my first lens: zoom or fixed?

[kelly_hicks1]

In the next month or so I plan on purchasing a pentax 67 (after many

agonizing hours of researching) to be used for landscapes,

streetscenes (to a degree), and still lifes.

 

I'm in a quandry in trying to decide on which lens to buy first. I'm

actually leaning towards a 50-100 or 90-180 zoom, but other than the

first initial reviews found on this board I haven't read any more

followups about them.

 

Has anyone's perceptions about the zooms (one way or the other)

changed since you first bought one? Or simply put, would you buy one

again?

Would I be better off using a fixed 55,90,180 etc. lens instead?

 

I'm also concerned about whether or not I would be able to handhold

the 67 that had a zoom lens attached due to the excess weight. Are

handheld shots still possible at 1/125+ speed using a zoom, or for

this purpose, would I be better off using a fixed lens?

 

sorry for all the newbie questions :)

[stemked]

You maybe asking the wrong person, but personally I never (or VERY rarely) shoot handheld with a 67. I'm much hapier with my stuff, mirror poped up and solid support.

 

But you've asked about zoom vs fixed. I went piece by piece and have picked up a respectable set of lenses; 55, 135 macro, 200. I'd note the total of these three lenses, purchased used, was still less than the used price of a single zoom lens. I may have gotten lucky, but if it is price that's a concern then the fixed vs zoom are probably pretty close.

 

I think ultimately it comes down to what you want your lenses for. I wanted a wide angle for landscapes, a macro (although it is hard to call the 135 a macro when you see all the extension tubes I need to use), and a portrait lens. I also use a reversed 35mm lens for a lot of ultra macro. The combo works very nicely for my type of photography and if anything I might want the 100 macro rather than the 135. There is really no way that I'd trade my setup for a single zoom. But others very certainly would rather have the single lens.

[rolf_strasheim]

The first lens I purchased was the 55-100 and it's still what I use the most.

If you are asking about hand-held shots and weight I would say that makes a pretty good argument for the single 55-100 lens over multiple fixed lenses.

That being said, a 67II with a 55-100 is neither small nor light. The filter diameter is 95mm which makes that a PRICEY polarizer.

 

If this is the "You're on a desert island and you only get..." question then I would go with the 55-100.

 

Just my $.02

[bob_cook]

Kelly - I own the 45, 90, 135, and 200. Rather than one zoom, I

think I'd consider the 75 for general shooting, and the 135 for

semi-closeups. I say semi because the 135 "macro" only gets

down to about 3x lifesize, so it's not really a macro. Anyway, I

own the two zooms for my P645 and love them, but I never

handhold either camera. I think the zoom on the P67 would be

extremely heavy sooner rather than later. My thoughts, Bob

[allan_jamieson2]

Kelly, I wouldn't like to be handholding a Pentax 67/67II with a 55-100mm

lens attached! These cameras are much "happier" firmly attached to a solid

tripod and head. I've only hand held the camera on a few occasions, when

using a tripod just wasn't practical and the results were okay, but if you are

buying the camera for scenic/landscape type work, you'd be much better off

using a tripod.

 

I've never used any of the Pentax zoom lenses, but, the reviews seem fairly

positive all in all. The main catch from my point of view, is that zoom lenses

don't have the depth of field markings on the lens barrel for hyperfocal

focusing. But, then they do have the advantage of being able to choose any

focal length between say, 55mm and 100mm; which would be quite handy on

occasion.

 

I use 4 prime lenses, a 45mm, 55mm, 105mm and a 200mm. If I were buying

again, I would be strongly tempted by the 90-180mm lens to replace the

105mm standard lens and possibly the 200mm lens too. If you have the funds,

I'd vote for starting off with a 55mm plus the 90-180mm lens. You could then

add a 45mm lens at some later date; which is something I'd recommend as it

is a particularly useful focal length for landscape photography.

[douglas_green1]

I vote for primes. My kit is a 55mm, 90mm, 135mm macro, and 200mm.

I can hand-hold all of them, although I rarely do with the 135 and 200. All of these combined, purchased used, cost me around $1250, and covers a much broader range than either of the zooms individually. The Macro lens serves a function not well covered by either zoom, and if that wasn't an important aspect of your work, you could replace both the 135 and 200 with a 165.

 

You need to be aware that working with a Pentax 67 will be much slower going than 35mm photography is. The single focal length primes fit well in that context. Unless I were shooting fashion or sports with the 67, I don't think I'd have any use whatsoever for a zoom with this camera.

 

Also, I'm puzzled by the fact that you're considering BOTH of those zooms. It should be pretty clear to you whether you are more likely to need Normal to Wide, or Normal to Tele lenses for the typical work you do. If you haven't gotten that far yet, why not just start with the 90 or 105, and then see which area you feel the need to extend into.

 

Also, a word of warning - the Pentax 67 is NOT a very good camera for shooting street scenes, which seems to be the subject matter that's causing you to lean toward a zoom in the first place. It's far too obtrusive to lend itself to that. It's bulky, and it's LOUD, making the photographer stand out like a sore thumb. You are MUCH better off with a 35mm rangefinder or an inexpensive TLR for that. Although the 67 is GREAT for landscape work and still lifes, primes will serve you better than a zoom for these applications.

