Pentax 67 lens recommendations

csanjay · 03-01-2016, 09:37 AM

Hi, I shoot in 35mm, following subjects:

Nature
Macro
wildlife
landscapes
birds
architecture : exteriors of buildings (churches , heritage buildings)
temples (closeups of sculptures , inscriptions, paintings).

In macro, I shoot insects (started recently) and flowers, apart from objects like car models , dolls, showcase decorations.
I recently got a Pentax 67ii and bought the 45mm lens and 75mm shift lens.

what lenses would you suggest for my interests?
thanks in advance.

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-01-2016, 10:25 AM

I'd suggest the 105 f2.4 lens as well. It's the 'normal' lens for 6x7 system. The 135 Macro would not be a bad addition either (you could get extension tubes though but the macro makes life easy). You might want waste level view finder as well. I don't do a lot with telephoto lenses on my 6x7 but I have a Pentax 67 300 f4 lens that is handy now and then.

Also, if you are doing anything with controlled lighting, with a sync speed of 1/30th, you may want to track down one of the LS (leaf shutter) lenses for this. I have the 165 LS and it's very helpful in a studio.

tuco · 03-01-2016, 11:02 AM

I'd reconsider doing birds unless you plan on close proximity bird pictures. A 600mm lens on a 67 is both a monster to carry around, not easy to find and not that much reach by comparison. But I don't do bird pictures so take that with a grain of salt.

I'd also get the extension tube set. It will give you more lens options for closeup work and they are pretty affordable. The 67 generation of the 55/4 is a good lens to have too. It can do a verity of tasks. I find I use it more than the 45mm and the 67 generation (new optical formula) is reportedly a sharper lens.

But in general learn about the different lens generations in the Pentax 6x7 line up. It can help you make more informed lens purchasing decisions. For example, say you find both a 67 and 6x7 generation of the 105/2.4 lens for sale. And the later 67 generation costs more than the older 6x7 generation. Is it worth the extra expense? They both have the same optical formula. So now you can make a more informed decision. Similarly with the 55/4 or 200/4 lenses. I'd grab a 67 generation of them over the 6x7 or Takumar generation given a choice.

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-01-2016, 11:45 AM

I have found this site very helpful in sorting out 6x7 lenses. Antique and Classic Cameras

rob1234 · 03-01-2016, 01:29 PM

I sold, then re-bought, the later 200mm f/4 - fantastic lens and one of the bargains of the range.

Silent Street · 03-01-2016, 04:20 PM

What's with the 75mm shift lens? Historically lenses with only the shift facility are very, very limited in application; those with tilt and shift have a lot of potential (e.g. Canon's 35mm TS-E lenses). Medium format has lagged quite lazily behind the developments in 35mm, so we are now left with legacy 'toys'. Swapping it for the 75mm f2.8AL would give you lightness and a good extra stop of light, excellent for portraiture and also handy for landscapes. Be aware that the lenses for the 67II (or any 6x7/ 67 body) all add up to a substantial weight you have to carry around unless planning for one particular shoot. There is a 300ED lens out there, albeit with humungous weight and a price tag to match, and another photographer I know states it is so big and bulky that he works directly from the hatch of his car rather than carry it around (for wildlife). A bit restrictive, but very indicative of how weight and bulk blows out the more you get and more you pack!

csanjay · 03-02-2016, 09:41 AM

Hi, thanks for the replies.

1) On birds and wildlife, I am not too sure. I will take a little time to think over it. The 600 is out due to weight and 500 as I heard its not optically good.
I thought of the 400mm lens and converter and am feeling tempted by the non ED version as its lighter , less expensive and more easily available. I saw a few of the takumar on ebay for around 400 $. My heaviest 35mm lens is much lighter than the 400mm. Is it worth getting the Takumar instead of the ED version? stop down metering seems to be a concern .

2) I got the 75mm shift for architecture . Canon TS feels bit expensive for my budget plus no room for any more 35mm lens in backpack.

3) Macro - I am interested in insects and flowers. I guess the 100mm Macro might be too short ? I heard that the 135mm Macro is not very sharp.

