george_rhodes

I also shoot landscapes with my Pentax 67 and second the recommendation for the great 45mm wide angle. You might also want to consider the new Pentax 90-180mm f5.6 zoom. I have found the lens to be very sharp and it is versatile, offering the same focal range as the 90, 135 and roughly 200mm lenses combined.

Just a bit more information on the outstanding Minolta 400mm f4.5. I use this lens and absolutely love it. It is the sharpest long telephoto that Minolta has ever produced - stunning results. It is unusual in that its sharpest f-stop is f4.5 - wide open. Still produces excellent results with the matched 1.4X Minolta AF teleconverter. It close focuses to less than ten feet on its own, weighs less than even the supposedly ultra-light and compact Canon 400mm f4 DO, and is only very slightly longer than the Canon DO, if my memory serves me correctly. Solid construction - built to last. An underrated gem of a 400mm lens.

I make a full-time living selling my photographs and I'm very critical regarding image quality. I shot for years with the Pentax 67 with 45, 90 and 135mm lenses, using a relatively small and lightweight Bogen 3221 tripod with 3047 head and, using proper technique, I never, ever had a problem with shutter or mirror-induced loss of resolution from camera shake. I consistantly produced 24" X 30" tack sharp prints. However, with my relatively new bigger and heavier 90-180mm Pentax zoom, I have switched to the bigger and heavier Bogen 3236 tripod with the same 3047 head.

I have the last model 67, just prior to the 67II. Lately, I've been having the same problem, but it doesn't happen with every role of film I put through the camera. The vertical 1/4" strip I get on the first frame is dark, but not completely burnt out.

I use an 82mm B&W polarizing filter on that lens, usually shooting at f16 or f22, with absolutely no vignetting problems.

First, the 6X6 format cropped to a horizontal image would be considerably smaller than the 6X7 perfect horizontal format. Pentax has an extremely extensive arsenal of lenses for the 67, including two excellent zooms, a perspective control wide angle and telephotos up to 800mm. Used Pentax 67 lenses are in abundance at very reasonable prices on ebay and at all of the regular places to buy good used equipment at reasonable prices. I shoot professionally with the Pentax 67, producing fine art 24" X 30" color scenic prints and have been extremely pleased with the quality of image I've been able to achieve with the Pentax lenses. I use the 45mm, 90mm, 135mm macro and 90-180mm zoom. All are optically excellent. I don't know much about the lenses available for the Bronica, but I doubt there is anywhere near the selection (especially in used lenses) that is available for the Pentax. As far as which Pentax wide angle lens to get - The 45mm is equivalent to about a 22mm in 35mm format and the 55 is equivalent to about 28mm. The 55-100 zoom covers a nice wide to standard range. All three have excellent reputations, so I suppose it would depend on which lens would best fulfill your needs. I prefer the 45mm for the extreme wide angle perspective it produces. Perhaps you'll also hear from someone who is more familiar with the Bronica. Best wishes with your move to medium format.

The 9xi was Minolta's top of the line pro level camera, until the introduction of the Maxxum 9. The autofocus is quite good, but not as good as the newest generation of AF cameras. It's a very robust and sturdy camera, filled with features, but is somewhat outdated by today's standards. Personally, I would look for a used Maxxum 7 instead, if you're able to find one at roughly the same price as price. The 7 has superior autofocus, mirror lock-up (which the 9xi does not have), lots of custom functions, accepts an outstanding add-on hand grip, etc. etc. I owned a 9xi and used it professionally for years. While the AF is pretty good, the camera's fuzzy logic frequently locked on with the wrong one of its 4 sensors. This problem has been solved in the Maxxum 9 and 7.

Boyd Norton used to shoot with Leicas SLRs and lenses, except that he also loved his 500mm f4.5 Sigma. In his book, The Art of Outdoor Photography, he raved about that lens and said that he preferred it over the Nikon equivalent, because it was extremely sharp, but smaller than the Nikkor and therefore easier to carry. He used the manual version, as are all of his Leica lenses, of course. I doubt that he still uses the Sigma. I understand that he has dropped his older and slower Leica telephoto lenses for the new modular Leica system with faster lenses, thus probably eliminating the need for the relatively fast f4.5 Sigma telephoto.

