[baltochef920]

I am planning to transition into medium format film photography early next year (if finances allow!)..Actually, I'm going to make this happen, no matter what..I've been lusting for & dreaming about this camera for far too long..It's time to shake a leg & "Git 'er done"!!..

I plan to use the Pentax 67II body & several lenses to shoot black & white city scapes, as well as for handheld street photography..It will be my primary camera for at least a year..I am well aware of this camera's limitations as to its size, weight, & the problems regarding mirror slap & shutter curtain vibrations at certain mid-range shutter speeds..I have been seriously researching the 67II camera online for the past two years..

I am primarily interested in lenses ranging in focal length from the 35mm f4.5 Fish-Eye lens through the 200mm f4.0 short telephoto lens..My research indicates that lenses in these focal lengths will be most useful for the types of photography that I wish to practice..Although I will be pleased to learn about any of the many lenses longer in focal length than 200mm..

My questions for current & previous owners of a Pentax 67 camera (please specify which model you own, or owned) are this:

I would like to know which Pentax 67, or Takumar 6x7 lenses that you liked & used the most??.. What was your reason for owning a Pentax 67 camera??..Amateur or professional??..Studio, portrait, landscape, etc.??..

If possible, would you mind posting any photos that you might have that will illustrate your reasons for your lens preferences??..

Lastly, should we start a Pentax 67 & Takumar 6x7 Lens Club thread??..

Thanks to everyone that responds!!..

Bruce

[baltochef920]

Come on!!..

Are there no Pentax 6x7, 67, or 67II photographers here??..I know that some of you own the cameras..Are you no longer using them??..

Regards, Bruce

[Ron Boggs]

Love the 67II! When I first got one in about '99 or 2000 I stopped carrying my other camera gear and traveled with just the 67II's for a couple years.
I bought lenses based on covering certain needs. I've since seen reviews that confirm that the lenses I bought are the best in those general sizes. That was just dumb luck as I didn't research to compare for example the 55/4 vs the 45/4.

My favorites:
45/4 just awesome super wide, equal to about 22mm in 35mmslr terms. On my website under the Series 1 Gallery the Sea of Green photo came from this lens. Also The Fridge as two good examples.
100/4 Macro absolutely freekin' unbelievable. Again in the Series 1 Gallery look at the Tundra shot and the Yellowknife Spine--wow! Iced Roses too. My Cibachrome printer has had customers argue with him that the 30x40's from this lens must be large format...
M*300/4 this lens is a superior product that like the 100 Macro, was first introduced in '98 or '99 in conjunction with the 67II body. Again, examples in the Series 1 Gallery include Colorful Bands of Gypsum, and Winter Grays. I use this lens way more than I ever expected.
M*400/4 was purchased for wildlife work--yeah right--but does more duty as a landscape extraction tool for me. Painted Hills 1, 2 and 3 are examples of this lens with 1.4x converter. Three Ridges is a shot without the converter. Pussywillows was made with this lens too, but I can't recall if the 1.4x was needed or not?

You've probably read the luminous landscape reviews. If not please do then contact me to buy one of my 67II bodies with AE finder. Times are tough and I need to cut back to one 67II body. Not sure I could ever part with any of the lenses. Used them a bunch just this month. Coupled with my Hasselblad XpanII I'll be shooting film forever (yeah, I've got a bunch of Pentax digi bodies too, but for serious work and big enlargements, 6x7 film is one hell of a way to go). The good news is 67 lenses are pretty devalued in the market right now, so entry into the game isn't too bad...

Don't worry, you can't go wrong with the Pentax 67 system. Robert Glenn Ketchum--one of the most famous and influential outdoor photographers of the past 25 years relies on his much of the time. And the current Outdoor Photographer magazine has a major black and white article featuring another modern icon--Brazilian, Sebastio Selgado who relies on Pentax 645 for much of his work. Don't let the importance of digi get in the way of your quest for "another notch" as Emeril would say. Every time I work with my 67II's I think there's no need for the overstuffed digital kit and killer FA* lenses. But there is a need for digi as an "adjunct" to my professional 67 kit.

