michael_tolan

This is a bit off subject, but since the last few replies were to, I

will continue with the trend: The best used cheap source for 95mm &

100mm filters are from old military aerial cameras. Stuff is readily

available new, but not exactly cheap. Many current-production

meddium format lenses use 95mm: (1) Rollei 6000 series 75-150

Variogon & 300 Tele-Xenar; (2) Contax 645 line Distagon 35mm & 350mm

Tele-Tessar; (3) Fuji 680 studio camera has a nearly full line using

it = 65, 80, 115, 125 & 180mm; and (4) Bronica 100-220mm. The 100mm

is not at all common. If you bought the 67 to use AS A GIANT 35mm

SLR (street photography, etc.), you might not be thrilled at the idea

of carrying and using a time-consuming and fragile Lee/Lindahl set

up. If you want thread-on or push-on filters, the military surplus

is an option but be forewarned that most mounts are unique to the

camera (meaning you have to do some work to convert them; you may

need to pay a machinist which might eliminate any savings you might

have seen), some have heating elements built in which make the mount

much larger than it needs to be, and some are not uniform across the

face (due to the type of lens is was designed for some have parts -

usually the center or extreme edges- of a different filter factor;

this was so the image, produced using the lens intended would be

uniform. When placed on a different lens, the density changes will

almost surely underpose the center of the image. If you buy military

surplus, you are taking a certain risk, though it can pay off (I know

someone who bought for $20 ten 95mm filters for a Canon TV camera;

filter code is YH-C-Canon, if that means anything to anyone. The

metal hood has an inner ring area threaded for 100mm. So, you could

use this as a step ring. It allows you to use 100mm filters on a

95mm lens. Problem is, people need the reverse of this for the older

55mm P67 lens. I mention it as it is the only 95-100 step I have

come across). One last thing, if you are thinking of buying surplus

sight-unseen, it is worth noting that many vintage aerial filters are

very thick. If you intend to make your own mounts remember that many

Metrogon, B&H, etc. filters are 1/3" thick (I have a orange Bausch &

Lomb filter that is 3.75" in diameter but 1/2" thick!). Due to the

thickness, it is often difficult to adapt such glass to existing

filter rings from Hoya/Tiffen etc. It can be done, but it is often

more time-consuming that many people might think.

I was preparing to move and boxing up various photo books/mags etc.

I came across two reviews of this lens, and typed in a summary in

case anyone was interested. The first review I have is a second-

generation photocopy, and the source is unknown (though since �last

year� for the author was 1975, one can assume it is 1976); the second

review is from Modern Photography, 1975. Neither review mentions MF

adaptors, though MP indicates that additional 35mm �rear sections�

are available for Minolta and Konica mounts. The lens is listed as

$679 by the one mag, and $659 by MP. Both sources imply that the

lens has been redesigned, though they aren�t all that specific

(MP= �Since this version [sMC] of the 500mm lens probably went

through a slight optical redesign to bring it up to date, we have

taken a fresh look at it� ; sorry, they do not give the citation for

their first review of it). The unknown review offers very high

praise of the SMC, as does MP to a lesser extent (�...the multi-

coating makes a real difference for medium distance subjects (100-300

ft)). Both reviews compared the new version to the original,

uncoated one (and much preferred the newer, no surprise). Both

reviewers found filter installation/changes to be a nuisance, and MP

claimed the UV filter Pentax supplied with the unit was �...too

colorless to be effective�. Again, both reviewers found it odd

there is a custom hard case, but nowhere in the case for you to store

the filters. The reviewer from my unknown article claimed it

was �...for the lack of a better word, stupid�� not to design into

the lens, a handle of some sort; MP didn�t go anywhere near as far

as �stupid�, but did state that �If this lens had a carry handle to

grasp, near its center of gravity, it would be a little easier to

work with�. Both reviewers praised the build-quality. The lens was

tested by both publications. The unknown magazine claimed the lens

to be �...really quite excellent...across a surprisingly broad

range...� (f8-32 = excellent; 4.5-8 & f45 being nearly excellent).

MP have much the same to say, and also offered these lpm numbers

(f/stop = center lpm / edge lpm): f4.5 = 36 / 32 ; f5.6 = 44 / 40 ;

f8.0 = 50 / 44 ; f8.0 = 50 / 44 ; f11 = 56 / 44 ; f16 = 56 / 44 ; f22

= 50 / 44 ; f32 = 44 / 44 ; f45 = 36 / 36. I tried, unsuccessfully,

to find lpm numbers on another 500mm lens from the mid-1970's; I

wanted to make comparisons, but couldn�t find the stats to do it.

