[CreationBear]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I (finally!) pulled the trigger and have a P 67 and 45/4 in-bound from a nice gent on another forum, so I'm wondering what my options are for the lens. Specifically, with this wide of a lens, do I need to worry about vignetting with "normal" thickness CPL's, or do I need to look for thinner options? Also, will a typical, round "wide angle" 82mm hood work, or is the FOV wide enough that the OEM rectangular shade is the way to go?


At any rate, it's an exciting prospect for me to start building the kit, though no doubt I'll be bumping my head against the steep end of the learning curve in short order...

[gofour3]

I (finally!) pulled the trigger and have a P 67 and 45/4 in-bound from a nice gent on another forum, so I'm wondering what my options are for the lens. Specifically, with this wide of a lens, do I need to worry about vignetting with "normal" thickness CPL's, or do I need to look for thinner options? Also, will a typical, round "wide angle" 82mm hood work, or is the FOV wide enough that the OEM rectangular shade is the way to go?


At any rate, it's an exciting prospect for me to start building the kit, though no doubt I'll be bumping my head against the steep end of the learning curve in short order...

A polarizer will cause no issues on the 45/4 and OEM square hood, however I would not use another type of hood.


Phil.

[Silent Street]

You can use a standard profile polariser or a low profile ('slimline') one. There is no vignetting with this lens. However, the specific lens hood for the 45/f4 is a clip-on type and will not work on most slimline filters e.g. B+W with no front-filter threads; there must be a filter thread for the tangs to grip into. The hood is a low profile affair in itself and many people (wrongly!) assume it is not up to the task of protecting against stray light striking the lens. It is. The hood has been designed to clear the wide angle of view of the 45/f4, and it does well for off-axis stray light. The rest is up to the photographer!

You can use either a linear or a circular polariser with the P67, which has a rudimentary TTL meter (circular polarisers are required for modern-era matrix/evaluative/3D/ whatever they are called type meters). And linear polarisers (where they can be found) are cheaper to boot.

I have not seen an after-market hood for the 45mm f4; maybe JJD (Chinese) makes one; howevver I think the original/OEM would be a better investment -- unfortunately these things can be quite pricey, but looked after they will last a long time.

My first lens was the 55mm f4. The second was the 45mm f4. The third was the 165mm f4 LS. The fourth...oh, never mind. You do know where this "kit building" thing is taking you!?

[gofour3]

"normal" thickness CPL's

And linear polarisers (where they can be found) are cheaper to boot.

A BIG +1 for a linear polarizer!

You only need a CPL for the 67II AE metered prism. If you are using any other 67/6x7 prism/finder or a hand held light-meter, then save some money and get a LPL.

Phil.

[CreationBear]

You do know where this "kit building" thing is taking you!?

Phil/Silent Street-- Thanks for the insights, gents: the linear polarizer had been in the back of my mind, but I hadn't got around to sourcing any. As for the hood, with my K-mount lenses I've gotten into the habit of keeping a CPL and round, metal hood attached at all times--the less faffing about whilst perched on gnarly terrain, the better--but compared to what the large format guys go through, attaching a hood at the last minute probably isn't a deal breaker.


At any rate, I suspect the problem with "kit building" with the 67 system isn't just the damage it does to your pocketbook, but to (middle age) cartilage--as much as I would love to have one, an M* 300 probably isn't in the cards for humping over hill and dale.

[desertscape]

an M* 300 probably isn't in the cards for humping over hill and dale.

The 200 Pentax with the 1.4X converter is made for us aging folks. The 300 EDIF is a beast.
Don't scrimp on Polarizers. The cheap ones are truly bad.

[CreationBear]

200 Pentax with the 1.4X converter

A bit friendlier on the budget as well--as I mentioned to Colton, that lens has to be one of the all-time bargains right now.

[Silent Street]

As a postscript, all of my polarisers are of the circular POL type as they interchange with lenses in my Canon EF system, which requires that type of POL because of the (evaluative) metering.

I haven't seen any linear polarises for many years, but I'm sure they still exist.

[gofour3]

I haven't seen any linear polarises for many years, but I'm sure they still exist.