I recommend the Pentax system. I use the Pentax 67 to shoot nature scenics. The Pentax mirror slap and shutter vibration that so many complain about are very easy to neutralize by shooting technique and have never caused problems for me. I make a living completely from selling my 6X7 scenics and 35mm wildlife images. I frequently produce excellent quality 24" X 30" prints from my Pentax 67 negatives and transparencies. I use the 45mm f4 and the 90-180mm f5.6 zoom and have found both lenses to be of outstanding optical quality. I also highly recommend the 90mm f2.8, but have not used it since acquiring the zoom. With pentax, for wide angles you would have the choice of the 45mm, 55mm, or the 55-100mm zoom. All three lenses are of excellent optical quality. I've never done macro work with my Pentax, so I really can't comment on that, but I have used the 135mm macro for scenics and found it to be a very good lens for that purpose. My 90-180mm focuses closer than the standard 200mm, so I suppose it could be used for close-up work with an extension tube. For many reasons, including better depth of field, I prefer 35mm for macro work.

Erik,

 

This may be getting rather redundant, but I also use the Lee Filter Holder with my Pentax 45mm lens and I a highly recommend that system. I use the recessed adapter ring and the large, oversized, rectangular Singh Ray graduated neutral density filters and have had no problem with vignetting. I also use a standard width B&W brand 82mm polarizing filter on my 45mm, also with no vignetting, even at f22. I love the very wide angle of view and great depth that my 45mm lens gives me. I think it's equivalent to a 22mm in 35mm format. I consider my 45mm and 90-180mm to be a great combination for most of my scenic work.

I have always liked both the Pentax 67 and Mamiya 67 systems. I've

been very pleased with the BOKAH (out of focus area) of my 90-180mm

zoom lens for the Pentax 67. Prior to the release of the Pentax 90-

180mm, the only 6X7 option in that zoom range seemed to be the Mamiya

100-200mm for the RB and Rz67s. I was always interested in that

Mamiya zoom, but never had the opportunity to actually handle one or

shoot with it. Until recently, Pentax had no counterpart to the

Mamiya lens. At least one person had one of the Mamiya zooms

converted for use on his Pentax 67. Users of this lens seem happy

with the results they achieve. A few days ago, I saw two photographs

shot with the Mamiya zoom. One shot was made at the short 100mm end

and the other was shot at the long 200mm end. The results surprised

me. In my opinion, the out of focus background looked terrible. To

me, the surprisingly bad Bokah of that lens resembled the Bokah

achieved with a catadioptric lens, but without the total doughnut

shapes. Was this perhaps a defective lens, or has anyone else

noticed bad bokah with the Mamiya zoom and, if so, what do you think

is the reason for the bad bokah? Does the Mamiya zoom perhaps have

fewer aperture blades than the Pentax zoom? Understanding that both

Mamiya and Pentax make equally excellent 6X7 cameras and lenses, and

realizing that users of both systems are equally satisfied with their

respective systems, I'm just curious about what seems to be unusually

bad bokah from a lens that I understand is considered to be quite

good by many who use it.

Just a quick FWIW observation that I made today regarding my 90-180 lens. It does hold at the half stop between f5.6 and f8, when the lens is off the camera, even though there is no click stop there. When the lens is attached to the camera, it will not hold between f stops, but snaps into either its f5.6 or f8 click stop.

I got most of my transparencies and negatives back from my trip to the outer banks, using my 90-180mm lens extensively for the first time. I always use my Pentax 67 on a heavy duty tripod, primarily for scenics, so the f5.6 maximum aperture is not a problem for me, since I usually stop down well beyond that anyway, for greater depth of field. This is a very sharp lens, at all focal lengths and at all of the f stops I used, from f8 to f22-32. Very imprseeive results. I looked for the pincushion distortion, but at least with my lens, I have to say that I don't see it. I shot a long picket fence, lining up the vertical wooden slats, for a repetition of form type of shot. The lens was almost all the way to 180mm and there is absolutely no noticeable distortion. All of the slats are straight and vertical, with no curvature. My lens appears to be very well corrected. Maybe there is variance in the quality control of this lens and I just happened to get a very good one. Maybe I'll notice some distortion in the future at different focal lengths. I'll keep an eye out. In any case, I'm very pleased with the optical quality of this lens. I noticed no shutter induced vibration to blur the image. I used a heavy duty Manfrotto 3236 tripod with 3047 head and usually locked up the mirror prior to shooting. I also frequently place my hands on the camera when I trip the shutter, pressing down toward the tripod for added stability. I find this works well for me, even at 1/15 of a second. I ahcieved sharp results, whether I placed my hands on the camera or a used trip cord. I personally don't find the lack of a depth of field scale on a lens of these focal ranges to be much of a problem, although it would be nice to have it. I think the scale is more important with a wider focal length range. I did find the depth of field stop down button on the lens to be important to me in composing my image at times. The image is dark when stopped down, but viewable and should improve for me when I get the brighter screen up the road. So my personal impression of this lens, for what it's worth, is very good and I highly recommend it. I now plan to travel with only my 45mm and 90-180mm lenses for the time being. Up the road, I plan to add the new 300mm ED lens and possibly a 1.4X TC. That should give me a very nice focal range for the type of work I shoot in 6X7 format.

