[Femto1969]

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.

---

Hi, friends,

I returned from my trip to Seattle and just started developing and making prints. To get more familiar with the process, I started with rolls of film I shot back home, so if I goof it won't be on something I can't replace.

I have to say, I'm blown away by the 67 system, particularly with the candid portrait shots I got with the 150mm 2.8.



I'm so excited by the outcome that I'm totally willing to spend some more money to take the portraits to the next level. I'm shooting my friends' wedding in a few months and they want me to take a couple rolls of film. I want to ensure that I can take portraits in tighter spaces than the 150 will allow.

So the question is: do I go for the 105 f/2.4 or the 90 f/2.8? I don't have money for both.

My kit currently includes the Pentax 67 (80s model), 55mm f/4, 75mm f/4.5, 150mm f/2.8, and the 200mm f/4. I like taking portraits, landscapes, street, and architectural shots.

I'm very much leaning towards the 105 because of all of its fame. And apparently it has a similar swirly background blur to my 150mm. That might be nice for continuity of my work. Also, the extra half stop of light is amazing.

Both lenses are compact enough for me.

But several claim the 90mm is more versatile. I like doing street photography. Allegedly this lens is better for those purposes. It also has the leaf shutter so if I ever want to work with flash, it will be much easier with this lens. But I almost never use flash, especially with film. Maybe I would start if I had an LS lens. Another thing to consider is that this lens runs about $100 more than the 105. Which matters to me right now since I've spend gobs of money on my kit and darkroom materials.

Based on your experience, what would you do? I guess I don't NEED either one... I could stick with my 150 and still get outstanding results. But I would love to have more versatility for this system. And I think either the 105 or 90 would provide that for me.

Thanks!

[Alex645]

Between the 90mm and 105mm, I'd recommend the 105 f/2.4 for portraits. The 90mm is too close to normal and your 75mm. Of course you can always crop, but you won't get the same quality of bokeh from the 90 as you would from the 105.

Yes the 90mm is more versatile, but for your usage, I think the 105mm makes more sense in your kit. Post some of your work; would love to see it.

[Ed Hurst]

Hi, friends,

I returned from my trip to Seattle and just started developing and making prints. To get more familiar with the process, I started with rolls of film I shot back home, so if I goof it won't be on something I can't replace.

I have to say, I'm blown away by the 67 system, particularly with the candid portrait shots I got with the 150mm 2.8.



I'm so excited by the outcome that I'm totally willing to spend some more money to take the portraits to the next level. I'm shooting my friends' wedding in a few months and they want me to take a couple rolls of film. I want to ensure that I can take portraits in tighter spaces than the 150 will allow.

So the question is: do I go for the 105 f/2.4 or the 90 f/2.8? I don't have money for both.

My kit currently includes the Pentax 67 (80s model), 55mm f/4, 75mm f/4.5, 150mm f/2.8, and the 200mm f/4. I like taking portraits, landscapes, street, and architectural shots.

I'm very much leaning towards the 105 because of all of its fame. And apparently it has a similar swirly background blur to my 150mm. That might be nice for continuity of my work. Also, the extra half stop of light is amazing.

Both lenses are compact enough for me.

But several claim the 90mm is more versatile. I like doing street photography. Allegedly this lens is better for those purposes. It also has the leaf shutter so if I ever want to work with flash, it will be much easier with this lens. But I almost never use flash, especially with film. Maybe I would start if I had an LS lens. Another thing to consider is that this lens runs about $100 more than the 105. Which matters to me right now since I've spend gobs of money on my kit and darkroom materials.

Based on your experience, what would you do? I guess I don't NEED either one... I could stick with my 150 and still get outstanding results. But I would love to have more versatility for this system. And I think either the 105 or 90 would provide that for me.

Thanks!

Hello there,

Delighted to hear how much you are enjoying the system - it's wonderful!

Firstly, a point of clarification - there are two main versions of the 90mm f2.8. One of them has the leaf shutter, the other does not. Are you sure you're looking at an L/S version? From my experience, the L/S version is optically not as good as the non-L/S. (There are also sub-variants of the 90mm from different eras with different coatings, but this is a less important distinction)

Given the lenses you have already, I would go for the 105mm. This is partly because it represents a more even spacing in your lens range (you already have a 75mm and a 150mm, so the 90 would be rather close to the 75; the 105 would cover the gap more evenly). The extra speed might help you to focus in dark situations (which weddings often have). But it is certainly a trade-off; if the 105mm is too long, the 90mm might just help and, although you can use the 75mm, yours is the f4.5 version, so you'd be trading off coverage with speed. So there's no perfect answer here.

