[_tedd]

Hi guys,


I recently sold my Rolleiflex 2.8c as I wanted something a bit more modern and an SLR form factor. I've ordered a 645 (first gen, to test the waters) and SMC Pentax 105mm f2.4 + adapter, as this looks like a pretty magical lens for portrait work. I'd like one other lens to round out the kit in a 'normal' focal length. Is the slow speed and larger size worth it for the matching 67 lens or should I just grab the native 645 mount?


I have matched my Leica kit around three lenses with the same lead designer, factory and build date within 5 years of each other as I am a bit of a stickler for keeping as similar a look as possible throughout a kit - this makes me lean toward the 67.


Thoughts appreciated.



Thanks!

[tuco]

My first thought is what kind of portrait/portraiture work do you like? I mean, shots with very shallow DOF or ones with the subject noticably in focus. Head shots, 3/4 body or full body. Candid or posed type pictures. Answers to some of those situations tell me if I'd want f4 or f2.8 for a portrait lens assuming I could only have one instead getting both. Also, a 55mm on 6x4.5 format is a moderate wide angle lens.

[barondla]

Hi guys,


I recently sold my Rolleiflex 2.8c as I wanted something a bit more modern and an SLR form factor. I've ordered a 645 (first gen, to test the waters) and SMC Pentax 105mm f2.4 + adapter, as this looks like a pretty magical lens for portrait work. I'd like one other lens to round out the kit in a 'normal' focal length. Is the slow speed and larger size worth it for the matching 67 lens or should I just grab the native 645 mount?


I have matched my Leica kit around three lenses with the same lead designer, factory and build date within 5 years of each other as I am a bit of a stickler for keeping as similar a look as possible throughout a kit - this makes me lean toward the 67.


Thoughts appreciated.



Thanks!

First welcome to Pentax and the forum. I believe your question is going to be difficult to answer. I don't doubt people are going to recommend stellar lenses. But, you are asking for lenses that render the same. That could be trickier. I find the 645 DFA 55mm 2.8 an amazing lens but does it look like a 6x7 lens? It doesn't look like the three I own ( 75, 165, 200). I've yet to shoot a 6x7 105. Good luck.
Thanks,
barondla

[rdenney]

I don't find the 67 105 to be magical, but it's a nice, fast long-normal for the 6x7 format, which makes a nice, fast short tele for 6x4.5. It's a double-gauss normal lens design that's fast enough to provide fairly narrow selective focus. But it's not magical.

The 67 SMC Pentax 55/4 is really an excellent landscape lens indeed, second in my bag only to the 45. The 55 is probably sharper than the 45, but the 45 is more useful for the say I see landscapes.

Nothing will be sharper than the DFA 55/2.8 for the 645d/z--it's a much newer design. But you won't find one for $159, either. In that focal range with P645 film bodies, however, I always used a 45-85 zoom. My normal lens for that format was the 75LS, and for telephoto portraits, I used an adapted Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which is magic.

Rick "645 film bodies not getting much use these days" Denney

[johnha]

Choices, choices... On the original 645 you're really limited to either the 645 A55/2.8 or a 67 55mm (there are three versions) - the 645 D-FA 55 doesn't have an aperture ring, limiting it to Program or Tv modes.

As a 67 shooter myself, I'd probably go for the late 67 55/4 to give me more options. That said, I have the D-FA which is my preference for my 645D (the posts above suggest I got it for a bargain).

As for keeping it consistent, Pentax 6x7 glass comes in four main flavours - Super Takumar 6x7, Super-Multi-Coated 6x7 (both mostly metal barrelled with gorgeous Takumar fluting) and later SMC 6x7 and lastly SMC 67 (progressively more plastic and rubber). The formulas in many of these lenses are identical across the decades, however the 55, 75, 90, 200 & 300 came in later versions with notable improvements.

Consistency may depend on which version of the 105 you've got, the 'early' 6x7 55mm f/3.5 might fit in better with an earlier 6x7 Takumar style 105, and also gets good ratings (but takes huge filters). Check out the 6x7 lens reviews: Pentax 67 Wide-Angle Primes - Lens Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[tuco]

The optics are the same for the 90mm between the 67 and 6x7 (1980) generations. It's the leaf shutter version that is different.

The optics are unchanged between the 1969, 1971 and 1989 versions of the 75mm/f4.5. It's the 75mm 2.8 and shift lens that have different optics.

[Ed Hurst]

The optics are the same for the 90mm between the 67 and 6x7 (1980) generations. It's the leaf shutter version that is different.

The optics are unchanged between the 1969, 1971 and 1989 versions of the 75mm/f4.5. It's the 75mm 2.8 and shift lens that have different optics.

Indeed that is so :-). There are differences in the coatings, which make some difference in some situations. And of course the user experience is altered a little due to changes in the physical design of the lens barrel, focusing ring, etc.. But it remains true that the basic optical design of those specific lenses didn't change between those versions.

[Silent Street]

The 75 2.8AL was the replacement for the rattly 55mm f4; as good as that lens was with RA-4 prints produced up to almost a metre across, the internal rattle that developed a year after use really annoyed me. I'd had my eyes on the 'feather-touch' focusing 75AL for some time before taking the plunge, and have absolutely no regrets. Two colleagues use this for portraiture and product sampling. It has an entirely different and unique look far apart from anything else in the Pentax stable, probably sharing sharpness, contrast and fidelity characteristics with the ED tele lens. Other than 75AL, the 90mm f2.8 non-LS is used for those occasions I do portraiture (not often). I see Japanese eBay sellers are asking $3,600 upwards for the 75AL. I have no words.