My 90-180 also jumps from f5.6 to f8, and from f32 to f42, with no half click stops. I'm sure that's by design. Interestingly, my 45mm jumps from f4 to f5.6, but has a half stop click stop between f16 and f22. Also by design, I'm sure. I'm sorry to hear of the pincussion distortion with your 90-180, Steve. I just shot extensively with my new 90-180 on the outer banks of North Carolina, but haven't gotten the film back yet. I'll report back with my own impressions on the optical quality of the lens when I do. By the way, I do love the focal range of my 90-180. It was definately my most used lens on the trip, so I'm really hoping for good results. I agree with you, Steve, that f5.6 is a bit dim, especially with a polarizer. I plan to get a replacement screen by Bill Maxwell. That should brighten things up considerably, I hope.

I use the Pentax 67 system and my aging eyes require glasses now. At first, I shot with my glasses on. I kept banging my glasses into the viewfinder. It was very annoying. However, I recently screwed a +1 corrective diopter from Pentax into the viewfinder. That works beautifully for me and I now can focus perfectly, looking through the viewfinder, without my glasses on. It's once again just like before I started needing glasses. As long as your needed optical correction isn't too extreme, I recommend a corrective diopter.

I agree with Scott. NPH performs beautifully in the shade or on overcast days, rated at 320 ASA. When shooting landscapes with it on bright, sunny days, you have to be careful not to blow out the highlighted areas and block up the shadowed areas of contrasty scenes. I do not have this same problem on bright, sunny days with Superia, rated at 100 ASA.

Hi Iznoor,

 

Actually, I personally think it makes the most sense for you to start your attempt at going professional by making due with the cameras you already have. As the need arises, you'll know what other kind or format of cameras you'll need in order to get various jobs done. I also currently use the Maxxum 9 for my 35mm work and have found it to be a very capable camera with a nice system of lenses and accessories available. I once used a Mamiya twin lens for my medium format work. It's a nice camera for shooting weddings, etc. There's no mirror bounce and you can flash synch at any shutter speed. There is a reasonably extensive set of interchangeable lenses available for this camera on the used market. Try shooting your jobs with what you already have. Additional equipment can be rented at first. You'll know if you need to buy new equipment or not, when the jobs start coming your way. This is, I believe, the most practical way for you to go at this time.

As far as which system to buy into, Minolta, as well as Nikon, has

outstanding camera bodies and all of the standard lenses that you

would probably ever want to use. The only lenses Nikon has that

Minolta does not are perspective control lenses for architectural use

and a few very expensive ultra-fast long telephotos in the big multi-

thousand-dollar range. However, Minolta actually has some lenses

that Nikon does not. For example, Nikon has no 400mm AF telephoto,

other than their super expensive, very big and heavy 400mm f2.8.

Minolta has an outstanding AF APO 400mm f4.5, that is a fraction of

the weight and cost of the Nikon 400, but is far more hand-holdable

and is superb optically. The majority of professionals use either

Nikon or Canon for their 35mm work. But not all professionals. I

make a fine living completely from selling my photographs and prefer

to use Minolta for my 35mm work. The point I'm trying to make is

this. Try out the different cameras you're considering and compare

their features. Decide for yourself which camera feels better to you

and which features are important to you. Both systems have an

extensive line of lenses and accessaries. I have to beleive you

would be happy with either system.

Why not just shoot standard size frames and either crop them when you

do the printing or have the lab crop the prints they do to your

proofing specifications. You could simply draw lines where you want

the image cropped to on a clear, glycene sleeve, etc.

The Maxxum 5 is not a digital camera. It uses film. The contacts from the camera body to the lens are simply to pass information on such things as autofocus and exposure cintrol and have nothing to do with resolution/contrast etc. of the lens. Why not look for a Minolta brand wide angle? Either a fixed focal length or a zoom might do, depending which you prefer. The old 24-85mm zoom has enjoyed a very good reputation and can often be found used on ebay at a good price. The 24-50mm lens also has a good reputation. If you want to go wider, then you might consider the reasonably priced 20-35mm minolta lens.

