[Swift1]

This has probably been discussed before, but here goes...

I'm getting ready for a week long roadtrip and I'm bringing my 67 kit with me.
To save weight, I'm debating whether I should bring either the S-M-C 105/2.4 or the SMC 67 90/2.8, but not bring both.
I'm mainly planning landscape work.

Which would you choose for landscape, and why?

[Alex645]

Landscapes? And I presume youʻre also bringing a wide angle prime too?

For me, Iʻd take the 90mm because:

a) More versatile. You can always easily crop 6x7 and other than a bit more grain, youʻll be getting more of the center sweet spot of the lens vs. an uncropped 105.
b) Smaller, lighter for field work.
c) Am I correct in thinking the 90mm has a closer minimum focus too?

Of course, if youʻre going for more compression, shallow D-O-F and bokeh, then the 105mm has the nod, but Iʻd regret leaving the 90mm at home. I shoot 645, so your 90mm is like my 75mm f/2.8...easily my sharpest lens, great contrast, and the smallest-lightest in my MF kit.

[gofour3]

+1 for the 90/2.8 as it's lighter and wider than the 105/2.8. Also the late 90mm SMC Pentax lens will have more optical elements coated than the earlier S-M-C Takumar 105mm.

Phil

[Swift1]

Landscapes? And I presume youʻre also bringing a wide angle prime too?

For me, Iʻd take the 90mm because:

a) More versatile. You can always easily crop 6x7 and other than a bit more grain, youʻll be getting more of the center sweet spot of the lens vs. an uncropped 105.
b) Smaller, lighter for field work.
c) Am I correct in thinking the 90mm has a closer minimum focus too?

Of course, if youʻre going for more compression, shallow D-O-F and bokeh, then the 105mm has the nod, but Iʻd regret leaving the 90mm at home. I shoot 645, so your 90mm is like my 75mm f/2.8...easily my sharpest lens, great contrast, and the smallest-lightest in my MF kit.

Yes, I'm planning on having a 3 lens kit. I'm for sure bringing the 45/4 and the 200/4 (late).

Ya, the 90 does have closer focus...

[desertscape]

Agree, take the 45, 90 and 200.

[Silent Street]

Neither of those lenses speak "landscape work" in my language, being a bit more on the tele than is usually seen in common MF landscape set ups. My own ready-set-go is the 45mm and when/where additional brightness and speed is required, the 75 2.8AL (I do have the 90/2.8 also, but hat is mostly for portraiture).
Prodded to make a choice, click the 45mm in to place as the prime go-to and keep the 90mm handy on the side.

[bensonga]

The 90mm or 105mm lenses on a 6x7 format camera are equivalent to 45 and 52 mm on a FF 35mm camera. In other words, these lenses have a "normal" FOV. I have taken many landscape photos over the past 35+ years with lenses like these. Not all landscape photos need to be expansive views. It is often the less expansive views of natural landscapes, rocks, trees etc that appeal most to me.

Gary Benson
Eagle River, Alaska

---

Last edited by bensonga; 10-31-2016 at 10:51 PM.

[CreationBear]

Apologies to Colton for a semi-hijack of the thread, but I'm curious: where does the 100/4 macro fit in the mix? In my still-hypothetical three lens kit, the 77mm option seems to have a lot going for it, with the 55/4, the 100/4, and the 200/4. Do you think having a faster lens as a fall-back for lowlight focusing would outweigh the economy of shared filters/hoods/etc.?

[GolNat]

Do you think having a faster lens as a fall-back for lowlight focusing would outweigh the economy of shared filters/hoods/etc.?

In my opinion, absolutely. You can find a way to manage more stuff, you cant make your lens faster or focus better in lower light.

[gofour3]

Apologies to Colton for a semi-hijack of the thread, but I'm curious: where does the 100/4 macro fit in the mix? In my still-hypothetical three lens kit, the 77mm option seems to have a lot going for it, with the 55/4, the 100/4, and the 200/4. Do you think having a faster lens as a fall-back for lowlight focusing would outweigh the economy of shared filters/hoods/etc.?

The 100/4 would not be my choice for anything other than macro work.

If you have the 55/4 and 200/4, then the best third lens options are one of these "normal" lenses:

75/2.8AL
75/4.5
90/2.8LS
90/2.8
105/2.4

Phil.

[Silent Street]

Apologies to Colton for a semi-hijack of the thread, but I'm curious: where does the 100/4 macro fit in the mix? In my still-hypothetical three lens kit, the 77mm option seems to have a lot going for it, with the 55/4, the 100/4, and the 200/4. Do you think having a faster lens as a fall-back for lowlight focusing would outweigh the economy of shared filters/hoods/etc.?

Yes, it does. Definitely. The lens(es) that you may find ideal for use in good conditions may not be at all suitable in low or poor light. This is where at least one fast lens in the kit can potentially save the day. Filter sizes are irrelevant. The meat in the sandwich is setting up a kit that best prepares you for the unexpected or challenging circumstances. My 75 2.8AL and 90 2.8 lenses have come to the rescue on many, many occasions when I've had to make a small compromise (focal length) but gain extra speed and brightness from the faster lenses.

[bensonga]

If every last bit of speed is essential, then the 105 f2.4 lens is certainly best in class for a 6x7 lens. If I'm not mistaken, it is the fastest lens any company has made for a 6x7 format camera. There are faster lenses for 6x4.5 and 6x6 of course. The 105/2.4 comes very close to Mamiya's 80/1.9 for the 645, especially in terms of shallow DOF when shot wide open.

[CreationBear]

Thanks for the replies, gents--it definitely seems as if Colton's original pair is a "can't do without" proposition. At any rate, I don't think I would do much "macro" with a film camera any ways--and no doubt the 200/4 coupled with, say, a Canon 500D, would handle any "flower" shots I might try just fine.

[Swift1]

Apologies to Colton for a semi-hijack of the thread, but I'm curious: where does the 100/4 macro fit in the mix? In my still-hypothetical three lens kit, the 77mm option seems to have a lot going for it, with the 55/4, the 100/4, and the 200/4. Do you think having a faster lens as a fall-back for lowlight focusing would outweigh the economy of shared filters/hoods/etc.?

Having one filter thread size for the entire kit is definitely a plus. I have a Bronica ETRSI kit with 4 lenses and all are 62mm filter thread which means only 1 filter of each needed type.

From the research I've done, the 100/4 macro should perform very well for landscape work. If you don't need f/2.8 or 2.4, it could be a good alternative to the 105mm or 90mm.

You could also just get a 67-77 filter adapter.

[CreationBear]

You could also just get a 67-77 filter adapter.

Ha, that would make too much sense--if I'm trying to economize, I might even buy my filters in 82mm to "future proof" a 45/4 or 75/4.5 purchase down the line. (Coming from 49mm DA Limited's, though, there's liable to be some sticker shock with CPL's at least...you're getting to a price point where the Lee system starts to look viable.)