One last tidbit from the reviews is that the unknown reviewer claims

the Pentax lens a �likely contestant in a match against the longest

Leica�. As best I can tell, and I am no Leica expert and not

necessarily even a Leica fan, is that the author is referring to the

Leitz Teleyt 560mm f.6.8 - which cost about double the Takumar. I

think it is worth noting that this 500mm Pentax lens can deliver lpm

numbers greater than the 35mm Pentax 300mm f4.0 (which is more or

less 50 / 40, f-5.6-f22). Of course, none of this gives you all that

much to go on for use in 6x7 format; you would have to do your own

tests, and edge lpm may or may not be impressive, or even tolerable -

which may or may not matter, depending on specific use.

Ivan, I couldn't tell from your description whether or not you

already own a 105mm filter. If you do (or if any local camera shop

stocked one), you could remove the prism (assuming you have one on

the camera), and try to hold the filter where it would be assuming

you had the step ring. I believe with the prism removed the viewing

screen shows 100% of the image. This sounds like a "faky" way to do

it, and partly it is, but it should answer the vignetting question -

unless the step ring is unusually think. I have an old users guide

to Exakta and also one for Miranda cameras; both cameras accepted

waist-level finders. Both books describe something like the above,

as a way to test if a filter adaptor, stacked filters, or certain

series filter configurations would interfere with the recorded image

on wider angle lenses. Also, and I dont know if anyone makes one in

100mm, but flexible wide-angle rubber shades are sometimes a decent

way to estimate vignetting. When retracted almost all the way they

often mirror the dimensions of a step ring with filter. But, if even

the slightest touch of corner loss is important to you, you would

want -as you requested- to to hear from someone using this exact

setup.

Erik,

Just because a unit can be used with the aperture in front of the

front or only lens element doesn't mean it increases depth of field,

does it? It obviously controls exposure, but depth of field is

another matter. Are you sure the front-mount aperture alters depth

of field? I am not saying you are wrong, but somehow it doesn't

sound correct. Any kind of portrait lens might be a bad test case,

as depth of field is not of much importance, and to a great many

photographers doing portraits, it is often looked on as a drawback

(the older the portrait lens, the less depth of field it will have -

as a general rule, and there is no shortage of people looking for AN

old wollensak Verito, for just that reason). As for the convertible

lenses, I don't know much about them, but I realize the aperture can

be in front of the remaining element, depending on which element is

removed (and I also realize the lpm changes at different apertures -

but this, too, is separate from depth of field). I guess I would

have to test one but, intuitively, having the aperture in front just

sounds like a bad -if not the worst- way to do it; I must be missing

something, as I don't see how a converted lens with front aperture at

f11 is going to have more depth of field than the same at f8 (though

it would not be the first time I am wrong!). Yes, what you say about

small stops is true, but I have never found slight diffraction to be

the ultimate evil so many other people seem to view it as. In 35mm,

I often shoot 21mm and 24mm lenses at f22, because of the result. I

think longer lenses could almost always benefit by another stop or

more. Years ago, I remember reading that Sigma was designing a 100mm

or 135mm (Panthel 64?) lens that went to a whopping f64. Of course,

I notice it isn't in production anymore and no other company followed

them down this road, so maybe I am alone or almost alone out there in

this insane quest.

Placing something, anything, in front of the first element -where a

filter normally goes- would not have any effect on depth of field.

When you do this, you simply reduce (greatly) the ability of the lens

to gather light. What you want is to effect the "focusing" of the

light the lens gathered. It would have to be at the other end of the

lens or, ideally, as you found out, where the manufacturer places the

aperture blades. The only way to do this would be to alter the

barrel, and have inserts you could use - and this would also require

some sort of protective barrier to keep dust and whatever else might

find its way into your lens. The easiest, though perhaps not the

most cost-effective thing, is to do as you say and go with the

smaller-stop lenses (though why they didn't make their 135mm macro

with another stop is sort of a mystery).

This does work, as far as it goes. In fact, about 10 years ago in

Camerart Magazine (Japan's English-language how-to photography

magazine), there was a brief column on doing this with 35mm lenses.

I believe they were mounting to the back of the lens though, not via

a filter on the front. I could probably find the article if someone

wanted the details or even just the bibliographic citation. Also,

though I doubt I could locate this article, the old "Model Railraod

Treasury" includes a chapter in which one author describes how he

takes apart his Mamiya TLR, and insert a pinhole discs between the

elements. This is the ideal method as the aperture is located where

it should be. Essentially, you are making a minute waterhouse stop.

Problem is, for SLR users anyway, it that the TLR cameras are easy to

take apart, and you have another lens to view from. SLR lenses are

much more complex, and you would always need to switch lenses to see

what you are doing - or make a viewing frame of some sort. I am

still waiting to find a dirt cheap P67 lens (dropped in a lake or

something?) to try this waterhouse stop idea. This idea is not as

uncommon or weird as it might first sound. I know that machinsts

like S.K. Grimmes (sp?) and others have customized lenses for greater

depth of field, so users do ask for it - and pay to have it done. if

you want only one more stop, you can sometime file down parts to make

the aperture close a little more. But, in general, the blades are

usually about at their limit as made by the manufacturer (close them

down too much more and they will bind).

