? Thanks, Chris</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Chris; the 55-100 zoom from f/4.5 to f/22 is sharper than either 90 or 105 in that focal ratio range. It suffers a bit at f/32 due to diffraction but is still similar to the normals at that stop. I feel the 90-180 is about the same in sharpness as the nomal lenses unless one is using f/45, then there is a slight loss.<br />Anyone considering the primes vs zooms for landscape work cannot use the lens in its focal ratio sweet spot because DOF is the major concern. So, small stops must be used. As such, the zooms have the smaller stops and are more useful for landscapes than the primes, even though diffraction is a concern. The smallest stops on the two zooms are not a show stopper; I use them quite often.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Thank you Steve for your further explanation. I have also been re-reading some older threads regarding focusing accuracy with the P67 using the microprism screen.</p>