[RICHARD L.]

So it means I was lucky to pay only 1000 $ for my 75 mm f/2.8 AL when it came out new ?

[tuco]

Indeed that is so :-). There are differences in the coatings, which make some difference in some situations. .

Right, that slipped my mind.

I'd add for people looking to purchase some 6x7 lenses on a budget can take advantage of knowing when there is no optical change between say a 6x7 and 67 generation lens if aesthetic appeal is not important. Often 67 versions of the lens command a higher price optics change or not. So a lens like the 67 55/4 or 67 200/4 you may want to pay extra for the 67 generation and get 6x7 generations lenses when you find them cheaper. They still need to be in good shape of course.

[Silent Street]

So it means I was lucky to pay only 1000 $ for my 75 mm f/2.8 AL when it came out new ?

Yes, very lucky!

I paid a bit over $1,000, BNIB w/ warranty.

[Ed Hurst]

The 75 2.8AL was the replacement for the rattly 55mm f4; as good as that lens was with RA-4 prints produced up to almost a metre across, the internal rattle that developed a year after use really annoyed me. I'd had my eyes on the 'feather-touch' focusing 75AL for some time before taking the plunge, and have absolutely no regrets. Two colleagues use this for portraiture and product sampling. It has an entirely different and unique look far apart from anything else in the Pentax stable, probably sharing sharpness, contrast and fidelity characteristics with the ED tele lens. Other than 75AL, the 90mm f2.8 non-LS is used for those occasions I do portraiture (not often). I see Japanese eBay sellers are asking $3,600 upwards for the 75AL. I have no words.

Fully agree, the 75mm f2.8AL is a thing of magic. Just stunning quality, every bit the equal of the ED lenses. Even on the 645Z, it keeps up nicely with the new, digi-specific lenses (though it does have an older 'look' by comparison and does purple fringe very slightly in the wrong conditions - something that's dead easy to clean up, of course).

[texandrews]

I was underwhelmed by my copy of the 6x7 55---not bad by any stretch, but I saw no magic in it. I got it because of the rave reviews. Copy variance? Anyway....

OTOH, my 645 DFA 55 has really surprised me. I got one at a great price, which is why I bought it, less so than I needed it since I had the excellent FA 45-85. But the 55 has been startlingly good---much better than I expected. Copy variance, again? I don't know. I do know I use it all the time---it is on my camera a lot, and I even make allowances to be able to use it in situations where something else might be more convenient. And it is WR---in the field I find this aspect quite important. The more contemporary coatings are also an asset IMO. Finally, it is smaller and lighter. That's not a real big deal to me, but there are times when it's nice (yes, the 75 is even smaller, but I find it a more awkward FL for my Z than the 55, which again surprises with its usefulness...)

[rdenney]

I was underwhelmed by my copy of the 6x7 55---not bad by any stretch, but I saw no magic in it. I got it because of the rave reviews. Copy variance? Anyway....

OTOH, my 645 DFA 55 has really surprised me. I got one at a great price, which is why I bought it, less so than I needed it since I had the excellent FA 45-85. But the 55 has been startlingly good---much better than I expected. Copy variance, again? I don't know. I do know I use it all the time---it is on my camera a lot, and I even make allowances to be able to use it in situations where something else might be more convenient. And it is WR---in the field I find this aspect quite important. The more contemporary coatings are also an asset IMO. Finally, it is smaller and lighter. That's not a real big deal to me, but there are times when it's nice (yes, the 75 is even smaller, but I find it a more awkward FL for my Z than the 55, which again surprises with its usefulness...)

I bought the DFA 55 primarily on your recommendation, mostly to have a lens with weather sealing in case I wanted to go out on a rainy day on an upcoming trip. I'm really glad I did. Sample variation? I'm not seeing it--mine is excellent and I use it for the most demanding needs without hesitation. And it's a used lens I bought from Adorama that was absolutely not in pristine condition.

I've never played with the 6x7 55 on the 645, though it's an excellent lens on the 67. I'm reluctant to use a reverse-telephoto wide-angle design (as the 67 55 must be to fit in front of the vast 67 mirror box) to obtain only a "normal" field of view. The DFA55 simply doesn't have to make the compromises necessary to satisfy the retrofocus requirements of a 55 in the 67 application (even though it still does have some retrofocus in the design). I feel the same about the 67 45, as much as I adore that lens on the P67--it can't possibly be better than the 45 end of the 45-85, or the 45 end of the 28-45. I don't use short lenses for a dreamy effect--I use short lenses for a larger field of view rendered sharply--either group photos or landscapes. I used the 45 end of the 45-85 to make a group photo of about 70 people at a motorhome rally right after buying the 645z. It was possible to read the nametags in that file.

Rick "who felt the same way about using a 28mm wide-angle lens for 24x36 on an APS-C camera" Denney

[Ed Hurst]

Of course the possibility of sample variation is very real, but my observation is that the 67 55mm f4 (late version) does slightly better than the DFA 55mm at rendering distant details, but the DFA does better at close to medium distances. The difference is slight, and - when used with good technique - both produce superb results in all situations. But this difference does seem to be there, at least with my copies.