Bought a 6x7 MLU

**filoxophy** · 01-10-2014, 10:49 PM

So...I just bought a 6x7 MLU with WLF and 45/4 lens.

I definitely wanted the WLF, which is expensive by itself. The 45mm is a bonus; don't know if I would have bought it otherwise, over the cheaper 55 or 75. Next up--105/2.4....or 90/2.8

Anyway, I'm excited to be part of the medium format world! Love everyone's images, and hope I can contribute soon!

**blackcloudbrew** · 01-11-2014, 12:22 AM

The 105 f2.4 is the normal lens for it and it's very nice.

LFLee · 01-11-2014, 12:52 AM

wow. seem like a good deal. Seldom see one package with 45mm.

**filoxophy** · 01-11-2014, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by LFLee

wow. seem like a good deal. Seldom see one package with 45mm.

Yes, I was happy to get the 45, since it's also pretty small for a 6x7 lens.

johnha · 01-11-2014, 11:13 AM

Welcome to the 6x7 fold. When I bought my 67 it came with the 75/4.5 (might have prefferred the 105/2.4 but had to go with what the shop had), its a very nice lens but a little slow for a November afternoon in the UK. I've recently bought a 45/4 in preference to the 55 because it seemed to fit better with my 75 (55 seemed too close to the 75).

Looking forward to seeing some shots.

John.

tuco · 01-11-2014, 11:18 AM

Odd the 45mm is more expensive. Reports from 645D owners has shown the 67 generation of the 55mm to be a sharper lens.

desertscape · 01-11-2014, 05:00 PM

Many years ago the 45 was considered a sharp lens. After many newer designed lenses were introduced with more modern cross sections, the 45 got left behind. It was never upgraded like the 55mm. Its age is beginning to show. It is not soft though, just not as sharp as the more modern designs.

Silent Street · 01-12-2014, 01:49 PM

The combination you have bought is excellent, especially the 45mm lens.
I own both the 55mm and 45mm and have shot identical scenes with each lens to study sharpness and there is no difference. The 55mm was my first lens, and first introduction to the quality of the SMC Pentax 67 lens line up. Some of my biggest prints (a metre across) have been produced with the 45mm so I don't really accept that is it "not as sharp" as the 55mm.

The squat and lightweight 90mm f2.8 is a little gem too; that and the 45 or 55mm would be a complete working kit setting you up for a great deal of shooting; unlike the 45, 55 and others, the 90mm is small enough to "reconfigure" the comfort of the 67/6x7 without the front-on bulk of a big lens. It has a long focus throw and provides that much-desired bright viewfinder image (try putting a polariser on the 45 or 55mm lenses and focusing quickly in low light...). It's my favourite 'standard' lens but of course I have too many favourite lenses now, LOL!

BTW, tape the MLU button on the side when stowing the camera; this will save you the trouble of the button accidentally activating and flattening the battery e.g. when placing in a backpack or camera bag. My 67 lives in a tight space in the camera bag (to cushion it from rough and tumble) and the pressure from internal padding has been known to activate the MLU; I carry spare batteries, as everybody should.

desertscape · 01-12-2014, 05:24 PM

There have been numerous reports of soft 45s out there, while others report their lens to be tack sharp. There is known sharpness variability with this lens unfortunately. Makes it difficult to generalize about it. All we can do is report our own experience with it.

Silent Street · 01-12-2014, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

There have been numerous reports of soft 45s out there, while others report their lens to be tack sharp. There is known sharpness variability with this lens unfortunately. Makes it difficult to generalize about it. All we can do is report our own experience with it.

Quelle horreur. Most educational. I bought my 45mm when I asked the original owner about its optical performance. He assured me it was the best he had seen and sent me a negative strip to judge for myself. Why is there such variation in this lens? Is it sloppy QC or a lack of consistent precision of manufacturing? True dinks then, we cannot tar 'em all with the same brush, so I agree on reporting individual experiences.

desertscape · 01-12-2014, 11:14 PM

I feel that part of the problem has to do with people buying the lens on the used market and a few have been dropped or suffered some sort of damage. A more probable cause has to do with Pentax not controlling its manufacturing processes adequately. How much deviation from the established print dimensions they will accept, depends on their management's Quality philosophy. Building a lens with several lens elements at the edge of their tolerance range is not a good quality practice. Lens barrel machining is also important to image quality. How some of the 45s ended up softer than others is a bit of a mystery. The above are my guesses.