This story is once removed from the theme here, but I think it still

applies, as I think it �traces� the same sort of thought. While in

South America, I stopped in Arica, Chile on several occasions. It is

a beautiful beach town, surrounded my huge sand cliffs. On at least

two stops there, I found Chilean photographers actually taking

pictures of postcards (yes, set the postcard on something, and take a

picture of the picture on it!). On one occasion, I asked a friend to

ask the guys what, exactly, they were doing. My Spanish is rather

limited and I didn�t want anything lost in translation; my friend was

a native speaker. The guys (some of the many parque central

photographers all Latin American cities have), were taking pictures

of a postcard/photo of the famous Eiffel-designed Church in Arica.

Well, if you looked about 60 meters over his left shoulder, you would

see the Church itself. The conversation between my friend and the

photographers seemed like something out of the movie, �This is Spinal

Tap�. When asked what they were doing they replied, quite seriously,

capturing a postcard photo. When asked why they didn�t just take a

first generation photo of the Church instead of making a second or

third generation pic by using the postcard, they seemed dumbfounded,

and while staring at me like I was from another planet,

responded: �Because this is a postcard photo�. The conversation, as

dumb as it was, went on for a few minutes, in this same vein. Their

assumption, I guess, was that a copy of a pic a �pro� had taken was

in some way superior to one they would take. It seems preposterous,

but it was the only explanation I could come up with, based on what

they said. Needless to say, there is not a lot of copyright

enforcement South of Texas (on the Chilean island Chiloe, I found a

guy selling photocopies of another author�s book, right outside the

author�s book store!). I guess if most all the electronics sold on

the street are going to be �Soni�, �Sunny�, �Somy�, etc., (instead of

Sony), there might as well be someone selling photos of postcards.

Top Pol is the B&W linear polarizer, as opposed to the circular,

Kaesseman, and warm tone polarizers. All of these polarizers have the

same filter factor (2.3/2.8). I guess using the word linear would be

too easy for the people at Schneider Optics. Then again, maybe they

just want to match Hoya, and keep the Kodak legacy of bizarre acronyms

and numerical codes alive and well in the world of photography.

This is more a comment than a question, and is the flipside of some

other assessments here. In the last six months I have seen at least

five different P67 300mm lenses sell on ebay for $274-319. In all

but one instance, the seller had a reasonable amount of ebay feedback

which indicated honesty in transaction; judging by the description, I

would also say the seller was a photographer (in other words, this

was not an untested item from a pawn shop, or what have you).

Granted, these were all the older versions of this lens, but when

compared to original suggested retail, the discounted NYC price, and

whatever else you want to factor in, this is a paltry sum for any

300mm 6x7 lens. I might be a little off here, but I would say the

going camera show price and used price from a reputable dealer would

be around $625-825; Delta International still has them at nearly

$1200. Being able to pay 25% of the Delta price for any P67 lens is

a steal; can you imagine buying the new 55mm or the 165mm LS, used,

for $189? Although not everyone is thrilled with the performance of

this lens, I just found some auction results to be the complete

opposite of what happens when the 35mm & 45mm lenses appear on ebay.

The depreciation on this 300mm is at the level one would expect from

an extention tube (cost new vs. cost used), not a more specialized

piece of medium format glass.

I was reviewing the prices for the new zooms, as listed on B&H,

Adorama, and elsewhere. I was curious why the 55-100 is around

$1700, while the 90-180 is only $1200. It seems unlikely that,

optically, the different zoom ranges would result in such a

substantial cost difference (the former lens is roughly half the

normal length to the normal length, while the latter is roughly the

normal length to nearly double the normal length). For instance, in

the 35mm, a 28-80mm or 28-105mm, and a 80-200mm or even 75-300mm, are

often comparable in price. In fact, even for fast 35mm lenses, the

latter is almost always more expensive than the former (a fast f2.8

28-80mm will be much less, not more, than a 80-200mm or 70-210mm,

straight f2.8, etc.). Of course, there are reasons for not making

35/6x7 comparisons, but it is noteworthy. I know little to nothing

about the Pentax 645, but the two zooms for this camera have

virtually identical prices (45-80mm, just over $1600, 80-160mm, just

under $1600 � and some dealers use the same price for both lenses).

