steve_rasmussen

<p>With the prism finders, focusing is not an issue unless you intend to use the slower lenses in low light. For landscape work, focusing in even less of an issue because of the use of the DOF scale on the lenses. Remember that this camera had lenses produced over many decades and there is a difference in performance between them. Get the newer ones if possible. Landscape work in this format has DOF problems, so try to buy lenses with smaller stops (165 LS, 55-100 zoom, 90-180 zoom, 100 macro, 135 macro, 200 Pentax). The 45mm has good DOF even though it only has f/22. </p>

<p>Dan- The auto setting on Pentax 67 lenses seems to allow you do both of what you said; automatic stopping down of the diaphragm to the selected aperture and also computes the correct light for an accurate exposure when shot wide open. The "manual" setting will do neither of these. A lens with auto/manual lever used on manual will give an inaccurate reading unless the aperture ring connection is broken. Pentax probably should have said that their auto setting was more than just auto diaphragm but also wide open metering. </p>

<p>Dan-- With the Pentax 67 series, the meter can read the intended stop, even when the diaphragm is wide open. There is a connection between the aperture ring and the meter. When this connection is broken (by the use of a helicoid tube) the lens must be stopped down to meter and shoot. </p>

<p>To expand on this a bit, the "Auto" position allows for wide open metering. The diaphragm does not need to be stopped down to the shooting stop to get accurate meter readings. The aperture ring will not stop down the lens (unless you switch it to "Manual"). The outer bay lens do not have an "Auto" position because the diaphragm moves with the aperture ring. They are considered "Manual" lenses. </p>

<p>I have owned a Plustek 120 for 2 years now. Here's some history. The first unit I received failed under warranty after 10 months; it refused to accept the film tray. The second unit, after much scanning, had a mother board problem in which I had to cover the cost. This scanner does well with neg film, especially Ektar. Few modifications are necessary to bring the image to reality. Slide film is another matter. Velvia 100f and Velvia 100 are troublesome to scan. SilverFast just can't bring them to look real without huge effort. Velvia 50 does ok, as does Provia 100f and 400X. But a lot depends what is in the slide. Some Velvia 100 shots scan easily (lightning shots over a city). </p> <p>Don't expect to get Heidelberg Topaz (a great flatbed scanner) results from the Plustek. An optically printed 6x7 slide can look sharp printed at 24 X 30 inches but the Plustek scan of the same slide will not get you anywhere near that (11x14 maybe).</p> <p>I used to shoot film professionally but wanted to use my film images to sell in the digital age. Using the Plustek for that purpose has been a problem. Customers only bought a few images for printing in small (8x10 inch or less) sizes. </p>

<p>The 200 Pentax and 165LS are the same design type and both are sharp. The 90-180 is very similar in performance but if I had to say which is better, I would say the 200/165. But you would not be disappointed in any of the three. </p>

<p>The helicoid tube keeps you from having to change tubes constantly. I use mine more than the regular tubes. However, I do use the two types at the same time on occasion. The helicoid combined with the 90-180 zoom gives you even more flexibility due to the zoom ability. </p>

<p>Sometimes the prism will not click into place unless a good deal of pressure is applied to the sides where it attaches. Agree with Rodeo in the alignment of the dial. </p>

<p>The reason why I did not buy the 500 was that it had only 4 elements and I didn't feel that was enough to fully correct all aberrations. </p> <p>The bellows loses a lot of light because you are extending the focal length and in doing so, changes the focal ratio. The tubes are useful in lower magnification shots--- The bellows is for higher mag shots. There will not be many instances where you would have a choice between the two of them in one shot. </p>

<p>1.) High magnification with the 67 can be difficult due to, lens weight, shutter induced vibration and lens cost. <br> 2.) I don't own the 500mm but it was designed in an era where color correction in the marginal area of the optic was not well controlled. I would guess that stopping down to f/11 would eliminate nearly all color fringing when using a converter or when using the lens by itself. But you would have to experiment to know for sure. The 400 Takumar is way better corrected than the 600, even though they were both designed in the same era. </p>

<p>1.) The 165LS was designed for flash work primarily. I use mine for macro and landscape.<br> 2.) The 500mm is not very well corrected for color aberrations but can be used stopped down. You would have to stop down the lens to use a converter on it as well. Getting high magnification shots with the 67 is a challenge. I use the 600mm with a 1.4X converter for birds but if you have the money, the 400 EDIF with 1.4X converter is much easier to handle because it is a lot lighter. It is also incredibly well corrected for color, so putting a 1.4 or 2X converter on it near wide open is possible. The 800 EDIF is way expensive but an option as well. </p>

<p>You can do that but it is a small area (compared to a 4x5) and you will still need a loupe to see what is going on in the frame. The folding focusing hood does something like this. </p>