4) I have the extension tubes . I had been suggested the 165mm Leaf Shutter and 90mm - 180mm with extension tubes. Any thoughts on this ?

5) I believe that the 165mm leaf shutter lens will not work in conjunction with extension tubes and flash ( I am speaking of dedicated Pentax flash) . Is my understanding correct?

thanks

desertscape · 03-02-2016, 01:13 PM

1.) The 400 Takumar is quite good and chromatic aberration is well corrected. There is some lateral color that can be seen off axis in high contrast shots though. The 400 ED is a better lens but not by much. It can be shot wide open with no fear of CA. The Takumar is a sharp lens, no doubt about it. It does well with the 1.4 converter on birds. Problems with the Takumar-- Front filters are impossible to find, rear filters can cause flare at times; Outer bay mount can be a pain when in a hurry; manual diaphragm takes some getting used to. The Takumar can work if you are willing to learn to use it. Otherwise, get the EDIF.

4.) After doing macro work with this camera since 1989 and using all possible lenses to do it, I have settled on the 90-180 zoom and 165LS, both with tubes. I like their performance and small stops.

Silent Street · 03-02-2016, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by csanjay

Hi, thanks for the replies.

1) On birds and wildlife, I am not too sure. I will take a little time to think over it. The 600 is out due to weight and 500 as I heard its not optically good.
I thought of the 400mm lens and converter and am feeling tempted by the non ED version as its lighter , less expensive and more easily available. I saw a few of the takumar on ebay for around 400 $. My heaviest 35mm lens is much lighter than the 400mm. Is it worth getting the Takumar instead of the ED version? stop down metering seems to be a concern .

2) I got the 75mm shift for architecture . Canon TS feels bit expensive for my budget plus no room for any more 35mm lens in backpack.

3) Macro - I am interested in insects and flowers. I guess the 100mm Macro might be too short ? I heard that the 135mm Macro is not very sharp.

4) I have the extension tubes . I had been suggested the 165mm Leaf Shutter and 90mm - 180mm with extension tubes. Any thoughts on this ?

5) I believe that the 165mm leaf shutter lens will not work in conjunction with extension tubes and flash ( I am speaking of dedicated Pentax flash) . Is my understanding correct?

thanks

You may be able to use the 90mm leaf shutter lens with extension tubes, but I don't think with the 165mm; I do have the instruction manual here somewhere for this lens and I am very doubtful of its suitability for use with x-tubes. Both lenses are complex but the 165mm is more restrictive in its modus operandi e.g. no mirror lockup can be used, as opposed to the 90mm with allows this. The 165mm has very good optical performance but it will need to be kept very, very stable, preferably with a heavy tripod and additional weight under the head.

ED lenses are a solid investment in optical performance with the trade-off being weight and bulk — and cost. The best optical performance comes from the newer SMC Pentax 67 line up of lenses (aspheric, ED and/or optical mixes) and especially the ease of fitting filters as opposed to the often annoying bayonet mounts of the ancient Takumars (but some SMC Pentax 67 lenses have both the bayonet and screw thread filters mounts (note the comments about this in the post from desertscape above). Hobbyists not concerned with optical quality will often angle for the Takumars as entry points into the 67 system.

Thomas · 03-02-2016, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by csanjay

Hi, thanks for the replies.

1) On birds and wildlife, I am not too sure. I will take a little time to think over it. The 600 is out due to weight and 500 as I heard its not optically good.
........................................................

I wouldn't dismiss the 500, it is sharp, but suffers from CA, which is largely correctable if you digitize. It is light and easy to handle (by MF long lens standards). Finding one might be a waiting game, but my experience is that the 500 is better than the 300mm ED with a 2x or a crop of the 300. I never used the 400 ED, so I can't compare.

csanjay · 03-03-2016, 09:25 AM

Hi, thanks for the replies.
1) whats thought on buying pentax67ii lens from e-bay? I prefer to buy from keh, bh or adorama.
2) If I get lens from ebay japan, what would be the customs cost and process for customs payment? could have it shipped to relative in US, but do not want to trouble them if the customs process is tricky.
3) what subjects would the 100mm macro lens (pentax 67) be suitable for ?
4) what subjects can one cover with the 90mm - 180mm lens? I am thinking of this.
5) for insect macro, I guess I would need a flash ? also it would need to be faster than 1/30th of a second?
6) on the 400mm takumar , how often might one come across the high contrast situation ? are there any pictures of this ? will stopping down help? I use only uv filters.
7) how is the 2x converter on the 400mm takumar ?
8) how is manual diaphragm different in operation?