In your position, I'd get the 105mm. It is a lovely lens. I still use mine on my 645Z with an adaptor.

[Silent Street]

So the question is: do I go for the 105 f/2.4 or the 90 f/2.8? I don't have money for both. My kit currently includes the Pentax 67 (80s model), 55mm f/4, 75mm f/4.5, 150mm f/2.8, and the 200mm f/4. I like taking portraits, landscapes, street, and architectural shots.

You clearly are smitten by the 67 bug after that Sleepless in Seattle junket. Bravo.

You are already set up well for portaiture (and landscape!), e.g. with the 150mm f2.8 and the 75mm f4.5. It is not worth your while spending a thousand on the snappier and touchy-feely 75mm f2.8AL lens (it is a gem to use). Otherwise, for close-in snaps, the 90mm f2.8 (I have this too) is an excellent performer, and you do I think have to consider the f2.8 over the slower f4 lenses, especially if (gulp) it rains on the parade. I definitely would say that in terms of versatility, the 75 and 90 are great; the small gap can make a difference in specific encounters in the landscape, but probably not so much in active portraiture.

If you are going to be using flash/strobes (e.g. in a studio setting or on-site set-up), angle for the harder to find leaf-shutter version (90mm f2.8 LS) which will extend sync right up to 1/500th over the piddly poor and deplorably daffy 67/s native sync of 1/30th. The click-fit hood for the 90mm (as opposed to the bay 67 petal-shape fitting of the 75 2.8AL) is a big, deep square thing — an impressive vintage 70s look like some Hassie lenses. I've had stickybeaks approach the 67 and stare point blank into the hood asking me "what's in there mate...?". <*groan*>

There are recent concerns with some 105mm lenses of an irregularly shaped (semi-rectangular) aperture when closed down. The significance of this is not critical in use, but may be indicative of heavy use, or damage occasioned by a fall. Or just old age (you know, you'll get irregular and odd in old age too...). If going for this lens, scrutinise the aperture from open wide open to closed right down; also operation of the aperture ring for smoothness and the rotation of the focus barrel, feeling for scratchiness, rattling or movement. Pretty much avoid knocked about specimens.

You could carry off that wedding with the lenses you have (I'll bet the 75 and 150). Anything more, apart from being speculative at this time, if added could be superfluous (quite apart from weighing you down at a time when nimble-footedness is quite the requirement chasing peeps).

---

Last edited by Silent Street; 07-11-2017 at 12:18 AM.

[splash_fr]

I would recommend the 105, it is incredible for portraits. You might want to get extension tubes as well. And maybe a waist level finder to get some different perspectives very easily. And it is nice for street as well.
If you really want to blow the bank i can recommend the 75AL, which is a wow-lens. But you already habe the slower one...

rgds,
gerd.

[WPRESTO]

FYI for 6X7 lovers. Many decades back (1970's as I recall) in the merchant's room at a large scientific meeting, I met a photographer who specialized in selling 35mm slides of geologic features for use in classroom. His images were spectacular. He used a Pentax 67 to take the originals, then copied them onto 35mm slide film. I questioned whether he might lose detail this way, as the rule of thumb is, an image tends to degrade a bit each time it passes through another post-exposure step. He said on the contrary, his experiments clearly showed that the 6X7-to-35mm route retained far more detail than any direct 35mm image he could get with several systems that he had tried (including Nikon).

I also met a pro doing a shoot for a magazine ad for perfume on the Virgin Islands. He had two 67 bodies and two assistants, one to hand over the second 67 loaded with film and reload the 67 with a spent roll, the other to handle a huge reflector. Also two beautiful models who changed in a sort of bag each time they switched turns being in front of the camera. The ladies waded out into the water, looked elegant, exotic, sexy, seductive, then quick-quick, second camera, second model in different clothing, do it again. Ten rolls of film or more shot, for one magazine ad picture, for perfume, but never once a bottle of the product to be seen.

[Femto1969]

You clearly are smitten by the 67 bug after that Sleepless in Seattle junket. Bravo.