<p>The tube set will work with the 200mm. Yes, the 200 will work for insects. </p> <p>"If I were not looking at macro, what kind of subjects would the 165 LS , 90-180 and 200 be suitable for?"</p> <p>All of these are well suited for portrait and landscape work. </p>

<p>Here are a few of my shots-- www.flickr.com/photos/18898404@N07/</p> <p>For those panels, you could use several different lenses, depending on the depth of field in those panels. You could use the 165LS or the 90-180 or the 200 Pentax with tubes. Those would be my first choices but the 135 would probably work also. </p> <p>The 200mm is useful for many macro subjects, due more from the ability to add tubes than the focal length itself. Its f/32 ability is helpful as well. I use mine for flowers and lizards. The 90-180 @ 180 is useful for insects if you added enough extension. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The 135 is a sharp lens but I would go with the newer 200mm (Pentax) not the older Takumar. There was a substantial design change with the newer one. FYI, only the 105 Super Takumar had Thorium glass but the newer versions went with a different high index glass that was not radioactive. </p>

<p>"portrait, landscape, close photography".<br> The 90-180 zoom can do all three. It has come down in price in the last year and has become affordable now. It has small enough stops to do both landscape and macro work. Its 120 to 180mm range works well for portraits. </p>

<p>When Pentax upgraded their 135 Macro to the 100, I feel they went the wrong direction as far as focal length is concerned. I would have loved to see a 165 macro with f/45 capability. The working distance with the 100 macro is pretty small, though it can be used for many situations. Since you want to use your macro lens for portraits also, I would suggest using the 165LS for both. Using the 100 macro for head shots, you will be too close to the subject. Most of my macro work is with flowers, so take that fact into consideration. But if you can only have one lens for macro/portrait work, I suggest the 90-180 zoom over the 165LS.</p>

<p>I have been doing macro work with the P67 since 1989 and have gone through many lenses in my quest to find the answer to macro work. DOF is always a concern with a 67. The 105-- just not enough DOF with its f/22 smallest stop. The 150- also not enough DOF. The 200 Pentax with its f/32 ability does really well. The 165LS (f/32) also does well in macro work. The 135 macro does well also but I like more working distance than it offers. But there will be times when f/45 is necessary. The 90-180 zoom is the answer for that situation. So, in the end, I use the 165LS when I only need f/32 DOF. For that extra depth, I use the 90-180, usually near the 180mm end. It is proven. I don't use the bellows at all so can't comment on that. </p>

<p>Harry Joseph-- If you shoot Velvia 100 220, let me know as I have more than I can ever shoot. </p>

<p>Most of my film is 220 (Velvia 50, 100, 100F) but I bought tons of it several years ago predicting it would vanish. It can still be found on ebay though. </p>

<p>Mid priced scanners (Epson, Plustek OF 120 etc.) have real issues with retaining the vibrancy of a slide. They need software to bring the colors back to reality. Unfortunately, that can't completely be done. Some slide films scan better than others, especially when using SilverFast software. Velvia 100 is so difficult to scan that I am careful about which subjects I shoot with it. Velvia 100f is not much better. Velvia 50 is much easier to work with. Provia 100f scans pretty well. Neg film actually scans easier than the slide films, at least with Silverfast. Ektar is easy to scan but don't expect to match the subject you saw with your eye exactly. SilverFast can reverse the image to positive from a neg film. Drum scanners which use a photo-multiplier tube, do a much better job of retaining the original image but at a high price.</p>

<p>The much overlooked 55-100mm zoom for the 67 has come down in price recently. It is as sharp as the wide primes. I use it in conjunction with the 45mm; a good combination. This zoom has f/32 DOF in case you are interested in landscape work. The other wides only go to f/22 (with the exception of the 75 shift). </p>

<p>It is possible that the cross section that you've shown is actually not two elements but four. The first looks like a positive achromat, while the second looks like a negative achromat. This would give the designer enough degrees of freedom to make a viable lens. Using aspheric surfaces would be a benefit as well but are very difficult to manufacture. </p>

<p>I had a Leica SL with a Chrome base plate that was badly scratched up and decided to sand it. It turned out well but it also had a thick Cr coat. Don't know how thick the 500c is. I used black, wet or dry paper used in automotive work. The last step was 1500 grit. </p>

<p>I'm a 6x7 stock shooter and still use film but I have to admit that I have lost a lot of my customers, even when I scan my slides to digital. Some publishers will buy scanned film, others will not. Using a top end home scanner (X5) or drum scanner just ruins any chance of making any money in this business. In the publishers' quest to maximize profits via their work flow, I am painted into a corner and have to shoot digital to some degree; not something I prefer. I am too old to re-shoot all of my stock in digital. I still shoot mostly film just because I enjoy it. </p>