Same with the Rollei SLX/6000-series, where the 75-150 & 140-280 are

the same price at some sellers, and the difference is 3-5% at most

others (though what is $200-300, when you are looking at a $5k+

Rollei price tag!). Any thoughts on why the 55-100 is $500 more in

the P67 line? I realize it is possible to buy from dealers

undercutting B&H, but I was most interested in the differential

itself. Also, if anyone owns both P67 zooms, I am sure I am not the

only one who would like to hear some observations on how they compare

against one another.

I have never used these particular russian lenses, but it might be

possible that these pieces don't cover 6x7, or don't cover it all

that satisfactorily. I too noticed the mount/adaptor proliferation,

but also noticed that "Kiev" moved from 6x6 stuff into 6x4.5 stuff

(they now issue lenses and adaptors for the Mamiya 645 and Contax

645). I don't think the 55mm PC lens has been released yet, or if it

has it is not widely available - though I have seen pics of it. As

for the Vega, isn't it 2.8 not 2.5 (granted, a small difference)? It

might be that P67 stuff is so moderately priced, that Kiev has little

reason to think they could undercut them by all that much - making it

a less tmepting offer. That said, if I could buy, in a P67 mount, a

Russian-made 45mm ($165!), 55mm pc ($225), 250mm 3.5 ($275), 1.4x tc

($85), or 2.0x tc ($85) - I think it would be hard to pass up.

I don�t have the same article you are quoting from, but do have

something which might be related to it. It is a March, 1991 article

from Camerart magazine, �One Camera I�d Like to Have � Requests for

Camera Manufacturers�. Basically, the editors asked ten influential

Japanese photographers/writers to describe the camera they would like

to see made. A man named Tetsunao Tsuji had this to say: �A 2 ¼ x 2

¼ single lens reflex that takes both 6x4.5 and 6x7 lenses is what

Pentax should produce as a next generation camera. The new model has

a waist-level finder and interchangeable backs. It features an

aperture-priority automatic exposure control and manual control modes

with through-the-lens, open aperture metering system which offers an

1/3 stop increment exposure compensation system�. This was his

entire comment, and he �like the other photographers who responded-

appears to be describing an �ideal� or hypothetical camera, as

opposed to any prototype (though maybe there was such as thing?).

Worth noting is that one of the other respondents also proposed an

adaptation of the P67. Hideyuki Abe requested/recommended a Pentax

68, as in 6x8 (based on the P67 design, and a field camera, as

opposed to the Fuji 680 design).

Kilfitt -as in Heinz Kilfitt- is considered a genius (he and

Professor Back). Kilfitt/Back are credited with the first mass-

produced 35mm zoom lens, the Kilfitt Zoomar (if I recall correctly, a

36-86mm staight f2.8 lens from the late 1950's). He also made the

first true 35mm macro lens (the Kilfitt Kilar 40mm f2.8). He also

ventured into camera design, and I believe launched not only Robot

camera, but later Mecaflex and even Kowa. Kilfitt sold the company

when he retired, circa 1970. But, his name is usually associated

with first-rate quality (and I think every Kilfitt lens was tested

twice prior to shipment, and shipped along with one of the negs and a

report on the design-performance of the lens - and, of course, a

warranty). Back made Kilfitts after Kilfitt retired. As for a

factory P67 Kilfitt, I seriously doubt it. Of course, someone could

have made an adapter for it, but the Kilfitt Rapid Tele-Zoomar 170-

320 (yes, straight f4) was never designed to cover 6x7. The lens was

originally issued with adapters for Norita 66, Rollei SL 66, Pentacon

6, & later for Hassy and Bronica units. It will, like any 6x6 lens,

cover 6x7 - but edge lpms might not be outstanding - though depending

on what you were to photograph, it might make a great lens, assuming

you found it at the right price. The lens was also sold with 35mm

mounts (Leica, Nikon, Praktica, etc.), and even some for Arriflex

16mm-35mm movie cameras. The lens has a weird though ergonomic focus-

mechanism, a barrel-mounted lever which you squeeze to focus

quickly. The lens was/is VERY expensive, and it is one of the many

pieces of German-based optics that cost 2-3x as much in the U.S. as

it does in Europe. If you really want one, you might want to try the

Ace index ( http://www.acecam.com/abroad.html ), and see if you can

find one from a used store in Germany or Holland. Although the

shipping would be pricey, you might save $200-$500. Kilfitts in

general are rather obscure, but the Rapid Tele-Zoomar is even more so.

The Pentax 67 is used by a good number of astrophotographers. In

fact, many of the outfits specializing in astrophotography equipment

have various accessories for the P67 � and in some cases the P67 is

the only MF system they support. The 400mm lens is often used �and

highly regarded- but as is the 300mm, 200mm, and even the standard

105mm. The adapted P67 camera is owned and routinely used by various

astronomy pads & research centers (Australia, U.S., Canada, etc.).

