Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-22-2015, 03:34 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 407
Pentax 6x7 twin lens travel kit?

Hi All,

I'm looking to travel more with my Pentax 6x7 than I currently do - but feel I need to limit myself to just two lenses when doing so. The lenses I currently have are: 45/4, 75/4.5, 165/2.8 & 200/4 (I'm not necessarily looking at adding to these). I've been experimenting today with the 45 & 75 lenses, and will look at using the 45 & 165 next (these are the two combinations I feel would work best). I'm very happy with the results from the 45mm and feel it has to be one of the lenses, the second I'm not sure about - do you go for a medium wide-angle or something more 'portraity' if you can't predict what you'll want to capture?

If I were to look at different lenses, I feel a 90mm would suit me more than a 105mm (the 105 might be too long - although the wide aperture is interesting). I'm not considering a zoom at the moment, I think the bulk, weight, aperture and expense would be too problematic, especially given I want to take the 45mm too.

As a guide, the lenses I travel with most on 35mm film SLRs are FA20-35, FA43 and, less often, the M135 (I have little need for anything between 43 & 135 as I'm usually shooting wide/standard or telephoto). I know the 200mm is my closest lens to 135mm on 35mm, but feel it's not quite as versatile on the 6x7 (I won't be trying to shoot the same long-ish range stuff).

Any thoughts/suggestions as to how I can get a better idea and context from my experiments?

John.


Last edited by johnha; 04-22-2015 at 03:36 PM. Reason: Added a signature
04-22-2015, 05:12 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
smigol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 417
I think that aperture rules when traveling. You may not be able to control lighting as well, so the brighter lenses would be important to carry.

I've only used 90mm as the LS lens, so my experience of that focal length is limited. I prefer the 105 for size if possible. It's wide enough for basic landscapes.

The 165 is an ideal portrait lens, very flattering when you need to take pictures of people.
04-22-2015, 07:45 PM   #3
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,305
I would choose the 45 and 105.
If you're worried about weight, than maybe the 45 and 90.
04-23-2015, 08:00 AM   #4
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,286
I recently mostly travel with P67 w 105mm (or P645 w/ 75mm), and a K5IIs +DA*16-50.

I am, however, hoping one day I am brave enough to just bring a P67 w/105mm, and a GR.

Four config, I agree with Swift1, bring the 105mm and 45mm.

04-23-2015, 05:05 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 407
Original Poster
Thanks for the replies - looks like I'll be looking for a 105mm to try out shortly!
04-23-2015, 07:39 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Newcastle, AU!
Posts: 273
The 105 is definitely a great reason to go 6x7 imo. I also have the late 55mm f4 which seems sharp and lovely. 45/165/400 or 500 is the rest of the kit I'd like to build up.
04-23-2015, 09:55 PM   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,419
Adding a 90mm to the 45mm and 165mm would give good coverage.
04-28-2015, 10:41 AM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,007
Johnha- Given what you used in 35mm format, the 45mm and 75mm should be a good fit. If I had only 2 lenses to choose from in travel, they would be the 45 and 55-100 zoom.

04-30-2015, 04:03 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 407
Original Poster
Thanks for all the comments. The 55-100 zoom is out - it's way to heavy - I'd prefer to carry a 90 or 105 and the 165 as this probably is similar weight wise but gives more coverage options. For everyday (walkround) shooting I'll probably prefer the 45 & 165 but for traveling I'll think about a 90 or 105 to go with the 45mm.
03-14-2018, 06:02 AM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 407
Original Poster
Re-awaking this thread with an update - I hope nobody minds.

Since posting the original thread, I have settled on the 45 & 165 combination for general 'walkround' purposes and acquired the 35/4 Fish-Eye & 135/4 macro lenses. I've been looking for a 105/2.4 but the prices are now much higher (and availability seems quite low) compared to other lenses and I can't seem to find the 90/2.8 on it's own (sometimes sold with a body).

For travel I'm bouncing between the 45/165 & 45/75 combinations, but now that I have the 135 I'm trying to work out if this changes anything (the lighter weight and closer focussing compared to the 165 is enticing). I'm not too bothered about the difference between f/2.8 & F/4.

Any thoughts or suggestions between 45/135 & 45/165 (I'm pretty sure the 45 will always be one of them).