You are already set up well for portaiture (and landscape!), e.g. with the 150mm f2.8 and the 75mm f4.5. It is not worth your while spending a thousand on the snappier and touchy-feely 75mm f2.8AL lens (it is a gem to use). Otherwise, for close-in snaps, the 90mm f2.8 (I have this too) is an excellent performer, and you do I think have to consider the f2.8 over the slower f4 lenses, especially if (gulp) it rains on the parade. I definitely would say that in terms of versatility, the 75 and 90 are great; the small gap can make a difference in specific encounters in the landscape, but probably not so much in active portraiture.

If you are going to be using flash/strobes (e.g. in a studio setting or on-site set-up), angle for the harder to find leaf-shutter version (90mm f2.8 LS) which will extend sync right up to 1/500th over the piddly poor and deplorably daffy 67/s native sync of 1/30th. The click-fit hood for the 90mm (as opposed to the bay 67 petal-shape fitting of the 75 2.8AL) is a big, deep square thing — an impressive vintage 70s look like some Hassie lenses. I've had stickybeaks approach the 67 and stare point blank into the hood asking me "what's in there mate...?". <*groan*>

There are recent concerns with some 105mm lenses of an irregularly shaped (semi-rectangular) aperture when closed down. The significance of this is not critical in use, but may be indicative of heavy use, or damage occasioned by a fall. Or just old age (you know, you'll get irregular and odd in old age too...). If going for this lens, scrutinise the aperture from open wide open to closed right down; also operation of the aperture ring for smoothness and the rotation of the focus barrel, feeling for scratchiness, rattling or movement. Pretty much avoid knocked about specimens.

You could carry off that wedding with the lenses you have (I'll bet the 75 and 150). Anything more, apart from being speculative at this time, if added could be superfluous (quite apart from weighing you down at a time when nimble-footedness is quite the requirement chasing peeps).

Thanks Silent Street. Since I don't need a leaf shutter lens, and since I already have the 75 f/4.5 and the 150 f/2.8, you think I'm good without either 105 or 90? That's certainly the cheapest option. I'm just concerned about not having a normal focal length lens that's below f/4. For the occasional indoor shot or for any outdoor work. The p67 viewfinder is so dark (why is that?) that I have trouble focusing the 75mm f/4 in even plenty of light. is the 105 tremendously easier to focus?

Thanks to everyone else who commented as well - it seems like the 105 is the crowd favorite.

[Silent Street]

Thanks Silent Street. Since I don't need a leaf shutter lens, and since I already have the 75 f/4.5 and the 150 f/2.8, you think I'm good without either 105 or 90? That's certainly the cheapest option. I'm just concerned about not having a normal focal length lens that's below f/4. For the occasional indoor shot or for any outdoor work. The p67 viewfinder is so dark (why is that?) that I have trouble focusing the 75mm f/4 in even plenty of light. is the 105 tremendously easier to focus?

There isn't a 'uuge or bigly difference in size between the 75 and 90mm, or the 90mm and 105mm. Go what the gut instinct tells you. But the 105mm never sat well with me and I sold it off (2010 I think). You should, definitely, have at least one 'normal' or 'squat' lens at f2.8 and below that tele 150mm that you can fall back on in bugger-all conditions.

The 67 focusing screen can be changed to something more helpful than the disagreeably dark and coarse native focusing screen (like peering through an outback duststorm at 6pm) — if you can find such a screen e.g. the grid style for architecture or the microprism type. It is a pain to focus with an f4 lens + polariser in e.g. heavy overcast light. Hint though: dust off the 'puter, prep an A3 landscape page and cover it with 3cm spaced horizontal and vertical lines (forming a cross).Then laminate it. Stuff it in your pack and whip it out and sit it in the scene to enable easier focusing. Others still use crinkled up aluminium foil. Most often I take the polariser off which makes a difference. Or swap to an f2.8 lens (instantly stops swearing and cussing).

[Femto1969]

There isn't a 'uuge or bigly difference in size between the 75 and 90mm, or the 90mm and 105mm. Go what the gut instinct tells you. But the 105mm never sat well with me and I sold it off (2010 I think). You should, definitely, have at least one 'normal' or 'squat' lens at f2.8 and below that tele 150mm that you can fall back on in bugger-all conditions.

The 67 focusing screen can be changed to something more helpful than the disagreeably dark and coarse native focusing screen (like peering through an outback duststorm at 6pm) — if you can find such a screen e.g. the grid style for architecture or the microprism type. It is a pain to focus with an f4 lens + polariser in e.g. heavy overcast light. Hint though: dust off the 'puter, prep an A3 landscape page and cover it with 3cm spaced horizontal and vertical lines (forming a cross).Then laminate it. Stuff it in your pack and whip it out and sit it in the scene to enable easier focusing. Others still use crinkled up aluminium foil. Most often I take the polariser off which makes a difference. Or swap to an f2.8 lens (instantly stops swearing and cussing).

