dougmiles

<p>The IQ is fine as far as I can tell, having used it on the Pentax and also on the digital Leica S2 medium format dSLR. Due to the long focusing helix, the front glass is recessed and it forms its own lens hood. The lens has a Heliar optical design, symmetrical 5-element arrangement 2:1:2 fairly common for macro lenses as it performs well at a wide range of subject distances.<br> Yes, it focuses to 1:2 naturally and needs an extension tube to get further magnification. So, macro but not micro.<br> This lens was introduced in 1971, very early in the P6x7 family, and issued again with cosmetic changes (incl rubberized focusing ring surfaces) in 1989. It was the mainstay and only P67 macro until March 1998 when the newer macro 100mm f/4 replaced it in the lineup. This later lens came with an optical add-on that screwed into the front to allow 1:1 magnification. Like the 135, it is excellent at any subject distance.</p>

<p>Consider that it may have had a frontal impact... mine did when I got it used and it looked fine. But there was a plastic part broken in the lens mount that wasn't obvious. If yours is broken in such a way as to move the lens rearward a bit, it could be backfocusing, and at times beyond infinity. Just a thought... (I had sent mine to Frank Marshman at Camera Wiz, a Fuji expert, to free up a sticky RF).</p>

<p>Thanks, Lannie... My portfolio in Photo.net has not been updated for a while, and represents a wide variety of gear.<br> <br /> Leica improved the S2 slightly and renamed it S (typ006). Then they replaced it with a new version with CMOS sensor called S (typ007). This is the current main model, not discontinued, and the previous model was reissued with a different finish color, reduced price, and named S-E (typ006). So there's still a new option for those who prefer a CCD sensor.<br /> <br />The new Fuji and Hasselblad digital medium format "mirrorless" cameras look like a attractive options at more modest pricing than has been the case with the larger sensor cameras. Interesting to see how they fare in the market.</p>

<p>I'm also comfortable calling this "medium format"... this term covers a lot of territory. Is 127 film a "medium format" format? Remember the cute little Rollei and Yashica TLRs in this 4x4 size...<br> <br />If "full frame" is enough of a benefit over APS-C to bother with the larger bodies and lenses, then consider that 33x44 is a similar jump in size over 24x36. For several years I've been using a dSLR with 30x45mm format sensor, about the same size as this new Fuji and the Pentax 645Z, and I'm impressed anew each time I "process" a batch in Lightroom.<br> <br />The only disappointing characteristic of this new Fuji is the lack of an optical viewfinder.</p>

<p>Consider that the 645D can use P67 lenses on an adapter, as if native with auto diaphragm... but of course without auto-focus or ability for the body to control aperture. This greatly extends the range of conveniently usable and affordable lenses, especially toward the longer end.<br> That you already have a P645N and several lenses makes the 645D more tempting! You already know how it handles, how it carries, etc, so you're well ahead of someone starting cold.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your P67, this will be very nice to use. For your NEXT lens ;-) you might consider a 75 or 90mm.</p>

<p>The camera is a gem, essentially a larger 35mm SLR. Given your intent to shoot "portrait, landscape, close photography", you might consider the 135mm f/4 Macro Takumar. There is an early version with fluted metal focus ring and later one with "grenade-checkered" rubber surface ring, both I believe with the same optics but perhaps different lens coatings. The 135mm on 6x7 is about like a 65mm on a 135 film camera, broadly useful IMO, and it focuses down to 1:3.2 magnification.</p>

<p>"I am looking at my 135/4 Super-Multi-Coated MACRO-TAKUMAR. It does not focus down to 1:2. By itself it goes to 1:3.5."<br> Well, that's what I get for getting that spec spec somewhere and not checking for myself! I have the older Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar and it's marked down to 1:3.2. The 100mm Macro focus ring goes slightly past the 1:2 mark.</p>