thanks for your replies and time. have a nice one

desertscape · 03-03-2016, 01:45 PM

3.) I found that the 100 and 135 macros were too short for much of my macro work. Just not enough distance between the subject and front of the lens.
6.) It is rare to see lateral color with the 400 Takumar. Sometimes I see it with lightning shots. Stopping down does not help lateral chromatic, only longitudinal CA
7.) I haven't used the 2x on the 400 enough to comment.
8.) The diaphragm moves as you turn the aperture ring, as opposed to an AUTO lens, where the diaphragm does not move until you hit the shutter.

thomasz08 · 03-03-2016, 06:25 PM

67 M*400 4, 67 M*300 4, 67 105 2.4, 67 fisheye 35 3,5

csanjay · 03-04-2016, 10:14 AM

desert, what kind of subjects do you shoot in macro?
on 8) will that have an impact on depth of field preview and do I need to meter using different steps?

desertscape · 03-04-2016, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by csanjay

desert, what kind of subjects do you shoot in macro?
Mostly cactus flowers.

on 8) will that have an impact on depth of field preview and do I need to meter using different steps?

There is no DOF preview on manual lenses like the 400 Takumar because the diaphragm is already stopped down to the aperture ring setting.
Metering is basically the same as with an auto lens. Auto lenses meter wide open based on aperture ring position but the manual lenses meter based on diaphragm position.

03-01-2016, 09:37 AM	#1
csanjay Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 25	Pentax 67 lens recommendations Hi, I shoot in 35mm, following subjects: Nature Macro wildlife landscapes birds architecture : exteriors of buildings (churches , heritage buildings) temples (closeups of sculptures , inscriptions, paintings). In macro, I shoot insects (started recently) and flowers, apart from objects like car models , dolls, showcase decorations. I recently got a Pentax 67ii and bought the 45mm lens and 75mm shift lens. what lenses would you suggest for my interests? thanks in advance.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K50 lens recommendations	mactattie	Pentax K-30 & K-50	13	10-10-2015 03:18 AM
Recommendations for best Zoom lens (on Pentax film cameras)	pentax_rob	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	09-04-2015 07:58 AM
67 lens with 67 extension tubes on 645d	fatboy22	Pentax Medium Format	3	06-28-2014 04:44 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax MH-RA 67 and MH-RB 67 lens hoods	RBullCZ	Sold Items	5	08-07-2011 11:35 PM

03-01-2016, 10:25 AM	#2
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	I'd suggest the 105 f2.4 lens as well. It's the 'normal' lens for 6x7 system. The 135 Macro would not be a bad addition either (you could get extension tubes though but the macro makes life easy). You might want waste level view finder as well. I don't do a lot with telephoto lenses on my 6x7 but I have a Pentax 67 300 f4 lens that is handy now and then. Also, if you are doing anything with controlled lighting, with a sync speed of 1/30th, you may want to track down one of the LS (leaf shutter) lenses for this. I have the 165 LS and it's very helpful in a studio.

03-01-2016, 11:02 AM	#3
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,019	I'd reconsider doing birds unless you plan on close proximity bird pictures. A 600mm lens on a 67 is both a monster to carry around, not easy to find and not that much reach by comparison. But I don't do bird pictures so take that with a grain of salt. I'd also get the extension tube set. It will give you more lens options for closeup work and they are pretty affordable. The 67 generation of the 55/4 is a good lens to have too. It can do a verity of tasks. I find I use it more than the 45mm and the 67 generation (new optical formula) is reportedly a sharper lens. But in general learn about the different lens generations in the Pentax 6x7 line up. It can help you make more informed lens purchasing decisions. For example, say you find both a 67 and 6x7 generation of the 105/2.4 lens for sale. And the later 67 generation costs more than the older 6x7 generation. Is it worth the extra expense? They both have the same optical formula. So now you can make a more informed decision. Similarly with the 55/4 or 200/4 lenses. I'd grab a 67 generation of them over the 6x7 or Takumar generation given a choice.

