michael_k._gardner1

I've used the Pentax 67 400 f/4 EDIF lens. It produced excellent

results. I don't own it, however, because of the price. I used on

loan from Pentax.

 

<p>

 

Basically, it's a very nice lens at a very steep price.

I believe the plastic cap is a new design, while the metal protruding

cap is an older design. My 1.4x extender came with plastic caps (from

Camera World, US not grey market). I don't think you have anything to

worry about.

I agree with all of you that Pentax does not seem to be particularly

interested in getting input from the average user. I also own a Canon

EOS system, and I think Canon is the same (though they may survey

their Canon Professional Services members). I've always perceived

Japanese companies as very adept at marketing and manufacturing. But

camera makers don't seem to do a lot of market research among average

users. Perhaps they do, and I'm not aware of it; or perhaps they do

in the Japanese market. At any rate, I agree that future products

would benefit from more input from users than seems to be the case

today.

The Canon 24 f/2.8 is a very good lens. I've had it for several

years, and been quite impressed with its quality. It doesn't have

USM, but this is less important with a wide angle lens than a

telephoto or normal lens. I'd say it's a bargain in the Canon line.

 

<p>

 

I've not used a Sigma, so I can't comment. My reading of user

comments on Sigma in general is that build quality is often less than

one would like, while optical quality is usually fine. Compatibility

with the Canon EF interface could also be a problem with the Sigma.

Now that the 55mm-100mm zoom lens for the Pentax 67 has been out for a little while, does anyone have a report on its performance?

Well, I think these are cameras oriented toward somewhat different markets/users. I have a 67, and they tend to be favored by folks wanting a rugged field camera that is pretty much manual in operation. Of course, you get the 67 size negative. Electronic automation is pretty minimal, and the camera is heavy to hand hold (though it can be done).

 

<p>

 

From what I've heard, the 645 has a lot of electronic sophistication for a medium format camera, especially the new 645N (which is autofocus). It's not a Nikon F5 or Canon EOS 1N, but it's electronics are good by comparison to its peers. It's much easier to hand hold, and I believe its compatiable with Pentax flashes for TTL OTF flash exposure. This makes it more desirable for, say, a wedding photographer.

 

<p>

 

Neither Pentax medium format camera has interchangeable film backs (the 645 has film inserts, but not true backs), which has never really bothered me, but pushes some people toward Mamiya, Hasselblad, or Bronica.

 

<p>

 

The cameras are sufficiently different that you should see if you can try them out, and see which best compliments your needs. Good luck in your decision making.

It's true. I have a press release, dated March 10, 1998, from Pentax USA. The SMC Pentax 67 Zoom 55mm-100mm f/4.5 has 11 elements in 9 groups, weighs 42.7 oz., is 4.7 inches long, and takes 95 mm filters. The SMC Pentax Macro 100mm f/4 has 6 elements in 4 groups. It comes with a 3 element, 3 group front-of-lens converter. It's 21.2 oz. in weight, 3.1 inches long, and takes 77 mm filters. Maximum magnification without the converter is 0.52x; with the converter it's 1.12x. I have no price information, and Pentax did not seem to know the manufacturer's suggested retail price at the time I spoke to them.

That's a hard question. I've used the 400 f/4 ED, and it produced excellent pictures. It's big and heavy, but the 600 f/4 is bigger and heavier. I would go with the 400 because: (1) I believe it's a newer optical design; and (2) it uses ED glass, with should be helpful, espcially with the 2X converter.

Your best bet would bet having it fixed by Pentax Service in Colorado. Sorry, but I don't have the address and telephone number handy. As to cost, I would guess in the $100 range, with that price including the cost of the new focusing screen. I base this on having my matte screen replaced with a split image focusing screen.

I've used the Pentax 67 both with and without the wooden grip. The bottom line is that the wood grip does help in handling the camera. As to your particular problem (shooting dancers in available light with a 200 or 300 mm lens), it is going to be a problem, since the lens/camera combination is quite heavy. My suggestions would be (as a previous responder suggested) use fast film (maybe the Kodak 1000 speed print film), get the light as bright as possible (this is only valid if you're shooting during a rehearsal, rather than the actual performance), and consider a tripod. I know -- a tripod won't allow you to change angles as much as you'd like; still, if wildlife photographers can capture animals with a 35 mm camera and 600 mm lens using a ball head, you can probably capture dancers with the right tripod/head combo.