If you are interested in basic �FAQ� sorts of things for

astrophotograpghy, Hutech offers such a link:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/techdocs.htm . As others have

noted here and elsewhere, if you are interested in doing much of this

you will probably want to have you camera modified; the battery-drain

modification runs from $80-300, depending on where it is done, the

turn-around time requested, how far the camera has to be shipped,

etc. For a run-down on what might be the most that can be done, and

the benefits of it, this site has a nice synopsis:

http://www.company7.com/library/ptxshtr.html . If you are curious

what a fairly elaborate setup -complete with astrograph, Telescope,

etc.- looks like (note: setups larger than this usually look as much

like an anti-aircraft weapon as a photography base), this site has

fairly descriptive pictures, and some commentary:

http://www.airdigital.com/astro_eqpt.html . You will discover that,

basically, if you do anything more than having the anti-battery-drain

upgrade, you will be looking at an investment that may be more

significant than adding another lens to your existing setup. That

said, there are several accessories on the market. For instance,

Stellar International in Texas has dual-bayonet mounts and �Stiletto�

assemblies (focusers) for the P67; see http://www.stellar-

international.com/mformat.html . Telescopic mounts and other

accessories for the P67 are offered by Williams Optics Team in

Washington; see http://www.williamoptics.com . Hutech, the people

mentioned above, offer a camera-to-telescope interface for the P67;

see: http://sciencecenter.net/hutech/ptown/medium.htm . An even more

expensive option is an actual astrocamera, and there are makers

offering this in the P67 mount; for a brief site, with a picture of a

functioning camera, see: http://www.koheisha.co.jp/e-

mspenta6701.html . Many sites feature a few pictures taken with the

P67. Last but not least, photographers/webmasters often acknowledge

the focusing problems they have gone through before settling in on

a �method� that works for them (one such site hinting at this, and

hinting more info will follow is: http://astrophoto.home.att.net ).

These comments, and those found in some of the links to the above-

mentioned website, are quite valuable.

I believe there are tests of black vs. non-black camera bodies, in

which an internal sensor was used to measure the temp at the focal

plane - or there abouts. The tests are probably what you would

expect, or could figure out, without the elaborate science. Also,

there are articles advocating what you are, and some, if I recall

correctly, are not based on actual camera tests but on car interior

temps (I think the government and/or insurance companies still do

tests like this, based on different exterior and/or interior color

combinations, and the resulting interior temp after sitting in the

sun). Nevertheless, the principle is the same. What is rather

curious is that the authors of the articles couldn't discover why,

exactly, most every classic SLR is black in the first place. When

several prominent Japanese landscape photographies voiced concern of

this years ago, I believe Olympus offered all-white OM-3's

called "White Savana" or maybe just "Savana"; Olympus also

acknowledged that doing so was very cost prohibitive, though that

didn't stop them from making a 50mm 1.4 & 100mm f2 in all-white. At

one point in time Nikon did something similar, perhaps with the F2-F3

titanium, or whatever it was. I believe Sigma offered their 35mm in

white as a limited edition, and if you now by a SA-5, you still get a

non-black color option. Many EOS L-series lenses are basically

white. Well, none of this adds to or answers the Pentax question, but

it does seem odd that so much of medium format is JET BLACK.

If you are REALLY interested in P67 assessments and history (not just

lenses, but an overall assessment), you will not only want to read

the 1971-1973 lens tests listed above, but also go back to the debut

of this camera, and the articles which followed it. In 1969 Modern

Photography published �in abbreviated form- a translation of the

final report conducted by the magazine �Asahi Camera� (just for the

record: Asahi Camera, the magazine, is not in any way tied to, Asahi-

Pentax, the camera manufacturer). If you have never seen a quality-

control assessment from a group like this, you might find it

especially interesting � even beyond your P67 interest. In this

case �if I remember correctly- the �team� was made up of someone from

JCII (Japan Camera and Optical Instruments Inspection & Testing

Institute � the group responsible for safety and quality control of

all Japanese-made photographic devices subject to export and/or sales

to the public), 2 professional photographers, 2 professional camera

technicians/repairmen, 2 professors of optical science, and 2

laboratory technicians. Reading one of these reports is like reading

a police report, or autopsy, or something. Everything, less the

final concluding paragraph(s), is very matter-of-fact. Testers

almost always assess workmanship based on the assumption that the

buyer will use this camera regularly over the course of their adult

life (meaning they take build quality VERY seriously). They test and

comment on the things you would expect (are shutter speeds accurate?

