105/2.4 or 90/2.8 (late) for 6x7 landscape work?

**gofour3** · 11-03-2016, 12:39 PM

The issues I see with using the 67 100/4 macro as a "normal" landscape lens are:

- Cost, this lens will set you back around $500 or more, with the LSC and hood included. (you can get both the 90/2.8 and 105/2.4 for the same cost)

- Filters you can only use screw-in 77mm filters and not the Pentax 77mm bayonet ones. The 77mm filters attach to the lens hood and not the lens. The lens itself does take 49mm screw-in filters and the hood is then attached to the 49mm filter.

- You're only going to be able to shoot at infinity.

I have the 67 100/4 macro and it's a great lens for macro shooting, but I'd never use it for landscapes.

Phil.

CreationBear · 11-03-2016, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

I'd never use it for landscapes

Very useful, Phil--thanks! FWIW, I really, really wished you hadn't compared the 75/2.8 AL to the K28/2 in your review.

desertscape · 11-03-2016, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by CreationBear

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

This depends on your shooting style. If you do a lot of low light focusing, then yes, by all means go with the faster lenses. If you use hyperfocal settings on your lenses for landscape work, low light focusing is not an issue.

CreationBear · 11-03-2016, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

If you do a lot of low light focusing

That's usually the case for me here in the Southern Appalachian's--maybe not quite as dark as Silent Street's Australasian triple canopy, but our hollers don't see a lot of daylight. At any rate, it seems an embarrassment of riches between 75mm and 105mm, so I'm sure I'll be happy.

Swift1 · 11-03-2016, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

- You're only going to be able to shoot at infinity.

Phil.

How come?

**gofour3** · 11-04-2016, 12:10 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Swift1

How come?

The 100/4 macro has a very small focusing range compared to a non macro "normal" lens like the 105/2.4.

The 105/2.4 has a distance marking of 75 feet/20 meters next to the infinity mark, the 100/4 has 10 feet/5 meters.

Here are three examples comparing the two lenses at home and assuming the distance scales on both lenses are somewhat accurate.

Example 1 Distant landscape shot and you don't care about the foreground being in focus, shooting with an aperture of f/8.

The focus ring infinity mark is set to the distance scale diamond marker,

105/2.4 will have infinity to 20 meters or about 70 feet in focus.
100/4 will have infinity to ?? in focus. The 100/4 has a tiny aperture range on the distance scale (only f/32 is marked) so you can't really tell.

Example 2 Distant landscape shot and you want as much of the foreground being in focus as possible, shooting with the minimum aperture on the lens.

Move the focus ring infinity mark to the distance scale aperture setting of f/22 on the 105/2.4 and f/32 on the 100/4.

105/2.4 will have infinity to 4.5 meters or about 15 feet in focus.
100/4 will have infinity to about 3 meters or 10 feet in focus.

Example 3 Isolate a subject that is 10 meters or 30 feet away, shooting with an aperture of f/11.

105/2.4 will have a focus range of 20 meters to about 6.5 meters or about 60 to 20 feet in focus.
100/4 not possible to focus on anything at that distance.

So as you can see the 100/4 is good at infinity, but does not have the focus range of a non macro lens. You turn the focus ring on the 100/4 a little bit and you are into the macro mode.

Phil.

Swift1 · 11-05-2016, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by gofour3

The 100/4 macro has a very small focusing range compared to a non macro "normal" lens like the 105/2.4.

The 105/2.4 has a distance marking of 75 feet/20 meters next to the infinity mark, the 100/4 has 10 feet/5 meters.

Here are three examples comparing the two lenses at home and assuming the distance scales on both lenses are somewhat accurate.

Example 1 Distant landscape shot and you don't care about the foreground being in focus, shooting with an aperture of f/8.

The focus ring infinity mark is set to the distance scale diamond marker,

105/2.4 will have infinity to 20 meters or about 70 feet in focus.
100/4 will have infinity to ?? in focus. The 100/4 has a tiny aperture range on the distance scale (only f/32 is marked) so you can't really tell.

Example 2 Distant landscape shot and you want as much of the foreground being in focus as possible, shooting with the minimum aperture on the lens.

Move the focus ring infinity mark to the distance scale aperture setting of f/22 on the 105/2.4 and f/32 on the 100/4.

105/2.4 will have infinity to 4.5 meters or about 15 feet in focus.
100/4 will have infinity to about 3 meters or 10 feet in focus.

Example 3 Isolate a subject that is 10 meters or 30 feet away, shooting with an aperture of f/11.

105/2.4 will have a focus range of 20 meters to about 6.5 meters or about 60 to 20 feet in focus.
100/4 not possible to focus on anything at that distance.

So as you can see the 100/4 is good at infinity, but does not have the focus range of a non macro lens. You turn the focus ring on the 100/4 a little bit and you are into the macro mode.

