[RICHARD L.]

67 M* 300 mm on a Pentax 645Z


67 M* 300 mm on a Pentax 67 II

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 08-09-2020 at 08:40 AM.

[kaseki]

Good question which 67 lenses to acquire. ... ... For me it would probably be the 75mm f 2.8 though I would miss a lot of the others!

Which raises the question in my mind of what you believe the 67 75/2.8 brings to the 645Z table over the 645 75/2.8?

[RICHARD L.]

Yes, the 645 A 75 mm f/2.8 performs superbly too. I tried it for macro images on a 645 Auto Bellows and a K3 body with great success.

[RICHARD L.]

Tripod-mounted 645Z + 645 A 120 mm f/4, ISO 800, 1/6 sec @ f/11. I played with my tripod height to compose different images.

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 08-08-2020 at 12:55 PM.

[w2ck]

Hi,

Ooooh. Nice.

Stan

[kaseki]

Tripod-mounted 645Z + 645 A 120 mm f/4, ISO 800, 1/6 sec @ f/11. I played with my tripod height to compose different images.

Your photos can only be withstood by eating fruit while reading this forum.

[barondla]

Good question which 67 lenses to acquire. In the interest of full disclosure, I have them all except for the 30mm fisheye, the longer of the two zooms, and the 400mm and up. However, I am a packrat and collector (do I repeat myself?). First off, all the lenses are good, and many are excellent. Richard did a good job of identifying the great lenses, so the question becomes one of selecting the lenses that fit with your kind of photography. For wide lansdscape, a later version of the 55mm f 4.0 is great, one of the sharpest lenses produced by Pentax for any format. It is also a very versatile lens because of its short MFD close focus capabilities, and I even use it for flower work from time to time. The 75mm f 4.0 is also quite sharp and good for landscape or even walk around photography. I love my 75mm f 2.8 even more because of its large aperture, clarity, and rendering, but be prepared to pay $2,000+.

If you specialize in weddings and/or portraiture, the fast 105 f 2.4 is one of the three or four best lenses available for any brand of medium format camera. Thousands of natural light wedding photographers swear by this lens. For a wedding kit, you could add the 135mm for closeups of rings and other artifacts, and the 150mm or the 165mm for tighter shots--torsos and headshots. These lenses plus the 645Z will give you a world class wedding/portraiture kit.

If you like birds I can't help you very much except to say that there are some great and expensive choices in the 400mm+ category. I have the 200mm which is so sharp that you can take bird photo and crop to size, though a real birder will want something longer, I am sure.

For macro work, there is the world class 100mm f 4.0 for 1:2 work and its extender to go 1:1. The 135mm is also a good choice for flowers, but is not really a macro lens, though great for fairly small objects. Larger flowers will fill the frame.

None of the lenses are extremely expensive nowadays except the 75mm f 2.8, the 100mm macro, and the long telephotos. This means that it is not difficult to buy and try and get your money back on those you find that you do not need.

To me, the 67 lenses that are so good that they are game changers are the 55mm f 4.0, the 100mm f 4.0 macro, and the 105mm f 2.4. My opinions only based on my experience using all these lenses on the K-1 as well as the 645, 645D, and 645Z since I do not own the Pentax 67. For general photography, there are three lenses any one of which you could keep on the 645Z constantly as your only lens with no great sacrifice whatsoever--the 75mm f 2.8, the 105mm f 2.4, and the 55-100mm zoom. For me it would probably be the 75mm f 2.8 though I would miss a lot of the others!

Great info! Thanks for putting this list together. Wondering why you've never added a 67 body to this superb collection of 67 lenses?

Thanks,
barondla

[ivanvernon]

Great info! Thanks for putting this list together. Wondering why you've never added a 67 body to this superb collection of 67 lenses?

Thanks,
barondla

In buying 67 lenses study the specifications and on-lens writing very carefully to be sure you exactly which version you want to buy. Then carefully compare photos of the lens you are considering against the Pentax Forum review material to make sure what you are bidding on/buying.