In their test the 1/1000 was less than satisfactory offering a 1/875

or something; all other speeds were near-perfection). They also test

some things you might not expect. For instance, film flatness &

light tightness, etc. (they subjected the loaded P67 to an omni-

directional light source of 10,000 lux for 10 minutes and were quite

pleased with the results). The report often �explains� design

thinking (why the pentaprism reveals only 88% of the image area,

etc.); sometimes it questions it (trying to get 21 frames on 220

often results in frame #1 not being anywhere near acceptable film

flatness; the film-advance lever should have been bigger and

stronger; the interior has too many reflective parts, etc.). The

authors also point out when a design or �working� is rather unique

(P67 mirror quick-return mechanism, elec-controlled, giant cloth

shutter; etc.), as well as acknowledge which accessories can be

installed/switched by the user and which require a Pentax technician

(regarding the ground glass as an option they clearly identified

as �quite inconvenient� � and they pointed out a camera of

this �class� surely should allow photographers to do this themselves,

as the need calls for it). Overall, I found the report to be

excellent, and wish a greater number of the so-called tests you see

today were more like this one. The only thing I questioned, or at

least found a little odd, was the claim that any photographer well

accustomed to the P67 camera could take un-blurred, hand-held photos

at 1/15. Note, due to space limitations, Modern Photography did not

reproduce the entire report, and for whatever reason, offered a bland

one- or two-sentence summary of the lens tests (the 105mm & 200mm)

instead of reproducing the test-charts which appeared in the original

magazine article; both lenses tested very well. As a system, the P67

received very high marks. If you want the full report, and the lens-

test charts, you will have to resort to the magazine Asahi Camera

(10/69, I think), and brush up on your Japanese reading skills.

Although I have never seen them, I have heard that there is at least

one additional inspection/field test of the original P67 & lens line,

and that it was available the second time the camera was exhibitioned

at Photokina (1968), and also at the Tokyo Camera Show (1969). This

literature, too, might be in Japanese.

I can't really comment on what effect any alteration would have on

the metering capabilities of the lenses (and even though moderately

priced as MF lenses go, they are still too pricey for me to play

around with them), but I too think nearly every lens in the P67 line

should be one more stop, maybe more. I also find it odd that 35mm

lens-makers don't allow the lenses to stop down more than they do.

Last time I checked, only Sigma went beyond the so-called standard on

their macro line (most are 22, or maybe 32, but Sigma 50mm & 105MM

can do 45, at least in some mounts - perhaps just Sigma & EOS).

Also, Sigma is -I think- the only one offering a f32 on the wide

angles and wide-angle zooms (Nikon, EOS, Tamron, Tokina, etc., all

have a basic 17-35 or 20-35 zoom, but all end at f22). As for

alterations in general, it is possible and I don't think it is all

that difficult. I once read that scale modelers (model railroad

people and magazine publishers, in particular) used to take lenses

apart and use aperature discs with TINY precision holes instead of

the blades - basically pinhole through a lens. I also know of people

who have picked up older SLR's cheap, and altered the 50mm -or

preferably 24mm- lens to go way beyond the f22 they were designed to

handle. If you have ever taken an old manual lens apart, you begin

to see how easy this is (take out the glass, then take out the Dremel

tool and extend an slit or notch). Of course, there are trade-offs,

but for what they were doing it was definitely worthwhile. I think it

worth doing on cheap 35mm stuff, but it might not be worth playing

around with on P67 stuff unless you came across a dirt-cheap, REAL

ugly or mangled lens to use as a test case.

I believe there is more than one "Vinten". Bill Vinten is -I think-

the inventor of the Vinten camera/tv heads, dollys, tripods, etc.,

and he is based in the U.K. The Vinten camera may or may not be tied

to him, and may or may not be in the U.K., I really don't know. As

for the camera, I am not positive they use Pentax 67 lenses, though

of course someone could adapt just about anything. I believe the

camera has lens "cones" for the est. focal lengths of 100mm, 150mm,

230mm and 300mm (I thought the one I saw used the old Aero-Ektar

lenses?). I am doing this all from memory, and could be a bit off on

the details. The wider lenses, especailly the 45mm lens, seems of

questionable use from the air. These Vinten cameras use 100 foot

spools of 70mm film, and I believe this gets 485 or 500 shots per

cassette. The original intent was to mount them on smaller planes

for mapping work, and like most cameras like this, it might be a real

test to handhold it (in terms of weight and ergonomics, I suspect it

makes the P67 seem like a pocket camera). I have seen pics of these

cameras, at least the earlier ones, and there was no wireframe finder

since it is mounted on the body of the plane. Perhaps the #507 you

list indicates a revamped model? As for shake problems on the

Pentax, they might prove to be nothing compared to the shake of the

plane - but you have to assume they took this into account, after

all, the camera would basically have been bolted to planes. Most

people I know doing aerial P67 have or have access to a Ken-Lab gyro,

and they then use mirror lock-up when they feel they need it - but it

might surprise you how few times that is. There isn't any particular

reason why someone couldnt make their own wire-finder. I have seen

people doing sports photography with the P67 and a homemade finder

(all you need is ground glass and some creativity to mount it to the

camera). For what it is worth, the finders I have seen either had a

little arm which mounted the frame to the hot show (easily removed),

or a hook-like mount which went into the tripod socket, up around the

back of the camera (also easily removed - and has to be removed to

reload film). I don't know that removing the mirror from the Pentax

is really necessary -shake is exaggerated- but it could be done.