03-01-2016, 11:45 AM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	I have found this site very helpful in sorting out 6x7 lenses. Antique and Classic Cameras

03-01-2016, 01:29 PM	#5
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760	I sold, then re-bought, the later 200mm f/4 - fantastic lens and one of the bargains of the range.

03-01-2016, 04:20 PM	#6
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	What's with the 75mm shift lens? Historically lenses with only the shift facility are very, very limited in application; those with tilt and shift have a lot of potential (e.g. Canon's 35mm TS-E lenses). Medium format has lagged quite lazily behind the developments in 35mm, so we are now left with legacy 'toys'. Swapping it for the 75mm f2.8AL would give you lightness and a good extra stop of light, excellent for portraiture and also handy for landscapes. Be aware that the lenses for the 67II (or any 6x7/ 67 body) all add up to a substantial weight you have to carry around unless planning for one particular shoot. There is a 300ED lens out there, albeit with humungous weight and a price tag to match, and another photographer I know states it is so big and bulky that he works directly from the hatch of his car rather than carry it around (for wildlife). A bit restrictive, but very indicative of how weight and bulk blows out the more you get and more you pack!

03-02-2016, 09:41 AM	#7
csanjay Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 25 Original Poster	Hi, thanks for the replies. 1) On birds and wildlife, I am not too sure. I will take a little time to think over it. The 600 is out due to weight and 500 as I heard its not optically good. I thought of the 400mm lens and converter and am feeling tempted by the non ED version as its lighter , less expensive and more easily available. I saw a few of the takumar on ebay for around 400 $. My heaviest 35mm lens is much lighter than the 400mm. Is it worth getting the Takumar instead of the ED version? stop down metering seems to be a concern . 2) I got the 75mm shift for architecture . Canon TS feels bit expensive for my budget plus no room for any more 35mm lens in backpack. 3) Macro - I am interested in insects and flowers. I guess the 100mm Macro might be too short ? I heard that the 135mm Macro is not very sharp. 4) I have the extension tubes . I had been suggested the 165mm Leaf Shutter and 90mm - 180mm with extension tubes. Any thoughts on this ? 5) I believe that the 165mm leaf shutter lens will not work in conjunction with extension tubes and flash ( I am speaking of dedicated Pentax flash) . Is my understanding correct? thanks

03-02-2016, 01:13 PM	#8
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	1.) The 400 Takumar is quite good and chromatic aberration is well corrected. There is some lateral color that can be seen off axis in high contrast shots though. The 400 ED is a better lens but not by much. It can be shot wide open with no fear of CA. The Takumar is a sharp lens, no doubt about it. It does well with the 1.4 converter on birds. Problems with the Takumar-- Front filters are impossible to find, rear filters can cause flare at times; Outer bay mount can be a pain when in a hurry; manual diaphragm takes some getting used to. The Takumar can work if you are willing to learn to use it. Otherwise, get the EDIF. 4.) After doing macro work with this camera since 1989 and using all possible lenses to do it, I have settled on the 90-180 zoom and 165LS, both with tubes. I like their performance and small stops.