For film medium format, I used the big Mamiya RB 67 for many years, and eventually pretty much gave up film for digital before I began collecting P67 lenses. I love the P67 lenses on the 645N/D/Z, but just do not do enough film nowadays to justify acquiring a Pentax 67 camera, even though I feel a little guilty about it. Using film has become a little too fiddly and costly, though I admire those who keep their own B&W development facilities.

[RICHARD L.]

Your photos can only be withstood by eating fruit while reading this forum.

Try them with ice cream, that's delicious ! Ha ha !

Regards

[johnha]

Exactly! That's when I wish there was a 67 M*400/4 ED 1:1 Macro, unfortunately there isn't so I usually just use the 67 135/4 Macro for outdoor macro work.

With bugs I'm having problems staying far enough away not to spook them. My best results so far are with the FA80-160 which focuses down to 1m. I'm going to experiment with the late 67 200/4 on 67 extension tubes on my D - the aim being to get it focus about 1m.

As a side note: anybody know how to calculate the extension needed to get a 645 A*300 to focus about 1-1.5m (down from a minimum of 3m)?

[RICHARD L.]

@ johnha : Try experimenting with a set of 645 Auto Extension Tubes. A combination of Tubes should bring you in the vicinity of the distances you wish to attain with your A* 300 and conserve diaphragm automation and automatic exposure in Av mode.

Regards


P.S. The A* 300 mm lens focusing at 3 meters gives a 1:10 magnification. The 645 Auto Extension Tubes User Guide has Tables at the end listing magnification figures obtained empirically. So if you combine Tube #1 (13,3 mm) with Tube #3 (39,9 mm), you can focus down to 1,55 meter (magnification of 1:3) with the A* 300 mm lens. If you combine all 3 Extension Tubes (13,3 mm + 26,6 mm + 39,9 mm for a total of 80 mm +/-), you can focus down to 1,375 meter with a 1 : 2,5 magnification.

If, from the Table data, you draw a graph of "Magnification vs Extension" for the A* 300 mm lens, you find that a 40 mm extension gives a 0,25X magnification, an 80 mm extension gives a 0,40X magnification and a 120 mm extension (you need a set of bellows for that) gives a 0,50X magnification. This function is a straight line and permits extrapolation.

[RICHARD L.]

645Z + 645 A 120 mm f/4.

[gofour3]

With bugs I'm having problems staying far enough away not to spook them. My best results so far are with the FA80-160 which focuses down to 1m. I'm going to experiment with the late 67 200/4 on 67 extension tubes on my D - the aim being to get it focus about 1m.

I've tried the 6x7 #2 extension tube with my 67 200/4 and it worked fine for flower closeups. (Using my 67ii) Pentax did put out a warning of vignetting when using extension tubes with the late 200/4, but I was OK the time I tried it.

Should be OK for vignetting on the smaller 645D format.

Phil.

[johnha]

The A* 300 mm lens focusing at 3 meters gives a 1:10 magnification. The 645 Auto Extension Tubes User Guide has Tables at the end listing magnification figures obtained empirically. So if you combine Tube #1 (13,3 mm) with Tube #3 (39,9 mm), you can focus down to 1,55 meter (magnification of 1:3) with the A* 300 mm lens. If you combine all 3 Extension Tubes (13,3 mm + 26,6 mm + 39,9 mm for a total of 80 mm +/-), you can focus down to 1,375 meter with a 1 : 2,5 magnification.

Thank you for such a detailed reply, I'll look for the 645 auto extension tubes and give them a try.

---------- Post added 08-10-20 at 06:48 AM ----------

I've tried the 6x7 #2 extension tube with my 67 200/4 and it worked fine for flower closeups. (Using my 67ii) Pentax did put out a warning of vignetting when using extension tubes with the late 200/4, but I was OK the time I tried it.

Should be OK for vignetting on the smaller 645D format.

Phil.

Thanks Phil, I've been able to try the late 200 with the 67 #2 tube, there's no obvious sign of vignetting on the D at f/4 on the aperture ring.

[RICHARD L.]