Sorry, no advice on where to buy such a camera.

I searched this page and did not find reference to the following website: www.photodo.com/index.html - and please excuse the double post if I missed it. The PhotoDo site includes the numerous lens test-results done by Nordlund at Victor Hasselblad AB; see the "Products" section for the results. This data, and this method of testing, might be of more interest to opitcal nuts than the average user. But, it is useful information nonetheless, and the results might prove useful to some or even many potential buyers of P67 equipment. I am not endorsing this measure or these results as the difinitive answer to any and all sharpness arguments; I am only adding more "facts" to the debate. If you are unfamiliar with MTF, click on the "Article" section, and browse through the three articles with MTF in the title (filed under "Equipment - Lenses"). If you are interested in optics in general, and/or the 35mm-medium-large-format debates, you might have particular interest in many or all of the articles there, by Lars Kjellberg. In many respects, the PhotoDo articles are not optional reading; unless you are knowledgable regarding optics, these explanations are essential to understanding what, exactly, is being measured, and why the tester believe it is what should be measured. And, by reading these articles, you get the full information on the test criteria and results-averaging which has been done to achieve a single number representing the lens "Grade". Who knows, you might also come to believe there are definite limitations to this type of lens test.

This question arises more out of optics-ignorance than anything

else. I tried several searches and didn't find what I was looking

for. If I have missed something obvious, please email me so I dont

clutter up the page with repeat questions. Anyway, here is my

concern: (1) Suppose you stumble across a 4x5 or 8x10 lense with a

great reputation (1st-rate optics, no debate); and, (2) The lens has

either slight fungus or separation around the extreme edge of the

glass - and ONLY around the very edge(s). If you stop down enough so

that the aperature blades come in beyond the fungus/separation (as

you look straight through the lens), have you then gone, how you

say, "beyond the problem"? If I am not clear, let me have a second

try: If you look through the lense and see some sort of abnormaility

at the very edge(s), then stop down from wide open enough so that

when you look through the lens you see only perfect glass, have you

eliminated the chance of the less-than-perfect area effecting your

finished pic? Or, are optics more complicated than this? I ask

because I sometimes see famous telephoto lenses at incredibly low

prices, because, there is some abnormality - often at one edge/curve

of the back element. I would rarely if ever shoot wide open anyway,

and if all you need to do is stop down to avoid the "tarnished area

of the glass", why dont people snap up such lenses? Does the

separation spread quickly? Is there any way to gauge how fast this

would occur - assuming this is a very real problem, spreading? Just

curious if Iam missing out on some nice glass when I pass by $500-700

lenses for $50-150?

The Sigma lense is VERY sharp (I have borrowed a friend's, many

times). For the money, I don't know that it can be beat - and as a

user with finite resources, everything always seems to come down to

the money. Though, I have to agree with the other replies here -

about picture sharpness vs. construction / durability. However, if

you compare early Sigma lenses to the current line, I think you will

find the quality has gone up. And, once you get away from the basic

35-80 sort of lense, that their speciality items are of decent

quality (compare the original 400mm 5.6, 400mm APO 5.6, & 400mm HSM

APO 5.6: there is a progression in workmanship, I think). There are

many users who feel that although Canon L-series lenses are

absolutely beautiful, their normal series lenses are nothing to brag

about, and that even basic non-L Sigma / Tokina / Tamron take them.

If you want to step up from the basic Canon-made lense, and cant

afford or justify the Canon-L, the Sigma seems to be the lense of

choice - even if you shoot often, very often.

I own the 630 body and an A2, and several L and non-L (in fact, non-

Canon) lenses. I definitely agree with many of the above-posted

comments. You might find that you are entirely pleased with a 75-300

(a few years ago I picked up a new Sigma EOS 75-300 for $180, and

find it a quite-decent general lense). One thing to consider is that

you might want more than 100-400 or, if that is the length you

prefer, that you need not pay the $$$ for an L-series lense. I am

not-anti Canon in any way and own 3 L-series lenses (love the 200

2.8L), but I recently borrowed a friends 135-400 Sigma EOS lense, and

thought it very-well made, and if rendered excellent pics; I have

other friends who swear by the new Sigma 170-500 lense, which

received excellent reviews in the U.S. and in Europe, and is still

less than an L lense. As for your 630 body, there is no reason to

upgrade - it is a very fine body, and many people still think it one

of the best semi-pro bodies ever made.