**filoxophy** · 01-13-2014, 07:45 AM

Well, I won't have a basis on which to judge the quality of my particular copy of the 45mm, but I can't imagine that I'll be disappointed. I shoot 135 film stuff as much for the joy of the process as the quality of the results--I imagine my approach with medium format will be similar.

Incidentally, I don't typically spend a whole lot of time at the wide end...I was keeping my eye out for a kit with the WLF and a 90 or 105, but ended up jumping on this one since package deals with the WLF seem to be fairly uncommon. Anyway, this will be my landscape setup and I can add a prism and normal/portrait length lenses later for a "point and shoot" setup.

More immediate though, is my need to figure out my digitizing process. I "scan" my 135 B&W negs with my K-5II currently, and am generally happy with the results. I will have to see if my process is easily adaptable to 120 film or not. I have seen some people stitch together multiple shots of each negative for better quality, but I'll have to see if it's worth it for me to go through that.

Silent Street · 01-13-2014, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

I feel that part of the problem has to do with people buying the lens on the used market and a few have been dropped or suffered some sort of damage. A more probable cause has to do with Pentax not controlling its manufacturing processes adequately. How much deviation from the established print dimensions they will accept, depends on their management's Quality philosophy. Building a lens with several lens elements at the edge of their tolerance range is not a good quality practice. Lens barrel machining is also important to image quality. How some of the 45s ended up softer than others is a bit of a mystery. The above are my guesses.

How awful, the thought of buying a lens (on trust alone!), unbeknownst that it had been dropped or damaged.

Perhaps also, individuals using this lens at f16 and f22 which will certainly soften the image due to diffraction. I commonly use the 45mm with hyperfocal and not often beyond f11.

jwatts · 01-14-2014, 11:32 PM

Welcome to the P67 club !

I can second what Silent Street is saying about the MLU button in backpack situations! It's one of my few nit picks with the camera.

I also have a 45 f/4 and have nothing but good things to say about it. Maybe I got a good copy, maybe because I mostly shoot it below f/16.

K David · 01-15-2014, 12:16 AM

So I have the 105 and 90. The 90 equates roughly to a 43mm in 35mm terms and the 105 roughly to a 52mm. So the 90mm is spot-on for "normal" on the 6X7 format. The 90 has the advantage of the leaf shutter which allows flash syncing at any speed up to 1/500th. So that's keen if you use flash.

However, and I say this having not yet inspected my first negatives with my 90mm (I just got it about a month ago), looking through the viewfinder the 105 appears significantly sharper. The aperture difference is insignificant, honestly. Also, there's the factthat a leaf shutter introduces the possibility of mechanical failure (though I hear they're incredibly reliable.)

I have read the lens reviews and the 90mm is typically rated at the equivalent of a B-. The 105 ranges from C+ to B+, so there seems to be some variation in either options of build quality. I like my 105 a LOT.

Shoot on over to the lens sample database. I have samples from each of my lenses (except the 90mm) there. You'll see that the 105mm is stunning. I think that it has great color and contrast transmission and and super sharp. I would give my 105 an A. By comparison, I would give the 200mm a C+ and the 55mm 1:3.5 an A-. I'd probably give the 135mm a B (great sharpness, kinda flat images.)

Were it me, I'd get the 105. They're more common and typically, therefore, cheaper. I would say that you probably don't need both unless you need a leaf shutter lens AND a non-leaf shutter normal.

I have heard that the 90mm leaf shutter was a favorite for fashion photographers throughout the 6X7s run.