Regards,

John.
03-20-2018, 09:47 PM   #11
Senior Member
cobbu2's Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 276
I don’t have a direct answer to your 45/135/165 question, but I noted your acquisition of the 35/4 Fisheye. I purchased one of those pretty much on a whim and it is becoming one of my more-used lenses for the 67. I recently travelled to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks this past summer with the 35/4 and the “middle” 55/4. All my shots were landscapes and turned out to be equally divided between the two lenses; I had expected to use the 55/4 much more than the fisheye, but it wasn’t the case. It was a relatively easy travel package also, the two lenses being close in size and weight (with the exception of the fisheye’s front element).

I too am keeping an eye on this thread to see more specific responses to your question.

Cheers, Allan
03-21-2018, 08:39 AM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,816
QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
For travel I'm bouncing between the 45/165 & 45/75 combinations, but now that I have the 135 I'm trying to work out if this changes anything (the lighter weight and closer focussing compared to the 165 is enticing). I'm not too bothered about the difference between f/2.8 & F/4.

Any thoughts or suggestions between 45/135 & 45/165 (I'm pretty sure the 45 will always be one of them).
I would go with the 45/165 combo. If you need closer focusing then you can add either an extension tube that can be used on either lens or a closeup attachment for the 165/2.8

The 35/4.5FE is also a great replacement for the 45/4 sometimes.

Phil.
03-21-2018, 09:49 AM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Olympia, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,672
QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
Re-awaking this thread with an update - I hope nobody minds.

Since posting the original thread, I have settled on the 45 & 165 combination for general 'walkround' purposes and acquired the 35/4 Fish-Eye & 135/4 macro lenses. I've been looking for a 105/2.4 but the prices are now much higher (and availability seems quite low) compared to other lenses and I can't seem to find the 90/2.8 on it's own (sometimes sold with a body).

For travel I'm bouncing between the 45/165 & 45/75 combinations, but now that I have the 135 I'm trying to work out if this changes anything (the lighter weight and closer focussing compared to the 165 is enticing). I'm not too bothered about the difference between f/2.8 & F/4.

Any thoughts or suggestions between 45/135 & 45/165 (I'm pretty sure the 45 will always be one of them).

Regards,

John.
That's a serious toss-up... but I only recently began really using the 135 Macro more seriously in the last year or two. I even sold it and replaced it months later as I realized how capable it was. It's only weakness is sharpness at infinity, so if you intend to try and capture compressed landscapes at a far distance, it's not the best choice. But that is a rather specific use, and it really shines in every other way. For travel, it's smaller and significantly lighter than the 165/2.8, it can focus (as you mention) much, MUCH closer, and it can pull off portraits arguably *better* than the 165 - which is something I couldn't believe at first. It's a *hugely* underrated lens in my opinion. But I also *love* the 165. For your travel purposes though, I'd counter Phil and lean 135 Macro - just to make things confusing.
(The 45/4 is a gimme - you're right - it has to come along.)
03-21-2018, 09:50 AM   #14
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Altos CA
Posts: 27
i was taught, and use, the rule of doubling focal lengths. so if I went out with only two and maybe three lenses, my kit is either the 55mm and 105, with the 200 added sometimes, or the 75mm and the 165 2.8, which is close enough. I always try to have either the 105 or 165 as its nice to have one fast lens in the set up.
03-21-2018, 03:51 PM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,007
After travelling all over the world with this system, I seemed to like lenses that are not widely spaced in field of view (FOV). You might find the 45/ 165 combination to be too widely spaced in FOV. A lot depends on YOUR shooting style tho. The 45/135 may work better.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, 45mm, 645d, 645z, 6x7, 6x7 twin lens, camera, lens, lens travel, lenses, medium format, pentax, pentax 6x7, phil, travel
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax Q- Either colour, single or twin lens kit. Tonto Sold Items 6 08-28-2012 05:42 AM
Newbie..Just bought a K-r with the twin lens kit. Carrera 3 Pentax K-r 6 08-18-2011 06:16 AM
Pentax K-r with DA twin lens kit or Sigma? Caro Visitors' Center 21 08-06-2011 03:38 PM
Cheap twin lens reflex camera kit ve2vfd General Talk 10 04-06-2011 07:07 PM
Why No Twin Kit lens optin for Pentax K-X White (18-55mm & DL 55-300mm) ajaya Ask B&H Photo! 8 06-01-2010 10:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:55 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top