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.
Morning, folks!
I'm brand new to the Pentax family and to medium format film in general. I caught the bug when I stumbled across a Lomo Lubitel at a garage sale last summer. But I didn't start shooting until last month, when I met up with a buddy who has a Pentax 67 and a Mamiya 645.
Needless to say I fell in love with the 67. The hand-holdability, the max shutter speed, the low price, the SLR form factor... and the
mojo of the handle. I got really lucky and found a 67 (not 6x7) with a TTL viewfinder, 75mm f/4.5 lens, handle, and strap for a fantastic price. The body is in amazing shape, too. So I am very happy and I am looking to expand my lens collection.
I opted to go with the 150mm f/2.8 vs the 165mm f 2.8 for two reasons:
1) My buddy has the 165 already, and I want to somewhat compliment his lens selection for when we shoot together
2) I read on the forums here that the 150 is basically the same quality but for a cheaper price. I can't attest to the quality, but certainly the Ebay price was easier on my wallet than the 165.
Now to my question!
I'm looking for a wide-angle lens to compliment my portrait length (150) and my normal length (75). I want to use it for landscapes and architectural photography mostly. In general, I want to use this camera for fine art/portrait photography, walk around/street photography, and landscapes/architectural photos.
Again, I am looking to save coin (because I have a DSLR that is my true workhorse and pride and joy). Should I:
1) Spend the "big bucks" (looks like $250-300) on the 45mm?
2) Save some money (spend about $200-220) on the 55mm f/4? (FYI, my buddy has this lens, too)
3) Go with what seems like the cheapest option ($150ish) an go with the 55mm f/3.5?
4) Just stick with my 75mm, because its somewhat wide, and spend my extra scratch on another lens, like the 105?
Of course, the concern with the 100mm diameter 55m, f/3.5 is finding appropriate filters. That being said, I plan on scanning all of my negatives and processing them in lightroom/photoshop. Will I need to rely on filters, and if not, should I just save the money (and look SO COOL with the HUGE diameter) and go with the f/3.5? What are the pros and cons for each of these lenses? Is there any reason I simply MUST HAVE the 45mm?
Second question:
It seems like you can save quite quite a bit of money by accepting lenses with fog, scratches on the elements, fungus, balsam separation, banged up threading, etc. This may be an obvious answer, but I should steer clear of all of those issues, right?
Particularly for a wide-angle, where I am likely to stop way down for landscapes?
Third and final question! Is there a place other than Ebay I should be looking for to find better deals on lenses?
Thank you so much for the help-- hope to hear from you all soon!