[reuvens]

I've heard legendary things about the 105mm f/2.4. I already have the 67 55-100mm f/4.5 and the 150mm f/2.8. Am I really missing out by not finding a copy of the 105mm?

[Wheatfield]

I've heard legendary things about the 105mm f/2.4. I already have the 67 55-100mm f/4.5 and the 150mm f/2.8. Am I really missing out by not finding a copy of the 105mm?

It's one of the better lenses for the 6x7 system. It is also a very nice field of view, being neither wide angle nor telephoto. It is a very slightly long standard lens.

[RICHARD L.]

I have 13 P67 lenses. They all perform splendidly on my 645Z digital.

Some were rather "ordinary" on film with a 67 II (like the 45 mm f/4 or the 90 mm f/2.8) but fare better on a smaller 33 X 44 mm sensor. Out of my 13 optics, my 3 best are in order 1) late 55 mm f/4 2) late 75 mm f/2.8 and 3) late 105 mm f/2.4 ("late" doesn't mean they are dead, it means they were the latest issues before Pentax film 67's went out of style).

The 105 mm is a "normal" on a film 67 (lens factor being 2.1 X), equivalent to a 50 mm on FF. On the 645Z, it acts as an 85 mm short telephoto. It is a "powerful" lens, with high resolving power, super deep contrast and totally impervious to flare or ghosting. Only drawback is the minimum focusing distance is rather longish at 1 meter.

The lens is all-metal, built to last a lifetime, substantial without being heavy. Older copies sell for 400 $ on eBay, newer copies (with rubber focusing ring) may fetch 800 $ or more but the lens is really worth its money. Some use it wide-open to totally blur the background like in portrait photography. Personally I use it @ f/8 in landscape imagery to make sure the picture is absolutely sharp from corner to corner.
A wise investment overall.






P.S. Sometimes, bold characters are employed only to make the text more legible.

[gofour3]

Is the 6x7 105mm f/2.4 really that good?
I've heard legendary things about the 105mm f/2.4. I already have the 67 55-100mm f/4.5 and the 150mm f/2.8. Am I really missing out by not finding a copy of the 105mm?

If you're shooting with the Pentax 6x7 system, then yes you will need a "normal" lens and I like the 105/2.4 better than the 90/2.8. Like Richard mentioned above the 105/2.4 is a sold lens but not as good as the late 55/4 or the 75/2.8.

Phil.

[672]

I sold mine after a while. It was greenish compared to the other P67 lenses. I still have the 55-100 and 75 2.8 AL.

[RICHARD L.]

The 55-100 mm f/4.5 zoom and the 75 mm f/2.8 AL are awesome lenses in their own right. The 75 focuses very near and permits very nice close-ups. The 55-100 mm zoom is really good and affords a lot of versatility on the 645Z. Being very rare and highly sought-after, the 75 mm f/2.8 sells used for around 2500 $. The zoom is almost totally unknown and sells used for peanuts at around 350-400 $ on eBay. Older P67 105 mm f/2.4 used radioactive thorium in the glass formula and became yellowish-greenish over time, giving them a color cast in color pictures. Late model 105 mm are totally clear and give true-to-life colors.

P67 75 mm f/2.8

P67 75 mm f/2.8

P67 55-100 mm f/4.5

P67 55-100 mm f/4.5


P.S. Sometimes, bold characters are employed only to make the text more legible.

[barondla]

The 55-100 mm f/4.5 zoom and the 75 mm f/2.8 AL are awesome lenses in their own right. The 75 focuses very near and permits very nice close-ups. The 55-100 mm zoom is really good and affords a lot of versatility on the 645Z. Being very rare and highly sought-after, the 75 mm f/2.8 sells used for around 2500 $. The zoom is almost totally unknown and sells used for peanuts at around 350-400 $ on eBay. Older P67 105 mm f/2.4 used radioactive thorium in the glass formula and became yellowish-greenish over time, giving them a color cast in color pictures. Late model 105 mm are totally clear and give true-to-life colors.

P67 75 mm f/2.8

P67 75 mm f/2.8

P67 55-100 mm f/4.5

P67 55-100 mm f/4.5


P.S. Sometimes, bold characters are employed only to make the text more legible.

Yellow glass can be cleared using UV light. If done, will early model 105 image quality match match the newer ones?

Thanks,
barondla

[RICHARD L.]

Yellow glass can be cleared using UV light. If done, will early model 105 image quality match match the newer ones?Thanks,

I'm not sure about that. I know exposing these yellowed lenses to sunshine reduces the inherent color but I don't know how they compare with the color rendering of newer models. Some used the older yellowed 105's with Black & White film with great success as it was like a yellow filter was used to darken skies slightly.

Regards

[Ed Hurst]

In my experience (of a late model of this lens), it is good. But my feeling is that its reputation is based on three things: 1) it's rendering character; 2) its fast maximum aperture, allowing narrow DoF; 3) that viral tendency to imbue certain lenses with a mystical goodness and can't quite be explained.

No doubt in my mind that it's a very capable lens. I have used in on Pentax 67ii's, 645D and 645Z. It does well. But does it really do better than the obvious alternatives when used on the D/Z? Not in my view. The 67 55-100 lens is excellent - just as good as the 105 in my view (unless you need a faster aperture, obviously). The 645 90mm DFA is superior in all technical respects (though it's a lot more expensive and has a different character/rendering; it's also about half a stop slower). The 67 100 macro lens I haven't used, but by all accounts is also technically very strong (though also slower) - perhaps sharper than the 105 f2.4? The 645 120 (A or FA) lenses are superb (also slower).