[steve_rasmussen]

I have most lenses between 45mm and 600mm but I decided to buy both zooms. Why would I do such a thing? In both landscape and macro work, which I do a lot of, the fixed lenses are somewhat limited in DOF. The zooms have a more modern f/32 in the 55-100 and f/45 in the 90-180. The 55-100 at 55mm and f/32 has a DOF that is the same as the 45mm at f/22. Compare the 150 Takumar's f/22 minimum and the 90-180's f/45 at 150mm. A big difference. Have I sold all my fixed lenses in the focal length of the zooms? No. The fixed lenses have the DOF scales and the speed and I use them for action/ handheld work. If your street work demands DOF, I would suggest the fixed lenses. If it is shallow DOF, you could use the zooms. Each lens type (fixed/zoom)has its use. To maximize the zooms, you need to put hyperfocal marks on them. Remember, that you will not be able to fit hyperfocal marks for every f-stop on the lens, so that is a limitation.

[carina]

I recently moved to this camera system. I looked at the zooms, and decided against them. Partly due to size/weight, but also due to the fact that the filter is gigantic and pricey (I wanted to due infared and this was a concern here) and primes are so readily available and so very inexpensive for used MF optics. When in the U.S. I first bought a 55mm ($400), 75mm ($300), and later a 135mm ($350). All the lenses are used, but optically perfect. Since I bought from the same shop/person, I also received several filters. I could not have done this with one zoom. For me, I could never handhold the camera with zoom; it would just be too heavy and awkward to me. However, I often can shoot handhled with 55 and 75mm with Trix & T400CN, because the lenses are wide and physycially so short and stubby. Anyway, if you do landscape and street, and you dont get a zoom, definitely get the 55mm. The 75mm is my "normal" lens and I use the 135mm for people. In the future I will get the 200mm, because right now I dont have the reach to really shoot across streets or a river. I dont regret not getting the zoom, and doubt I will buy one in the future. The more people buying them, luckily for me, the more used primes there are and the lower the prices go!

[kelly_hicks1]

Thanks everyone for the excellent feedback - Finding the right lens (zoom or fixed) is definitely an adventure in itself. I think that at this moment in time I'm leaning towards the prime lenses which are somewhat faster and would have the proper DOF field markings on them. In a pinch, I can't fathom holding a 2.5lb zoom lens afixed to the already weighty pentax (what a workout!). Although, as Steve pointed out, the DOF would be nice on the zooms. As for the slowness of working with the pentax, its something I've been meaning to get into for a long time. I have a crown graphic which gives me the opportunity to slow down if I want. I need something that is just a little faster.

 

Thanks again. I am always amazed at everyone's fine contributions to this site. Unfortunately, there never is a clear cut answer ;)

[cjtower]

One option is to take advantage of the low used costs of primes, and translate your favorite 35mm focal length into 6x7 mm's, and buy that lens to start with and get the hang of the camera. Like quite a few people here, in 35mm format I once used 35mm f2's, so I use the old Pentax 75mm as a standard lens. You can get one at a camera shop for maybe $399, but off the internet or someone moving to the zooms, maybe $75-125 less. You could use the lens and resell it later, losing little if any money (depends what you pay now, of course). If you don't already have 82mm filters (and dont plan on buying the 45mm, which also uses these), you might go right to the 55mm lens (later version, not the original with the huge 100mm filter). You cant go wrong with a newer 55mm; new P67 users are always looking for one, so they hold their value quite well, if for some reason you decided to sell it - and I doubt you would. Maybe Pentax's best-reputed prime lens, and for good reason. This is a nice lens for landscape and street work (as is the 75mm). You would also be able to find out at what speed you can handhold, to your satisfaction.

[douglas_green1]

One more thing, if you plan on hand-holding the P67 alot, ABSOLUTELY get the wooden grip. It will be the best $75-100 you can spend on the camera.

[ilkka]

When I put together my lens selection I faced the same question, to get one or two prime wide angles, or the wide zoom? My choices were between 55mm, or 45 and 75, or the 55-100. I liked the new 75 for its fast speed, close focusing and because of its new design probably very high quality. I briefly considered the 75 shift but dropped it on price and size. I liked the small size of the 45.

 

When I saw the zoom, and tried it in the shop, I very quickly decided against it. I found it just too big and heavy. The price was also such that I could get two primes instead (55 and 135).

 

In the end, I decided to get the 55. For a big and heavy MF system, I wanted to minimise the number of lenses to carry and to also minimise the size and weight of them. The 45 would have been even smaller and lighter than the 55, and would have been my first choice, but I already had a MF 45 in another system and did not want to duplicate it.

 

I think you need to consider size, weight, price, speed and filter size before making your decision. And remember, with two primes you can always choose to carry just one if you want to save weight, with the zoom you either take it or leave it. And to leave it would often mean missed opportunities.