Phil.

So basically short focus throw from infinity to fairly close?
It would work but the distance scale isn't very accurate?
Optically it should work fine for landscape work.

**gofour3** · 11-05-2016, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Swift1

So basically short focus throw from infinity to fairly close?
It would work but the distance scale isn't very accurate?
Optically it should work fine for landscape work.

The aperture part of the distance scale is only about a 1/2 inch wide and only has f/32 marked, so yes it has a very short focus throw. Being so narrow it's hard to judge the distance using any aperture other than f/32.

Correct the 100/4 should be fine for landscapes at infinity. It also has the f/32 aperture so lots of DOF. The issue is isolating a subject between infinity and about 15 feet/5 meters, as the lens can't focus in that range.

Here is a shot of the lens front showing the distance scale. If you want I can do a few infinity landscape tests with the 100/4 next time I take one of my 6x7 bodies out for a shoot.

Let me know.

Thanks, Phil.

desertscape · 11-05-2016, 01:07 PM

If I owned this lens, I would put hyperfocal dots on the distance scale of the lens for f/8 and f/16 for landscape work. The 100 macro is rare and has a great reputation.

bensonga · 11-06-2016, 07:25 PM

Hmm....I normally start by focusing with the microprism and/or split image focusing screen and set my aperture depending on how much DOF I want, without relying on engraved focusing scales on a lens. Seems to work for me.

I agree that the 100/4 macro is an outstanding lens...whether for macro, landscape or most purposes.

Gary

**gofour3** · 11-07-2016, 10:28 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bensonga

Hmm....I normally start by focusing with the microprism and/or split image focusing screen and set my aperture depending on how much DOF I want, without relying on engraved focusing scales on a lens. Seems to work for me.

Interesting, I confess I'm a distance scale junkie for both 35mm & 6x7.

If I use a wide or normal lens and want infinity in focus with as much foreground DOF as I can get, I always use the distance scales:

I'll select an aperture after a test meter reading, then move the focus ring infinity marker to the distance scale aperture I'm using. I'll check the focus range on the distance scale to confirm that's what I want.

Then my last step before I trip the shutter is to do a visual DOF check with the lens AUTO/MAN lever.

That's the problem I have with using the 100/4 macro as a landscape lens, it distance scale is geared for magnification macro work.

Phil.

desertscape · 11-07-2016, 11:58 AM

Phil, you could use the DOF scale on the 105 lens to put hyperfocal distance marks on your 100 as a close guess. That's what I did for my 2 zooms but used several prime lenses as a guide. These hyperfocal marks should be temporary until proven with actual shots. Works well for landscape shots but for macro I use what Gary said above.

Swift1 · 11-10-2016, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

The aperture part of the distance scale is only about a 1/2 inch wide and only has f/32 marked, so yes it has a very short focus throw. Being so narrow it's hard to judge the distance using any aperture other than f/32.

Correct the 100/4 should be fine for landscapes at infinity. It also has the f/32 aperture so lots of DOF. The issue is isolating a subject between infinity and about 15 feet/5 meters, as the lens can't focus in that range.

Here is a shot of the lens front showing the distance scale. If you want I can do a few infinity landscape tests with the 100/4 next time I take one of my 6x7 bodies out for a shoot.

Let me know.

Thanks, Phil.

That would be problematic. I rely pretty heavily on the distance scale

wombat2go · 11-10-2016, 08:59 PM

Heavily ... - me too with my range finder MF cameras.
My favorite camera, the home built WomTak for Takumar 6x7 , relies completely on scale focussing.
The DOF is physics, based on focal length and f/- , and not a property of a particular lens.

So at f/16 the DOF is from inf down to about 4.8 metre on my 1:2.8/90mm (shown below) and should not be far different on the 100mm.

The difficulty is at wide apertures and close in, when the photographer has to estimate the far and near extents.
Here is a photo scale focussed with the WomTak and the 1:2.8/90mm. It was early morning in a dark alley, maybe f/5.6.
My focus was a bit off, so I used deconvolution in Fourier transform to improve the photo by expanding the DOF.
https://app.box.com/s/l2n4awkru70jmhoeg0z1kmaypn40jb29

**gofour3** · 11-12-2016, 11:15 AM

The 67 120/3.5 Soft is another specialty lens that can be used for landscapes. The problem is that it has no distance scale whatsoever. (Only shows the soft focus aperture scale)

From f/22 to f/11 the "soft" feature is off and it's just a regular 120mm lens, which is a pretty good focal length for landscapes. The lens is also a manual diaphragm, so stop down metering is required. However you have to focus/compose the shot at f/11, where there is no softness in the shot. At f3.5 the image is really soft and you can't focus or check the DOF properly.

Phil.