01-10-2014, 10:49 PM	#1
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,132	Bought a 6x7 MLU So...I just bought a 6x7 MLU with WLF and 45/4 lens. I definitely wanted the WLF, which is expensive by itself. The 45mm is a bonus; don't know if I would have bought it otherwise, over the cheaper 55 or 75. Next up--105/2.4....or 90/2.8 Anyway, I'm excited to be part of the medium format world! Love everyone's images, and hope I can contribute soon!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 6x7 MLU shutter jam !	PedroT	Pentax Medium Format	2	01-01-2014 10:24 AM
Pentax 6x7 MLU problem	R.Giskard Reventlov	Pentax Medium Format	7	06-18-2013 02:33 AM
6x7 without MLU?	keyofnight	Pentax Medium Format	13	10-05-2012 06:06 PM
Is this a shutter problem? (6x7 with MLU)	Denverdad	Pentax Medium Format	8	02-04-2010 06:50 AM
6x7 MLU mirror and shutter stuck open	mk07138	Pentax Medium Format	2	03-17-2009 03:07 PM

01-11-2014, 12:22 AM	#2
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	The 105 f2.4 is the normal lens for it and it's very nice.

01-11-2014, 12:52 AM	#3
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	wow. seem like a good deal. Seldom see one package with 45mm.

01-11-2014, 08:22 AM	#4
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,132 Original Poster	Originally posted by LFLee wow. seem like a good deal. Seldom see one package with 45mm. Yes, I was happy to get the 45, since it's also pretty small for a 6x7 lens.

01-11-2014, 11:13 AM	#5
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	Welcome to the 6x7 fold. When I bought my 67 it came with the 75/4.5 (might have prefferred the 105/2.4 but had to go with what the shop had), its a very nice lens but a little slow for a November afternoon in the UK. I've recently bought a 45/4 in preference to the 55 because it seemed to fit better with my 75 (55 seemed too close to the 75). Looking forward to seeing some shots. John.

01-11-2014, 11:18 AM	#6
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Odd the 45mm is more expensive. Reports from 645D owners has shown the 67 generation of the 55mm to be a sharper lens.

01-11-2014, 05:00 PM	#7
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Many years ago the 45 was considered a sharp lens. After many newer designed lenses were introduced with more modern cross sections, the 45 got left behind. It was never upgraded like the 55mm. Its age is beginning to show. It is not soft though, just not as sharp as the more modern designs.

01-12-2014, 01:49 PM	#8
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	The combination you have bought is excellent, especially the 45mm lens. I own both the 55mm and 45mm and have shot identical scenes with each lens to study sharpness and there is no difference. The 55mm was my first lens, and first introduction to the quality of the SMC Pentax 67 lens line up. Some of my biggest prints (a metre across) have been produced with the 45mm so I don't really accept that is it "not as sharp" as the 55mm. The squat and lightweight 90mm f2.8 is a little gem too; that and the 45 or 55mm would be a complete working kit setting you up for a great deal of shooting; unlike the 45, 55 and others, the 90mm is small enough to "reconfigure" the comfort of the 67/6x7 without the front-on bulk of a big lens. It has a long focus throw and provides that much-desired bright viewfinder image (try putting a polariser on the 45 or 55mm lenses and focusing quickly in low light...). It's my favourite 'standard' lens but of course I have too many favourite lenses now, LOL! BTW, tape the MLU button on the side when stowing the camera; this will save you the trouble of the button accidentally activating and flattening the battery e.g. when placing in a backpack or camera bag. My 67 lives in a tight space in the camera bag (to cushion it from rough and tumble) and the pressure from internal padding has been known to activate the MLU; I carry spare batteries, as everybody should.

01-12-2014, 05:24 PM	#9
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	There have been numerous reports of soft 45s out there, while others report their lens to be tack sharp. There is known sharpness variability with this lens unfortunately. Makes it difficult to generalize about it. All we can do is report our own experience with it.

01-12-2014, 07:07 PM	#10
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Originally posted by desertscape There have been numerous reports of soft 45s out there, while others report their lens to be tack sharp. There is known sharpness variability with this lens unfortunately. Makes it difficult to generalize about it. All we can do is report our own experience with it. Quelle horreur. Most educational. I bought my 45mm when I asked the original owner about its optical performance. He assured me it was the best he had seen and sent me a negative strip to judge for myself. Why is there such variation in this lens? Is it sloppy QC or a lack of consistent precision of manufacturing? True dinks then, we cannot tar 'em all with the same brush, so I agree on reporting individual experiences.