[Ron Boggs]

Also, a good friend uses his 67II handheld and almost exclusively with black and white. Several of his images from a 30 day photo excursion to Western European cities ended up as set decorations for shows like Xfiles and such. David Duchovny liked one of the shots so well he arranged to have a large print made of one of the set decoration images. The point here is you don't have to be on a tripod as I am. My buddy gives me grief for not handholding the camera, but he's a street photog and I'm a "backwoods" guy...
He really likes the 105/2.4 which I would have placed in my kit except that the 100/4 Macro fills that focal length for me and I don't need faster speed or less depth of field for most of my stuff.
He also likes his 55/4 though the reviewers seem to prefer the 45/4. He also shoots the 55-100 zoom (I think that's the size?) and likes it very much.

[Wheatfield]

Come on!!..

Are there no Pentax 6x7, 67, or 67II photographers here??..I know that some of you own the cameras..Are you no longer using them??..

Regards, Bruce

Sorry. I just haven't used my 6x7 for so long, it took me a while to remember. I have the 45, 75, 90leaf, 105, 135macro, 165leaf, 200 and 300 mm lenses.
Of the lot, I would say that I used them in the following order:
105, 135, 45, 165, 200, 300, 75.

The 105 is truly a stellar lens.
If you want the kit, it is for sale.

[frankphoto]

I am aprofessional who used it for aerial work until i found the 1Ds mark II was practically as sharp as the 67 negs scanned on a imacon i was shooting in a side by side informal comparison. This has since been confirmed by the PAPA international newsletter article. Great camera, big negs, roll film,handles like a 35mm slr, downside slow flash sync speed, heavey. I ahave system that i just might put in a glass case just to admire and Reminisce the older honeywell bodys make great door stops or bookends.
But than there is the mystic of film and real black metalic silver and the dynamic range unmatched in dig from a single exposure.! ! go for it - no format will ever really go away completely. good luck

[Shashinki]

I love the 90mm 2.8 (most recent one without the central shutter) because it has a close focusing distance of 0,65 meters. That's really handy for my style of photography!

[baltochef920]

Thanks for all the answers..

I am curious to know if anyone has any experience with the Super Takumar 6x7 or S-M-C Takumar 6x7 lenses??..

If so, what are your thoughts & opinions regarding the older 6x7 lenses versus their more modern counterparts??..

Bruce

[Don Boyd]

Bruce, here is a link to a Pentax 67 forum. You will be able to drown in information there.

Medium Format Photography forum from Photo.net -- Pentax 67

[baltochef920]

Bruce, here is a link to a Pentax 67 forum. You will be able to drown in information there.

Medium Format Photography forum from Photo.net -- Pentax 67

Don--

Thanks for the link..

Other than PentaxForums, the only other photography forums that I visit with any regularity are photo.net, Manual Focus Forums, The Figital Revolution, & Shorpy..

The purpose of this thread was to try & broaden my knowledge of Pentax 6x7 lenses over what I have learned elsewhere..

I am always eager to hear from new people that have experience with Pentax 6x7 cameras & lenses as you never know when you might learn something new & different..

I was hoping that there were people here on PentaxForums with Pentax 6x7 cameras & lenses that were not posting on photo.net or Manual Focus Forums..

Thanks again..

Bruce

[Tyler]

All I can say ,is I would get the 105 2.4 no matter what. It is such a great, cheap and produces downright amazing shots. Wide open is brutally sharp. Love love love it


But then again, its my only lense right now

[Ratmagiclady]

I used the old 6x7 years ago, with the older lenses. Nothing wrong with those, ...though I don't know if you lose any of the funcctionality the 67II might provide. It's been a long time.

I've been considering going to one of those for my medium format work, depending where I am by then. I'd start with somethign pretty close to 'normal' for that, depending on what your intended use is.

[lesmore49]

I rented a Pentax 6 X 7 for a weekend many years ago. It had the rosewood handle and the 90mm leaf shutter. It broke the head of my admittedly lighter duty tripod and as a result I bought a robust Leitz Tiltall.

The pictures were phenomenal. I always wanted a Pentax 6 X 7, never got one, got a Mamiya 220 Pro F (6 X 6) with the 180, 80 and 65 lens, a very good camera...still have it, in excellent condition.

If I had got a Pentax 6 X 7, I would of got the 90 mm leaf shutter and the rosewood handle. A fine camera.

[D W]

Super Taqkumar is the first version with single coating. SMC stood for SUper Multi Coated which has multi coating. given the same optical formulae I would take a SmC over a plian Super.
But you have to check to see if besides the SMC are there other changes.

[araki67]

I have the first version of 55mm f3.5 and also the latest version f4 (that I love), but for black and white shoot, I prefer to use the first version f3.5 that give me more contrast films, for the other applications the latest one is better, IMHO.