I have this lens and have shot only two rolls of film using it so

far. I haven't fully tested its imaging potential yet. Here are my

immediate observations on other aspects of the lens. The lens is

definately impressive and is well made to typical Pentax 67 lens

standards. It is the same length as the 200mm f4, but is about a

half inch wider in diameter. It has a very large and functional

detachable hood that reverse mounts when not in use. The focusing

and zooming rings are nicely damped and comfortable to use. The lens

barrel moves in and out when focusing, but doesn't rotate, making for

easier use of a polarizing filter. On my P67 the viewfinder is

darker than with any other P67 lens I have used. The little bumps in

the center focusing ring of the viewfinder never completely

disappear, even when focus is achieved, as with my other faster

lenses. I find this to be somewhat annoying. However, even with the

darker image, I have no problem achieving accurate focus. I shoot

landscapes though, and have plenty of time to focus. After I got the

lens, I immediately purchased a dedicated Pentax brand rubber eye

cup, to eliminate any extraneous light in the viewfinder, making it

easier to focus. I am also considering getting a Hi-Lux brilliant

mat focusing screen to hopefully help brighten up the viewfinder

image. I understand that the screen in the P67II is much brighter

than the screen in the P67 and earlier 6X7 models. Using this lens

with the newer P67II body would therefore make for easier focusing.

There is no depth of field scale on this lens, but there is an

infrared scale. However, I don't consider hyperfocal indications

important on a lens of this focal range. All things considered, I

really like this lens. I can carry this single lens, instead of the

90mmf2.8, 135mm macro and 200mm f4 trio. I would probably not

consdier using this lens with a 1.4X teleconverter, due primarily to

the dark viewfinder image. When I have shot more film using this

lens, I will report my findings on its imaging

capabilities.

There are wild horses in Corolla. They live primarily in the salt marsh areas behind the dunes, but during the summer months they walk over the dunes to get to the ocean, where they take a dip to cool off from the heat. The horses are descendants of horses that survived a Spanish shipwreck and swam ashore about 400 years ago. There is also a wild donkey who lives among the horses, but I don't know what the story is on that animal.

Amicalola Falls State Park is north of Atlanta, but probably a little farther away than you are looking for. If you're willing to take a bit of a drive, you would probably find the falls and surrounding area might provide you with some rather nice photographic opportunities. Amicalola Falls is the highest falls in the eastern U.S. It's even higher than Niagara Falls, but doesn't have anywhere near the water volume of Niagara. It's tall and thin. Above the falls is a nice little stream that feeds into the falls. Also, there are several black bears that are frequently seen in the park, but I wouldn't count on seeing one. You might want to check the place out if you have the time. I don't know if the park is open all year long.

Tom,

 

<p>

 

I just received my new 90-180 from B&H today. I like this impressive

lens. It really is quite nice and the zoom range works well for my

needs. It appears typically Pentax 67, sturdy and well built. The

zooming and focusing action is nicely damped and the lens is

comfortable to use when mounted on my tripod-mounted Pentax 67. I

don't have the new 67II. Since the lens is f5.6, the viewfinder is a

bit darker than I'm accustomed to, making focusing a bit more

difficult than with my f2.8 and f4 lenses, but not bad. The

viewfinder image is supposed to be 60% brighter on the new 67II,

which would be a definate improvement. There are no hyperfocal

markings on the barrel, but frankly I don't think I'll miss that on a

zoom of these focal lengths. I personally would not be interested in

the wide angle 55-100 zoom, because I consider hyperfocal markings to

be an important feature on a wide angle lens. Surprisingly in my

opinion, there are infrared markings on the barrel. I don't think

there is much use of infrared film in medium format photography, but

I could be wrong. This lens is supposed to come with a large hood

that has an opening in it, so that a polarizing filter can be turned

with the hood attached. Interestingly, the large lens hood that came

with the lens doesn't have this opening slot. The hood is the

correct configuration and obviously fits the lens perfectly, but is

solid black with no markings, other than the little white alignment

dots. I called Pentax regarding this curious situation. They are

looking into the matter. The technical rep told me I was not the

first to call with this situation and that they assume a possible

reason (pure speculation at this point) might be that Pentax may have

been eager to get the new zooms out onto the market, but didn't have

enough of the new correct hood, so they substituted with the hood for

their 55-100 zoom. Apparently, the only difference between the two

hoods is the polarizer slot and some writing on the hood. I was

assured that they would get the correct hood to me if possible and as

soon as possible. The rep couldn't have been nicer or more helpful.

I plan to shoot a few test rolls this weekend to check optical

performance. I'll report back with the results.

I am also very interested in this lens, but haven't heard anything

yet either. I wonder if the large size and weight would make it more

prone to vibration-induced resolution degradation problems than the

primes of the same focal lengths.