<p>The original Pentax67 macro lens is the 135mm f/4, which allows continuous focus to 1:2, half life-size. Your extension tubes will get it in further. The earliest version of this lens was introduced in 1971, optically the same as the later SMC Pentax 67 of 1989 which has the rubberized focusing ring. From tests it seems to be an excellent performer edge-to-edge at f/8 - f/22, best at f/16, with a symmetrical Heliar formula. MSRP is $1150.00<br /><br />Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 66.6mm<br />Angle Of View @ Infinity: 36 degrees<br />Filter Size: 67mm<br />Elements/Groups: 5/3 (Heliar/Dynar/Ektar)<br />F-Stop Range: f/4 - 32 with 1/2 stop calibrations and stop-down preview feature; 8 aperture blades.<br />Minimum Focus Distance: 0.75m (2.5 ft)<br />Dimensions: 95 x 91.5mm (3.7 x 3.6") L x W<br />Weight: 645g (22.8 oz)<br> <br />The 105mm f/2.4 lens is of course the "standard" lens for this camera, not a macro. The newer Macro is a 100mm f/4 introduced in March 1998, one of the most recent of P67 lenses.<br> Equivalent 35mm Focal Length 48mm<br />Angle of View @ Infinity 48°<br />Filter Size 77mm (49mm on 1:1 adapter)<br />Elements/Groups 6/4 (Life-Size Converter is 3/3)<br />f/Stop Range f/4.0 - 32 with 1/2 stop calibrations and stop-down preview feature<br />Minimum Focus Distance 0.44m (17.4”)- magnification = 1:2, with Life Size Converter - 0.314m (12.6") - magnification = 1:1.<br />NOTE: Attaching the Life Size Converter requires unscrewing the front lens hood/filter ring. Once you have done this, attach the Converter and re-attach the lens hood/filter ring.<br />Dimensions 77 x 92.5mm (3 x 3.7") (LxW)<br />Weight 600g (21.2oz)<br> If you shop for this lens, be careful that the Life Size Converter is included, as it seems to get "lost" in resales. I'll guess the owner sets the Converter aside as not often used, then forgets about it when it comes time to sell the lens. Later dredging through his accessories drawer he comes across this curious "magnifying glass"... Note that this Converter comes with a new lens in the box and is not a separate accessory!</p>

<p>My first concern would be image coverage... will this lens (made for 56x56mm film) cover 6x7 (55x70mm)? I suspect there would be a problem here.</p>

<p>You'll want to include Leica in your medium format list... The Leica S system has a sensor about the same dimensions as the Pentax, is more expensive than the Pentax but much less than the others. See: http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/About-the-S-System<br> <br />I have been using the Leica S for several years, choosing it over the P645D then for its simpler user interface and ergonomics. I too have history with film P645 cameras, so having the lenses already was an advantage hard to overcome.<br> Doug</p>

<p>There have been a lot of lenses using Thorium Oxide and/or Lanthanum glass (and some eye pieces too, a situation more likely to be hazardous).<br> <br />Here is a link to a short article that includes an extensive list of such lenses:<br> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses</p> <p>Doug</p>

<p>And I believe this lens was intended from the start for use on Pentax's digital "645 format" cameras... The "DA" designation is the clue... Film-era lenses are "FA" and "A".<br> Doug</p>

<p>Hi Missy- sorry to hear of the progressive condition. My first thought is to transition to a camera system with shake reduction, either built into the body or in the lens(es). No medium format cameras offer this feature. So following this idea excludes your Hasselblad gear, and it seems this will be the mental barrier to overcome. Any dSLR with changeable focusing screens could have a mask inserted for square viewing, crop the captured image later to match.<br> <br />Good luck!<br> Doug</p>

<p>Also, there are differences in how the focusing spot looks in the viewfinder field in different 670/690 models, the I, II, and III have minor viewfinder/RF differences. I doubt it would be an easy job to change, if possible. Good suggestion to have it cleaned. Frank Marshman would be a fine choice for any such job on the big Fujis.</p>

