Pentax 67 lens recommendations

[mark_pierlot]

<p>After years of shooting Canon FD and EOS, I've decided to get into medium film format photography, and have recently acquired a gorgeous Pentax 6x7 (with MLU and a metered prism). The body came (somewhat redundantly) with a 90/2.8 and a 105/2.4, which I understand are the normal primes for the 67 system. I would like to acquire a few more lenses, and am seeking recommendations.</p>

<p>In 35mm, I use lenses between 24mm and 400mm, and do informal potraiture, nature, landscape, and landscape detail. I shoot mainly handheld, but am planning on get a base plate to mount the 67 on my Swiss Arca-headed tripod so I will be able to use MLU for some landscape and portrait shooting.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.</p>

[henryp]

<p>Other than Pentax, no one made or makes lenses for your system. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_6%C3%977#List_of_lenses">Here's a list of all of them</a>. And another <a href="http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/filmcamera/lens/index672_list.html">from Pentax</a>.<br>

<br />Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>Mark there should be plenty of threads in the archives here on this very subject but saying that I have owned about four Pentax 67 cameras in various forms up to the 67II last made model and tried quite a few different lenses along the way too. All that I can do is recommend the lenses which I liked using most and which gave me the best results. The widest lens available non fisheye is the 45mm, which I found very good, there are two 55mm f4 lenses, I had the first one which I found excellent but the second version is reportedly even better. You've got two standard lenses, I had the 105mm which I found very good to use plus the last version of the Pentax 200mm lens which was very good if used extremely carefully, i.e. I used to hang a light camera bag over the lens barrel plus using MLU and pressing down on the prism when releasing the shutter. If I didn't do that images were not sharp even with a heavy tripod and good ball head.</p>

<p>Tried the earlier version of the 75mm and 135mm lenses and didn't particularly like either of them, the later 75mm lens of different optical design was supposedly much better than the first and there was a newer 100mm macro lens which was also reported to be very good. Longer lenses than the 200mm would need careful handling but there were two different 300mm lenses, again the newer and more expensive one giving the best results from what I have heard from another photographer I met who was using one of these lenses many years ago at Elgol on the Isle of Skye but that would make for a fairly heavy camera bah carrying all of these lenses. There were also two zoom lenses, which were again supposed to be pretty good.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>The DOF for this camera in landscape work will be a challenge compared with the Canon you have used before. In the late 1980's and early 1990's I had bought a number of the prime lenses for landscape and travel work. After struggling with DOF issues for years, I kept the 45mm, bought the 90-180 and 55-100 zooms for their small stops and never looked back. I also like the 165 LS (f/32) and its cousin, the 200 Pentax, also f/32. Both lenses use the same design type and are proven. I can't recommend the 300 Takumar, too much shutter shake softness. The 300 EDIF is a gem although it does not have the f/45 stop as the older version had. The 400 Takumar is an excellent lens, although not easy to use due to its outer bay mount. The rear filter bay cannot be used due to internal reflections that show up on film. A 105mm front filter can be used but have to be adapted to fit the lens hood with a spacer ring. The 400 EDIF is only slightly better but much more expensive. The 600 Takumar is a big and heavy beast but does well with the 1.4x converter, giving about the same magnification you got with the Canon and 400mm. The 600 is infamous for its CA in the f/4 to f/11 range, so it must be stopped down to avoid this. If you have the money, the 800EDIF is the way to go with high mag lenses. </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Mark, after wanting a Pentax 6x7 for many years, I finally bought one last year -- same as yours: with MLU and the TTL prism. It came with the 135mm Macro, which gets so-so reviews, but seems to me to be a very good lens. You already have two very popular, excellent lenses in the 90mm and 105mm.</p>

<p>For a wide, I went for the 45mm and I'm glad I did. Mine is the latest version. It's a superb lens. For a tele, I took the recommendations of others over at the Pentax forum and bought the 200mm f/4 instead of the 300mm f/4. It's also the latest version and is an excellent lens, but I plan to buy the 300mm f/4 also -- anyway. I also bought a 2x teleconverter -- the gray model. I would like to add a few more lenses to the kit, but it will entirely depend on my finances. A couple of the ones I want are quite expensive.</p>

<p>Over at the Pentax forum, they have a nice Lens Review section. Here's a link to reviews on the lenses for the 6x7, 67 and 67II:</p>

<p>http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html</p>

<p>I bought my camera and lenses from KEH and Robert's Camera (of Indianapolis), and bought the TC from a Japanese seller on eBay.</p>

<p> </p>

[donbright]

<p>You will get the lenses you want anyway for the 67. From where you're at I would recommend the 75mm F4. Equaling 35mm in the 135 format, for Landscapes, of course its a great work horse lens. The 67 version of this lens is impeccably sharp. My reason for suggesting the 75mm is that this focal length is a true starting point. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>You will get the lenses you want anyway for the 67.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

How true! However, I guess the purpose of this thread is to determine precisely which lenses I <em>want</em>.<br>

<br>

Thanks for all the advice, guys. I've gone ahead and ordered three lenses in addition to the 90/2.8 and 105/2.4: 45/4, 55/4 (latest version) and 200/4. I couldn't decide between the 45/4 and 55/4, so I got them both.<br>

<br>

I think I'll eventually add the 75/4, and be done. I can't really envision doing longer telephoto shooting with the 67, but you never know. If I change my mind, I think that the latest version of the 300/4 would be a good choice.<br>

<br>

I'm delighted with how relatively inexpensive 67 lenses are, but I guess that's not surprising, given that their mount is specific to the system. I have heard, however, that 67 lenses can be adapted to Canon EOS. It would be cool to shoot with them on my EOS film and digital bodies.<br>

<br>

</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Keep in mind that if you intend to shoot landscapes with large DOF, f/22 is not going to serve you well (with the exception of the 45mm). Having a 55, 75 and 100mm focal length with f/32 makes a big difference (55-100 zoom). If you don't shoot in this style, then your primes will suite you well. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for the advice, Steve. I don't typically shoot large DOF landscapes, but rather landscape details, where huge DOF's aren't necessary. But it is good to know that f/32 is available with some 67 lenses. However, aren't there problems with diffraction at such small apertures?</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Mark-- F/32 is not much of a problem. Yes there is some loss but if you need the DOF to make the shot, it is there to use. Using f/45 can be more of a problem and I rarely use it. </p>