Looks like Schneider Optics has discontinued them, but you can probably still find the Linear ones on ebay.

Most of mine are B+W Kaesemnan "TOP" Linear Polarizers:

From the Schneider website:

5. What is the difference between a Linear and a Circular Polarizer?

A Circular Polarizer is a Linear Polarizer with a 1/ 4 wave plate retarder added to the back of the polarizer foil. Circular Polarizers are necessary when using an SLR/DSLR that has a beam splitter which is used for internal light meter reading. The beam splitter polarizes light and depending upon the position of the polarizer, you may cause double polarization and therefore result in inaccurate meter readings. Circular Polarizers are also necessary for auto focus cameras.

TIP: In any case in which linear polarizing filters suffice, circular polarizing filters can also be used, but not the other way around.

Note: B+W Linear polarizers have been discontinued.



6. What is a Kaesemann polarizer?

Käsemann was an independent German company renowned for manufacturing some of the highest quality polarizer materialin the world. Schneider Krueznach purchased the company in 1989.

The quality and consistency of Käsemann material is uniform and neutral in color.Moisture from humidity will destroy polarizing material if delamination occurs. The latest cementing technique used on these filters prevents delamination.Käsemann Circular Polarizers come with MRC (Multi-Resistant Coating).


Phil.

[desertscape]

A bit friendlier on the budget as well--as I mentioned to Colton, that lens has to be one of the all-time bargains right now.

What is amazing about the 200 Pentax / 1.4X combination is that the performance is similar to the 300 EDIF.

[CreationBear]

What is amazing about the 200 Pentax

Thanks for the advice, gents--I think I'll wait until I get the 45/4 in-hand before tricking it out too much...its FOV is so wide, I might be at a loss how to use it. The 200/4 that Steve mentions isn't as intimidating to somebody who likes short tele's on a crop sensor--so much so I have one in-bound this afternoon.

[johnsey]

To add an alternate opinion/option.... You could also consider investing in a filter holder system rather than investing in a premium CPL for each lens thread you own. I decided to go that route as before adding separate filters for the 82mm thread as it provides more flexibility in adding grads and and ND filters for those landscape shots.

[CreationBear]

To add an alternate opinion/option

Thanks for the input! I have to admit that the Lee system has been on my radar for a while now, but as is the case with a lot of high-end equipment, I've had trouble reconciling the price with my skill level. "Buy once, cry once" has a certain internal logic, but sometimes domestic harmony is its own reward...

[gofour3]

To add an alternate opinion/option.... You could also consider investing in a filter holder system rather than investing in a premium CPL for each lens thread you own. I decided to go that route as before adding separate filters for the 82mm thread as it provides more flexibility in adding grads and and ND filters for those landscape shots.

Yeah that's an option I'm using for ND filters on my 6x7 82mm filter thread lenses, like the 45/4.

Pentax made an 6x7 82mm filter holder (as well as 67mm & 100mm) that accepts Kodak Wratten filters. (75mm square)

Kodak Wratten 2 filters

Pentax-6x7-Gel-Filter-Holder-82mm

Phil.

[Silent Street]

Yeah that's an option I'm using for ND filters on my 6x7 82mm filter thread lenses, like the 45/4.

Pentax made an 6x7 82mm filter holder (as well as 67mm & 100mm) that accepts Kodak Wratten filters. (75mm square)

Kodak Wratten 2 filters

Pentax-6x7-Gel-Filter-Holder-82mm

Phil.

The OP is going to love this...
Be it noted the SMC-P 45mm f4 has a rear filter holder that accepts cut-to-size Kodak Wratten filters e.g. Skylight 1A/B, 81A etc. The holder is barely noticeable; a slight, upturned groove is the only hint; lift it easy-does-it, and ... ta-da! A slim filter can be slipped under there. Many, many people do not realise this small point on the lens; the most recent revelation I show this to was a man who has used the lens since 1996 and had no idea a filter could be fitted into the rear holder!!

The trouble with Lee and other filters is they are difficult to keep clean, fracture easily and do not sit well with high-performance corrected lenses. In 40 years of practice I have never once used any acrylic or plastic filter or material in front of my lenses. YMMV.