01-12-2014, 11:14 PM	#11
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	I feel that part of the problem has to do with people buying the lens on the used market and a few have been dropped or suffered some sort of damage. A more probable cause has to do with Pentax not controlling its manufacturing processes adequately. How much deviation from the established print dimensions they will accept, depends on their management's Quality philosophy. Building a lens with several lens elements at the edge of their tolerance range is not a good quality practice. Lens barrel machining is also important to image quality. How some of the 45s ended up softer than others is a bit of a mystery. The above are my guesses.

01-13-2014, 07:45 AM	#12
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,132 Original Poster	Well, I won't have a basis on which to judge the quality of my particular copy of the 45mm, but I can't imagine that I'll be disappointed. I shoot 135 film stuff as much for the joy of the process as the quality of the results--I imagine my approach with medium format will be similar. Incidentally, I don't typically spend a whole lot of time at the wide end...I was keeping my eye out for a kit with the WLF and a 90 or 105, but ended up jumping on this one since package deals with the WLF seem to be fairly uncommon. Anyway, this will be my landscape setup and I can add a prism and normal/portrait length lenses later for a "point and shoot" setup. More immediate though, is my need to figure out my digitizing process. I "scan" my 135 B&W negs with my K-5II currently, and am generally happy with the results. I will have to see if my process is easily adaptable to 120 film or not. I have seen some people stitch together multiple shots of each negative for better quality, but I'll have to see if it's worth it for me to go through that.

01-13-2014, 02:43 PM	#13
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Originally posted by desertscape I feel that part of the problem has to do with people buying the lens on the used market and a few have been dropped or suffered some sort of damage. A more probable cause has to do with Pentax not controlling its manufacturing processes adequately. How much deviation from the established print dimensions they will accept, depends on their management's Quality philosophy. Building a lens with several lens elements at the edge of their tolerance range is not a good quality practice. Lens barrel machining is also important to image quality. How some of the 45s ended up softer than others is a bit of a mystery. The above are my guesses. How awful, the thought of buying a lens (on trust alone!), unbeknownst that it had been dropped or damaged. Perhaps also, individuals using this lens at f16 and f22 which will certainly soften the image due to diffraction. I commonly use the 45mm with hyperfocal and not often beyond f11.

01-14-2014, 11:32 PM	#14
jwatts Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Huntington Beach Photos: Albums Posts: 64	Welcome to the P67 club ! I can second what Silent Street is saying about the MLU button in backpack situations! It's one of my few nit picks with the camera. I also have a 45 f/4 and have nothing but good things to say about it. Maybe I got a good copy, maybe because I mostly shoot it below f/16.

01-15-2014, 12:16 AM	#15
K David Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Colorado Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,437	So I have the 105 and 90. The 90 equates roughly to a 43mm in 35mm terms and the 105 roughly to a 52mm. So the 90mm is spot-on for "normal" on the 6X7 format. The 90 has the advantage of the leaf shutter which allows flash syncing at any speed up to 1/500th. So that's keen if you use flash. However, and I say this having not yet inspected my first negatives with my 90mm (I just got it about a month ago), looking through the viewfinder the 105 appears significantly sharper. The aperture difference is insignificant, honestly. Also, there's the factthat a leaf shutter introduces the possibility of mechanical failure (though I hear they're incredibly reliable.) I have read the lens reviews and the 90mm is typically rated at the equivalent of a B-. The 105 ranges from C+ to B+, so there seems to be some variation in either options of build quality. I like my 105 a LOT. Shoot on over to the lens sample database. I have samples from each of my lenses (except the 90mm) there. You'll see that the 105mm is stunning. I think that it has great color and contrast transmission and and super sharp. I would give my 105 an A. By comparison, I would give the 200mm a C+ and the 55mm 1:3.5 an A-. I'd probably give the 135mm a B (great sharpness, kinda flat images.) Were it me, I'd get the 105. They're more common and typically, therefore, cheaper. I would say that you probably don't need both unless you need a leaf shutter lens AND a non-leaf shutter normal. I have heard that the 90mm leaf shutter was a favorite for fashion photographers throughout the 6X7s run.