Essentially, if you have any of these options (there are others, of course), you already have a brilliant lens unless you need something as fast as f2.4 (which, to me, is an overdone benefit in most applications). If you "need" the 105 f2.4, it should be because of its character/rendering (which is a subjective quality anyway) or its speed. Otherwise, I suggest you use the lens you have with the confidence that what you have is just as good, if somewhat different in feel. I believe that for most of us, chasing this lens due to its reputation and aura is misplaced mysticism... That's not to knock it. It's a very capable lens. But magically better than the alternatives? Not in my view - and in purely technical terms, some of the alternatives are better.

By the way, I haven't mentioned comparisons here to the 67 90-180 zoom or the 645 55-110 or 80-160 lenses. I don't have those lenses and I believe the 105 2.4 might be better than they are in some ways. I'll leave it to others to deal with those topics :-)

[RICHARD L.]

The 67 100 macro lens I haven't used, but by all accounts is also technically very strong

Indeed, it is a very good lens, selling for 500 - 600 $ used on eBay.

[riffraffselbow]

I've heard legendary things about the 105mm f/2.4. I already have the 67 55-100mm f/4.5 and the 150mm f/2.8. Am I really missing out by not finding a copy of the 105mm?

It may be a matter of copy-by-copy variation (my 150/2.8 definitely has enough dings that there could be some misalignment) but my 105/2.4 blows my 150/2.8 out of the water in terms of rendering, sharpness, etc, in my experience. I've also found the 45 F/4 and 55 F/4 (in my case, both mid generation releases, i.e. 67 era, not 67ii) to be extremely nice, as well, with the 55 a touch sharper and the 45 obvious wider (45 is impressively wide on 6x7, roughly a 22mm in 24x36). The 105/2.4 is impressively sharp wide open for a lens of its vintage (I don't have many modern lenses to compare it to; from what I've heard, good modern lenses are all ridiculously sharp wide open, but this was definitely NOT true of lenses in the 70s/80s; remember that in many cases the wide-open apertures existed primarily to aid in focusing and metering), and is very sharp corner to corner by F/4.

I would not seek out the 105/2.4 for use on a smaller system than 6x7; I don't think its sharpness at the focal length/aperture is particularly _unique_ at the 35mm or even 645 size. Where it shines is in the full 67 format.

[tuco]

The 105mm is a good portrait lens. And at that focal length it is a little long to get really deep near/far DOF without resorting to shooting at f22 in a landscape; whereas, the 90mm stopped down to f19 can do better.

Some 105mm native format examples

[RICHARD L.]

I've heard legendary things about the 105mm f/2.4.

Legends are mainly "fairytales" or outright lies, never forget that. The P67 105 mm f/2.4 is a very capable lens from my experience with it. I started using one at work 25 years ago (I'm a retired engineer as of 10/10/10) and it always delivered brilliant and sharp images from our work sites. I once took a picture of one of my biologist friends working for Ducks Unlimited from a distance of about 15 feet. We could see very clearly the stitches on the side of his jeans on Ektar film. Two of my watercourse restoration pictures were used to make huge enlargements to illustrate the Ministry of Agriculture's kiosk at fair events throughout Quebec, one from the Rivière Chaude project near Quebec City and another from Armagh on the south shore. Both were 8 foot by 4 foot transparencies (each costing 600 $ at the time) that were illuminated from the back and were awesomely sharp and full of far-away details (both pictures were taken tripod-mounted @ f/16 on Ektar 25 film). These are not "legends" but a testimony to the capability of this P67 lens.

Regards

[reuvens]

Legends are mainly "fairytales" or outright lies, never forget that. The P67 105 mm f/2.4 is a very capable lens from my experience with it. I started using one at work 25 years ago (I'm a retired engineer as of 10/10/10) and it always delivered brilliant and sharp images from our work sites. I once took a picture of one of my biologist friends working for Ducks Unlimited from a distance of about 15 feet. We could see very clearly the stitches on the side of his jeans on Ektar film. Two of my watercourse restoration pictures were used to make huge enlargements to illustrate the Ministry of Agriculture's kiosk at fair events throughout Quebec, one from the Rivière Chaude project near Quebec City and another from Armagh on the south shore. Both were 8 foot by 4 foot transparencies (each costing 600 $ at the time) that were illuminated from the back and were awesomely sharp and full of far-away details (both pictures were taken tripod-mounted @ f/16 on Ektar 25 film). These are not "legends" but a testimony to the capability of this P67 lens.

Regards

That's incredible about the 8'x4' transparencies. Were those optically enlarged?


I'm shooting on a 6x7 (no MLU, but the camera was cheap so I wasn't too picky) and I'm amazed by the negatives/slides I get with the 55-100mm. Maybe I'll stick to the zoom for wide angle to normal and take a look at one of the longer focal lengths

[tuco]

I'm shooting on a 6x7 (no MLU, but the camera was cheap so I wasn't too picky) ...

If you want to see the effect of the P67's shutter dynamics, mount the camera on a very, very, flimsy tripod extended to the max. Use a cable release and see if you notice not just the mirror's up/down action but the inertia of the shutter curtain at different shutter speeds. When you are operating in the more vulnerable slower shutter speeds without MLU, using a ND filter to increase the exposure further to bulb mode can nullify any camera shake. When an exposure is long enough (say about 10-times the camera's vibration duration), the camera shake will not be recorded.

Here is a picture of some larger slide film compared to the ~ 6x7cm