11-05-2016, 11:20 AM	#23
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	Originally posted by Swift1 So basically short focus throw from infinity to fairly close? It would work but the distance scale isn't very accurate? Optically it should work fine for landscape work. The aperture part of the distance scale is only about a 1/2 inch wide and only has f/32 marked, so yes it has a very short focus throw. Being so narrow it's hard to judge the distance using any aperture other than f/32. Correct the 100/4 should be fine for landscapes at infinity. It also has the f/32 aperture so lots of DOF. The issue is isolating a subject between infinity and about 15 feet/5 meters, as the lens can't focus in that range. Here is a shot of the lens front showing the distance scale. If you want I can do a few infinity landscape tests with the 100/4 next time I take one of my 6x7 bodies out for a shoot. Let me know. Thanks, Phil. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: (ON HOLD UNTIL JUNE 5) 50/1.7-28..105-80..200- N135/2.8-N28/3.5-G1-Sonnar 90/2.8	akptc	Sold Items	18	03-22-2015 10:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax PH-SB 67mm Hood for 6x7/67 90/2.8 and 105/2.4 Lenses	gofour3	Sold Items	1	02-24-2014 10:42 AM
For Sale - Sold: \|leica 90/2,8\|sigma 17-50/2,8\|Pentax K 28/f2\|takumar 105/2,8\|	ewig	Sold Items	10	02-03-2014 09:57 PM

11-03-2016, 12:39 PM	#16
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	The issues I see with using the 67 100/4 macro as a "normal" landscape lens are: - Cost, this lens will set you back around $500 or more, with the LSC and hood included. (you can get both the 90/2.8 and 105/2.4 for the same cost) - Filters you can only use screw-in 77mm filters and not the Pentax 77mm bayonet ones. The 77mm filters attach to the lens hood and not the lens. The lens itself does take 49mm screw-in filters and the hood is then attached to the 49mm filter. - You're only going to be able to shoot at infinity. I have the 67 100/4 macro and it's a great lens for macro shooting, but I'd never use it for landscapes. Phil.

11-03-2016, 02:34 PM	#17
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415	Originally posted by gofour3 I'd never use it for landscapes Very useful, Phil--thanks! FWIW, I really, really wished you hadn't compared the 75/2.8 AL to the K28/2 in your review.

11-03-2016, 04:35 PM	#18
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Originally posted by CreationBear Do you think having a faster lens as a fall-back for lowlight focusing would outweigh the economy of shared filters/hoods/etc.? This depends on your shooting style. If you do a lot of low light focusing, then yes, by all means go with the faster lenses. If you use hyperfocal settings on your lenses for landscape work, low light focusing is not an issue.

11-03-2016, 05:24 PM	#19
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415	Originally posted by desertscape If you do a lot of low light focusing That's usually the case for me here in the Southern Appalachian's--maybe not quite as dark as Silent Street's Australasian triple canopy, but our hollers don't see a lot of daylight. At any rate, it seems an embarrassment of riches between 75mm and 105mm, so I'm sure I'll be happy.

11-03-2016, 10:09 PM	#20
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079 Original Poster	Originally posted by gofour3 - You're only going to be able to shoot at infinity. Phil. How come?

11-04-2016, 12:10 PM - 1 Like	#21
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	Originally posted by Swift1 How come? The 100/4 macro has a very small focusing range compared to a non macro "normal" lens like the 105/2.4. The 105/2.4 has a distance marking of 75 feet/20 meters next to the infinity mark, the 100/4 has 10 feet/5 meters. Here are three examples comparing the two lenses at home and assuming the distance scales on both lenses are somewhat accurate. Example 1 Distant landscape shot and you don't care about the foreground being in focus, shooting with an aperture of f/8. The focus ring infinity mark is set to the distance scale diamond marker, 105/2.4 will have infinity to 20 meters or about 70 feet in focus. 100/4 will have infinity to ?? in focus. The 100/4 has a tiny aperture range on the distance scale (only f/32 is marked) so you can't really tell. Example 2 Distant landscape shot and you want as much of the foreground being in focus as possible, shooting with the minimum aperture on the lens. Move the focus ring infinity mark to the distance scale aperture setting of f/22 on the 105/2.4 and f/32 on the 100/4. 105/2.4 will have infinity to 4.5 meters or about 15 feet in focus. 100/4 will have infinity to about 3 meters or 10 feet in focus. Example 3 Isolate a subject that is 10 meters or 30 feet away, shooting with an aperture of f/11. 105/2.4 will have a focus range of 20 meters to about 6.5 meters or about 60 to 20 feet in focus. 100/4 not possible to focus on anything at that distance. So as you can see the 100/4 is good at infinity, but does not have the focus range of a non macro lens. You turn the focus ring on the 100/4 a little bit and you are into the macro mode. Phil.

