[tuco]

Some scenes while on a hike
Pentax 6x7, 67 55mm, 320TXP, PMK


Monte Cristo Hike by tuco, on Flickr



Monte Cristo Hike by tuco, on Flickr

[TDvN57]

Some scenes while on a hike
Pentax 6x7, 67 55mm, 320TXP, PMK


Monte Cristo Hike by tuco, on Flickr



Monte Cristo Hike by tuco, on Flickr

Fantastic!!!

[TDvN57]

I also like the P67 165mm f2.8 lens. For far-scape shots I find it is great but a little less sharp in the finer details than the P67 55-100mm, despite having a smaller magnification. See the pictures below:

#1: 645z + P67 55-100mm at f/8. From the mountain towards the town.
#2: Pic #1 with 700% crop at about 3km

#3: 645z + P67 165mm f/2.8 @ f/8. Looking back at the mountain.
#4: Pic #3 with 400% crop at similar distance to #2.

The 55-100 is much sharper over long distances, if you are prepared to spend the extra time to focus this lens. The focus throw from 8m to infinity is very small and very sensitive. Stopping down to f/8 helps to overcome this problem with an increase in DoF.

The 400% crop of the 165mm is really excellent but would not withstand an enlargement to 700%, which the 55-100mm could, regardless of pixilation.

Richard,
I have to retract my comments on the P67 165mm f/2.8 lens in this post. This afternoon the clouds cleared and with the afternoon sun on the same mountain, I took the reverse looking shot and include a 400% crop which I must say either matches the 400% crop of the P67 55-100 lens, or in my opinion it is a touch above in sharpness. I know this is overboard pixel peeping but it does help me to decide which lens to pack for a landscape hike. Definitely the P67 165mm!

Shown below is the full view image followed with the 400% crop of the top left of the mountain top. 645z + P67 165mm f/2.8 @ f8

-

[ivanvernon]

Snowpile from shovelling our driveway. Taken at f 2.8 with my favorite camera and lens.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by ivanvernon; 02-24-2022 at 05:34 AM. Reason: Added information.

[RICHARD L.]

Theuns,

I use both the P67 165 mm f/2.8 and the P67 55-100 mm f/4.5. Both are "out of the ordinary", marvelous optics. Both are usable with great success between f/5.6 and f/16 (should we call this a "flat sharpness curve" similar to a "flat torque curve" for a powerful V8 engine). Only difference is the zoom is heavier, more cumbersome and produces a darker viewing image while the 165 mm is very small, light and luminous. Both are SWEET lenses, for real.

Best Regards


Two images with the P67 55-100 mm f/4.5 zoom

Two images with the P67 165 mm f/2.8

[volley]

Some scenes while on a hike
Pentax 6x7, 67 55mm, 320TXP, PMK


Monte Cristo Hike by tuco, on Flickr



Monte Cristo Hike by tuco, on Flickr

Wow, just wonderful!

[tuco]

Fantastic!!!

Thanks. I have that 165/2.8 as well. I should make an effort to use it more.

Wow, just wonderful!

Thanks

[tuco]

Pentax 6x7, 67 55mm, Pentax O2 filter, 320TXP, PMK


Mt Rainer by tuco, on Flickr

[SFTphotography]

All Pentax 645z and 28-45

**btw make sure your browser is set to support Adobe 1998 colour space - or these won't look right - I forgot to export in sRGB**

These were taken in the high forest path on the way to Ibonet de Batisielles. I had planned to shoot reflections but the light was all wrong - clear cloudless skies and it was a tad too windy - so I retreated back to the forest and made these.















And yes - this is a bit of a waste of a high resolution medium format camera attached to the sharpest wide zoom on the market today - but you gotta use what you brought.

[TDvN57]

For some reason I find this picture rather pleasing, despite that the detail is lost and the composition is sort of odd, it still draws attention. I walked into my home-office and saw the little bulbul sitting in the tree opposite the drive way and lifted the camera and took the shot, minimal time to focus. Just as I released the shutter he flew off, so I got one of him sitting in the tree, this picture in flight, and another landing in the branch on the left.

So slightly out of focus, the bird out of the shallow depth of field and too much noise, I still like the picture. Or is it a case of only I can like it because I took it with my favorite lens of the month???

645z + P67 165mm f/2.8 @ 2.8

[texandrews]

All Pentax 645z and 28-45

**btw make sure your browser is set to support Adobe 1998 colour space - or these won't look right - I forgot to export in sRGB**

These were taken in the high forest path on the way to Ibonet de Batisielles. I had planned to shoot reflections but the light was all wrong - clear cloudless skies and it was a tad too windy - so I retreated back to the forest and made these.















And yes - this is a bit of a waste of a high resolution medium format camera attached to the sharpest wide zoom on the market today - but you gotta use what you brought.

Not a waste. I think what's a major important feature of medium format files is the better tonalities vs. FF---and yes I have been using them side by side for 8 years now. I would also suspect that an excellent lens that is sharp would have other desirable properties and that these would make a difference in any image. A difference everyone could see? No, and also not unless processed and printed properly and at larger sizes (although I have seen the difference on screens at screen sizes as well).

BTW, these remind me a bit of a contemporary (although he may be dead now) American landscape painter whose name has flown right out of my head at the moment....

Ah, yes. Wolf Kahn

[marco_gea]

Shot this morning, at f/8, from a tripod, with a GND filter, mounted on my GFX50R via a Kipon adapter. TIFF file generated in camera, and then only minor post-processing in DxO Photolab 5 (mild exposure push and micro-contrast boost for the foreground).

[acoufap]

Shot this morning, at f/8, from a tripod, with a GND filter, mounted on my GFX50R via a Kipon adapter. TIFF file generated in camera, and then only minor post-processing in DxO Photolab 5 (mild exposure push and micro-contrast boost for the foreground).

Can‘t imagine any advantages of tiff - 8 or 16 bit - in camera compared to shooting raw when using a raw converter in post … are there any?

[marco_gea]

Can‘t imagine any advantages of tiff - 8 or 16 bit - in camera compared to shooting raw when using a raw converter in post … are there any?

Believe it or not, the in-camera colour and tone processing on these Fuji cameras is extremely pleasing (to me, at least), and - try as I may - nigh-on impossible to replicate really accurately in any stand-alone raw converter.
So, while I do shoot RAW+JPEG and often process my own raws anyway, I find that sometimes reverting to in-camera processing provides a more pleasing result. In such cases, using TIFF instead of JPEG avoids any unnecessary degradation due to the compression algorithm, and gives a more malleable file for further tweaking in post.

[acoufap]

Believe it or not, the in-camera colour and tone processing on these Fuji cameras is extremely pleasing (to me, at least), and - try as I may - nigh-on impossible to replicate really accurately in any stand-alone raw converter.
So, while I do shoot RAW+JPEG and often process my own raws anyway, I find that sometimes reverting to in-camera processing provides a more pleasing result. In such cases, using TIFF instead of JPEG avoids any unnecessary degradation due to the compression algorithm, and gives a more malleable file for further tweaking in post.

ok, interesting .. did you try raw development Capture One Pro for Fujifilm cameras?

By the way, nice to see someone else using Novoflex equipment. Very seldom seen on Pentax Forums.