Thanks again for the tips, Silent Street. At this point my gut is telling me to go for the 105. I've seen the images produced by it on Flickr and I am blown away. I think it will match my 150 and 75 very nicely.

I've read that changing the focusing screens on the P67 is difficult to the point of frustration. I've also read that they are rare to find. Are replacement screens really that much brighter? Is the screen the reason why this system is so dark compared to a Hassie?

Any tips on where to find the replacement screens and how to replace them? Or also about how to find a cheapish waist-level finder... I think I would enjoy using one for street and some portrait work. It could also lighten my load. I learned the hard way, hiking up My. Sy with 30lbs of 67 gear, that any way to trim down on bulk is a measure worth taking.

Thanks!

[CreationBear]

hiking up My. Sy with 30lbs of 67 gear

Ha, my last 10-mile jog through the Smokies with my 67 and a three-lens kit had me having Grail visions of a Fuji XT-1.



At any rate, I've not the experience of the other posters, but I will say that the chimney finder was a real make-or-break factor of me staying with the system. (And looking through it with the 105/2.4 mounted is really a religious experience.) Regarding the 105/2.4 specifically, I put it in the same category as my K35/3.5 in that the focal length magically seems optimal for every shot I line up.

[Femto1969]

What is it about the chimney finder that's so wonderful? I can imagine being able to peer down into the finder at my waist could be amazingly effortless. But pulling the camera up to my face and looking down into it instead of straight through it seems strenuous. Are you talking about just for tripod use? I didn't really have a problem jacking the 'pod up another 10 inches to my eyeball with the prism viewfinder.

[CreationBear]

What is it about the chimney finder that's so wonderful?

Ha, no doubt a lot of its attraction to me is my middle-aged eyes--it might be my imagination, but with the 3x (I believe) diopter with a fast lens attached, I can focus easier than I can with Live View on my K5. As for usage, I do mostly tripod work, but I really haven't had a trouble shooting handheld either. Of course, the fly in the ointment is using the camera in portrait orientation--probably not doable handheld, and a bit of contortionist's act even on a tripod.

[gofour3]

So the question is: do I go for the 105 f/2.4 or the 90 f/2.8? I don't have money for both.

My kit currently includes the Pentax 67 (80s model), 55mm f/4, 75mm f/4.5, 150mm f/2.8, and the 200mm f/4. I like taking portraits, landscapes, street, and architectural shots.

Get the latest version of the 105/2.4 and you are set, it will fit nicely between your 75mm and 150mm. After that if you really want a good 6x7 LS portrait lens then the 67 165/4 is excellent.

Phil.

[Silent Street]

What is it about the chimney finder that's so wonderful? I can imagine being able to peer down into the finder at my waist could be amazingly effortless. But pulling the camera up to my face and looking down into it instead of straight through it seems strenuous. Are you talking about just for tripod use? I didn't really have a problem jacking the 'pod up another 10 inches to my eyeball with the prism viewfinder.

A chimney finder is only useful for continuous landscape (horizontal) orientation shooting. Presumably you are aware of the awkwardness when you want a photo in the portrait (vertical) with the camera tilted and you have to look through the chimney any which way you can!

Phil is right re the 165LS lens, it is a surprisingly excellent lens for anything other than portraiture e.g landscape. Just a bit on the heavy side.

[Silent Street]

I've read that changing the focusing screens on the P67 is difficult to the point of frustration. I've also read that they are rare to find. Are replacement screens really that much brighter? Is the screen the reason why this system is so dark compared to a Hassie?

Three screws, a drewscriver and the patience of a Hindu cow...

It can be a DIY job, but you must calibrate the screen at 3 points of focus in the centre with a reliable infinity-focus lens.
Occasionally screens pop up on the used market, and often at obscene prices (e.g. profit-taking HK/Japan causes this).
Opened a FleaBay page thusly...
Asahi Pentax 67 6x7 Focusing Screen 83600 | eBay
and this one from Beattie—
Pentax 67 6x7 focusing screen and fresnel. central microprism spot | eBay
(This screen, if fitted, would require exposure compensation, a bit tricky with the 6x7 / 67, but a doddle with a hand-held meter).

So they definitely do float around out there!