11-05-2016, 10:05 AM	#22
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079 Original Poster	Originally posted by gofour3 The 100/4 macro has a very small focusing range compared to a non macro "normal" lens like the 105/2.4. The 105/2.4 has a distance marking of 75 feet/20 meters next to the infinity mark, the 100/4 has 10 feet/5 meters. Here are three examples comparing the two lenses at home and assuming the distance scales on both lenses are somewhat accurate. Example 1 Distant landscape shot and you don't care about the foreground being in focus, shooting with an aperture of f/8. The focus ring infinity mark is set to the distance scale diamond marker, 105/2.4 will have infinity to 20 meters or about 70 feet in focus. 100/4 will have infinity to ?? in focus. The 100/4 has a tiny aperture range on the distance scale (only f/32 is marked) so you can't really tell. Example 2 Distant landscape shot and you want as much of the foreground being in focus as possible, shooting with the minimum aperture on the lens. Move the focus ring infinity mark to the distance scale aperture setting of f/22 on the 105/2.4 and f/32 on the 100/4. 105/2.4 will have infinity to 4.5 meters or about 15 feet in focus. 100/4 will have infinity to about 3 meters or 10 feet in focus. Example 3 Isolate a subject that is 10 meters or 30 feet away, shooting with an aperture of f/11. 105/2.4 will have a focus range of 20 meters to about 6.5 meters or about 60 to 20 feet in focus. 100/4 not possible to focus on anything at that distance. So as you can see the 100/4 is good at infinity, but does not have the focus range of a non macro lens. You turn the focus ring on the 100/4 a little bit and you are into the macro mode. Phil. So basically short focus throw from infinity to fairly close? It would work but the distance scale isn't very accurate? Optically it should work fine for landscape work.

11-05-2016, 01:07 PM	#24
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	If I owned this lens, I would put hyperfocal dots on the distance scale of the lens for f/8 and f/16 for landscape work. The 100 macro is rare and has a great reputation.

11-06-2016, 07:25 PM	#25
bensonga Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Alaska Photos: Albums Posts: 149	Hmm....I normally start by focusing with the microprism and/or split image focusing screen and set my aperture depending on how much DOF I want, without relying on engraved focusing scales on a lens. Seems to work for me. I agree that the 100/4 macro is an outstanding lens...whether for macro, landscape or most purposes. Gary

11-07-2016, 10:28 AM - 1 Like	#26
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	Originally posted by bensonga Hmm....I normally start by focusing with the microprism and/or split image focusing screen and set my aperture depending on how much DOF I want, without relying on engraved focusing scales on a lens. Seems to work for me. Interesting, I confess I'm a distance scale junkie for both 35mm & 6x7. If I use a wide or normal lens and want infinity in focus with as much foreground DOF as I can get, I always use the distance scales: I'll select an aperture after a test meter reading, then move the focus ring infinity marker to the distance scale aperture I'm using. I'll check the focus range on the distance scale to confirm that's what I want. Then my last step before I trip the shutter is to do a visual DOF check with the lens AUTO/MAN lever. That's the problem I have with using the 100/4 macro as a landscape lens, it distance scale is geared for magnification macro work. Phil.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2016, 11:58 AM	#27
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Phil, you could use the DOF scale on the 105 lens to put hyperfocal distance marks on your 100 as a close guess. That's what I did for my 2 zooms but used several prime lenses as a guide. These hyperfocal marks should be temporary until proven with actual shots. Works well for landscape shots but for macro I use what Gary said above.

11-10-2016, 07:54 PM	#28
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079 Original Poster	Originally posted by gofour3 The aperture part of the distance scale is only about a 1/2 inch wide and only has f/32 marked, so yes it has a very short focus throw. Being so narrow it's hard to judge the distance using any aperture other than f/32. Correct the 100/4 should be fine for landscapes at infinity. It also has the f/32 aperture so lots of DOF. The issue is isolating a subject between infinity and about 15 feet/5 meters, as the lens can't focus in that range. Here is a shot of the lens front showing the distance scale. If you want I can do a few infinity landscape tests with the 100/4 next time I take one of my 6x7 bodies out for a shoot. Let me know. Thanks, Phil. That would be problematic. I rely pretty heavily on the distance scale

11-12-2016, 11:15 AM	#30
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,089	The 67 120/3.5 Soft is another specialty lens that can be used for landscapes. The problem is that it has no distance scale whatsoever. (Only shows the soft focus aperture scale) From f/22 to f/11 the "soft" feature is off and it's just a regular 120mm lens, which is a pretty good focal length for landscapes. The lens is also a manual diaphragm, so stop down metering is required. However you have to focus/compose the shot at f/11, where there is no softness in the shot. At f3.5 the image is really soft and you can't focus or check the DOF properly. Phil.