I recently purchased a EOS A2 & 430 EZ flash (prior to this I used a 630 EOS and Sigma flash), and use a EOS 200mm 2.8L lense. Many of my pictures are taken at rock concerts, in poor lighting conditions, with a good bit of motion, and with bright-colored lights flashing on and off. Here is my "problem", or question. If I load up with Portra 800 film or Royal Gold 1000, and meter off a particular musician at the show, the A2 almost always defaults to 1/60 @ 5.6 w/ flash. The curious thing is that if I switch to TV mode -because 1/60 wont freeze the shot for me- and try 1/90 or 1/125, even at 2.8 the display readout flashes, indicating insufficient light. Why will it program to 1/60 5.6 in P-mode, but not accept 1/90 2.8 in TV mode? Any theories? Of course, I can fire away at 1/125 f4 and get beautiful pictures - but why doesn't the body know this? I have done a bit of playing around with it at different concerts, and thus far have played with the ASA, spot meter vs. view meter, different lenses, etc. I can get excellent pictures, but I have to second guess the EOS body and correct for it. I am concerned and annoyed because I bought a camera with a million functions, and it doesnt seem to do any better than me standing there with a beer in one hand, A2 in the other, guessing at the settings! Another, perhaps related concern, is that when I use the EOS 28mm lense, the body rarely signals o.k. in the viewfinder, during poor lighting conditions. In TV mode, the 2.8 will flash on and off. But, the flash has more than enough power to cover the person and/or stage. At first I thought maybe the quality of today's high speed film allowed the pictures when ordinarily (in the past) they would have been underexposed, but even if I switch the ISO to 1000 or 1600, they same flashing occurs in the viewfinder at 2.8, though again, like above, if I shoot the pic it looks great. It is as if the body does not "know" just how good/powerful the 430EZ is. I have tested the 430ez in daylight fill-in situations, and it seems to work perfectly. Am I missing something? My 630 seems to function much better in low-light situations, and I know of no reason why it should? Any info appreciated.

I have since contacted three repair facilities. All three places

replied by email, and all three places appear to have tech-people who

are well-aware of this problem (one place claimed it is common to

620, 630, & RT EOS models). The repair is not necessarily

complicated, but it is time-consuming as the failed part is basically

in the center of the camera body. Repair estimates were for $139,

$145 & $159 (+ shipping at least one way, if not both ways). No

mention of any "warranty" was made in the initial reply, and only one

place has since contacted me to say they offer a 90-day warranty on

the repair. I also have learned of two other people who paid for a

repair which was not made (or the place repaired the wrong thing? -

like the problem mentioned by another EOS user on this page). I also

found a guy who had a repair-guy build a second little switch

recessed into the grip of the 630 (a $35 fix); he can shut off the

camera without screwing around with the grip/battery compartment.

Seems a sad commentary on an otherwise great camera body, but I too

might go this route. I too am also thinking of the move to the A2E

(as others have indicated on this page), but learned from the repair

people that the A2/A2E has a dial which they claim is MORE

susceptible to failure than is the battery-drain part in the 630! -

and I believe users have complained of this on this very page/board.

I am a fan of the nearly-pro camera body and dont want to settle for

a Rebel, or fork out for a EOS3. Not sure Canon has much to offer,

least not to people who shoot a roll of film a week, and want

something built like a tank.

I have had a similar problem (and posted here about it recently:

see, "EOS 630 Battery-drain problem?"). I have since contacted three

repair facilities. All three places replied by email, and all three

places appear to have tech-people who are well-aware of this problem

(one place claimed it is common to 620, 630, & RT EOS models). The

repair is not necessarily complicated, but it is time-consuming as

the failed part is basically in the center of the camera body.

Repair estimates were for $139, $145 & $159 (+ shipping at least one

way, if not both ways). No mention of any "warranty" was made in the

initial reply, and only one place has since contacted me to say they

offer a 90-day warranty on the repair. I also have learned of two

other people who paid for a repair which was not made (or the place

repaired the wrong thing? - like your problem). I also found a guy

who had a repair-guy build a second little switch recessed into the

grip of the 630 (a $35 fix); he can shut off the camera without

screwing around with the grip/battery compartment. Seems a sad

commentary on an otherwise great camera body, but I too might go this

route. I too am also thinking of the move to the A2E, but learned

from the repair people that the A2/A2E has a dial which they claim is

MORE susceptible to failure than is the battery-drain part in the

630! - and I believe users have complained of this on this very

page/board. I am a fan of the nearly-pro camera body and dont want

to settle for a Rebel, or fork out for a EOS3. Not sure Canon has

much to offer, least not to people who shoot a roll of film a week,

and want something built like a tank.