<p>There was probably no production run after 2005, though I bought one NIB for $275 in 2007 when B&H sale price was $430. And in 2003 the MSRP was $783 which I'm sure nobody paid. Time has passed and the market has changed, so you might check recent "sold" prices on eBay.<br> The lens is a good one, with an optical arrangement of 6 elements in 5 groups, very much like a 50mm f/1.7 Pentax, which also has fine performance.<br> The optics were pretty much the same all the way through from ~1969, with undoubtedly small mechanical changes from batch to batch, and improved coatings. Pentax's improvements in the 6x7 system were continual and gradual, such that the name change from 6x7 to 67 was mostly in the name. The 67II was the dramatic change for the body.<br> The early 105mm had metal fluted-pattern focus ring, and identification info printed on the ring around the front element, and was named "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7", and I believe this soon changed to "SMC Takumar 6x7". My later one is a "SMC Pentax 67". Some late P67 lenses had this identification printed around the beveled front edge of the focusing ring, but I don't know that the 105 did. The "SMC Pentax 67" went to a rubber surface for the focusing ring, in a grenade pattern.<br> So there are some differences over the years, but nothing optically significant other than coatings.</p>

<p>Hi -- I too have a Fuji GW670III, and I think John is referring to a different camera, the more recent folding 670 offered under both Fuji and Voigtlander brands. But I think that's not too important to your issue because it's not uncommon with cameras using paper-backed roll film.<br> These cameras typically have a braking mechanism on the feed spool side to help achieve a tight wrap of the paper leader right from the start, and to keep some tension on the roll as it feeds while shooting. But this tension is often not sufficient to ensure a tight roll-up at the end, as you describe.<br> This can be helped with a simple technique at the time of loading the film... add a little drag with your thumb on the source roll as you take up the paper leader at the start. This helps get a tight wrap on the takeup spool and has helpful consequences through to the end of the roll. Give it a try... I do this with all my roll-film cameras.</p>

<p>I have the Pentax 67 and the GW670III Pro, sibling of the 690. They are both big but there's a big difference! I found it very easy to become fond of the Pentax (I have 4 of them...) and not so fond of the Fuji, perhaps just a matter of personal preference. Note that the Fuji is not the quiet leaf-shutter rig you might expect, as the counter you mention makes a clack noise when the shutter trips it.<br> Frank Marshman at Camera Wiz, an expert with Fuji rangefinder said the shutter lasts hundreds of thousands of rounds, so the suggestion for service every 500 on the shot counter (=5000 clicks) is flexible depending on level of future use... and these cameras are well-known for irregular frame spacing, said to check that the roller at the right of the film gate spins freely.<br> Doug</p>

<p>We are fortunate that there are only a few so-so lenses in the Pentax-67 lineup, and even those have their defenders! So it can come down to choosing a useful focal length and enjoying the results. Special needs such as macro focus, optical shift, small apertures, or soft focus stand out as exceptions.</p>

<p>A vote for the 90, for you...<br> Keep in mind there are two 75mm lenses (well, a third if you count the shift lens), and both the f/4.5 and f/2.8 are excellent. I only have experience with the f/2.8, marvelous. While the 105 is popular, IMO the 2.8/90 is superior. Smaller, light weight, close focus, sharp... what's not to like?<br> There is also the 100mm f/4 Macro, one of the last lenses released, and really outstanding. There's a screw-in front insert that sometimes is omitted in a sale, but should be included. It allows 1:1 macro; without it you focus down to 1:2.<br> I have been using these lenses on a Leica S, where the digital sensor shows up lens quality. I just tried the 90 and 105 recently, with the 90 doing surprisingly well. I have not used the 2.8/75 on this rig yet but the 45, late 55, 90, 4/100, 2.8/165, and late 4/200 are great. The 135 if fine, but the 4/165 LS is disappointing.</p>

<p>The Pentax is now entering its second generation, with the new 645Z replacing the 645D, which may now come at attractive used prices. Also I understand the Mamiya is now sold only under the Phase name.<br> Consider the advantages and disadvantages of having a removable back, as there are good arguments both ways.<br> Doug</p>