03-02-2016, 04:27 PM	#9
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Originally posted by csanjay Hi, thanks for the replies. 1) On birds and wildlife, I am not too sure. I will take a little time to think over it. The 600 is out due to weight and 500 as I heard its not optically good. I thought of the 400mm lens and converter and am feeling tempted by the non ED version as its lighter , less expensive and more easily available. I saw a few of the takumar on ebay for around 400 $. My heaviest 35mm lens is much lighter than the 400mm. Is it worth getting the Takumar instead of the ED version? stop down metering seems to be a concern . 2) I got the 75mm shift for architecture . Canon TS feels bit expensive for my budget plus no room for any more 35mm lens in backpack. 3) Macro - I am interested in insects and flowers. I guess the 100mm Macro might be too short ? I heard that the 135mm Macro is not very sharp. 4) I have the extension tubes . I had been suggested the 165mm Leaf Shutter and 90mm - 180mm with extension tubes. Any thoughts on this ? 5) I believe that the 165mm leaf shutter lens will not work in conjunction with extension tubes and flash ( I am speaking of dedicated Pentax flash) . Is my understanding correct? thanks You may be able to use the 90mm leaf shutter lens with extension tubes, but I don't think with the 165mm; I do have the instruction manual here somewhere for this lens and I am very doubtful of its suitability for use with x-tubes. Both lenses are complex but the 165mm is more restrictive in its modus operandi e.g. no mirror lockup can be used, as opposed to the 90mm with allows this. The 165mm has very good optical performance but it will need to be kept very, very stable, preferably with a heavy tripod and additional weight under the head. ED lenses are a solid investment in optical performance with the trade-off being weight and bulk — and cost. The best optical performance comes from the newer SMC Pentax 67 line up of lenses (aspheric, ED and/or optical mixes) and especially the ease of fitting filters as opposed to the often annoying bayonet mounts of the ancient Takumars (but some SMC Pentax 67 lenses have both the bayonet and screw thread filters mounts (note the comments about this in the post from desertscape above). Hobbyists not concerned with optical quality will often angle for the Takumars as entry points into the 67 system.

03-02-2016, 07:41 PM	#10
Thomas Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 434	Originally posted by csanjay Hi, thanks for the replies. 1) On birds and wildlife, I am not too sure. I will take a little time to think over it. The 600 is out due to weight and 500 as I heard its not optically good. ........................................................ I wouldn't dismiss the 500, it is sharp, but suffers from CA, which is largely correctable if you digitize. It is light and easy to handle (by MF long lens standards). Finding one might be a waiting game, but my experience is that the 500 is better than the 300mm ED with a 2x or a crop of the 300. I never used the 400 ED, so I can't compare.

03-03-2016, 09:25 AM	#11
csanjay Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 25 Original Poster	Hi, thanks for the replies. 1) whats thought on buying pentax67ii lens from e-bay? I prefer to buy from keh, bh or adorama. 2) If I get lens from ebay japan, what would be the customs cost and process for customs payment? could have it shipped to relative in US, but do not want to trouble them if the customs process is tricky. 3) what subjects would the 100mm macro lens (pentax 67) be suitable for ? 4) what subjects can one cover with the 90mm - 180mm lens? I am thinking of this. 5) for insect macro, I guess I would need a flash ? also it would need to be faster than 1/30th of a second? 6) on the 400mm takumar , how often might one come across the high contrast situation ? are there any pictures of this ? will stopping down help? I use only uv filters. 7) how is the 2x converter on the 400mm takumar ? 8) how is manual diaphragm different in operation? thanks for your replies and time. have a nice one

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2016, 01:45 PM	#12
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	3.) I found that the 100 and 135 macros were too short for much of my macro work. Just not enough distance between the subject and front of the lens. 6.) It is rare to see lateral color with the 400 Takumar. Sometimes I see it with lightning shots. Stopping down does not help lateral chromatic, only longitudinal CA 7.) I haven't used the 2x on the 400 enough to comment. 8.) The diaphragm moves as you turn the aperture ring, as opposed to an AUTO lens, where the diaphragm does not move until you hit the shutter.

03-03-2016, 06:25 PM	#13
thomasz08 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Jiangsu Province Posts: 47	67 M400 4, 67 M300 4, 67 105 2.4, 67 fisheye 35 3,5

03-04-2016, 10:14 AM	#14
csanjay Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 25 Original Poster	desert, what kind of subjects do you shoot in macro? on 8) will that have an impact on depth of field preview and do I need to meter using different steps?

03-04-2016, 04:32 PM	#15
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Originally posted by csanjay desert, what kind of subjects do you shoot in macro? Mostly cactus flowers. on 8) will that have an impact on depth of field preview and do I need to meter using different steps? There is no DOF preview on manual lenses like the 400 Takumar because the diaphragm is already stopped down to the aperture ring setting. Metering is basically the same as with an auto lens. Auto lenses meter wide open based on aperture ring position but the manual lenses meter based on diaphragm position.