[barondla]

I'm beginning to think I have become some sort of a "lens hoarder" ... lol !

Today I found three "late 67" lenses from my heap of photo equipment : 90 mm f/2.8, 135 mm f/4 and 165 mm f/2.8. I will try them on the 645Z during the winter when I have time. I'm still looking for my 55 mm f/4, 105 mm f/2.4 and 100 mm f/4 Macro. They must be hidden in a closet somewhere downstairs.

Saturday I took a few images with the 45 mm f/4 wide-angle (that I considered "so-so" on the 67 II) and I found it performed splendidly on the digital camera. So far, I have tried my new gigantic 500 mm f/5.6, the two 67 zooms, the M* 300 mm, the M 200 mm and the M 75 mm f/2.8 AL. The only one I found subpar on the 67 II was the 90 mm f/2.8 and it may still surprise me.

Late Pentax 67 lenses perform really admirably on the 645Z.

Hoarder is such a harsh word. Collector or rescuer would be more appropriate

[Ed Hurst]

The only one I found subpar on the 67 II was the 90 mm f/2.8 and it may still surprise me.

It's not quite on a par with the 645 90mm f2.8 DFA, but I have used it on the 645Z (in some cases before I owned the newer lens, and in one recent case merely because the older lens is lighter and smaller, so it was easier to carry with me on a hike).

Here are a couple of the results. Personally, I think it does very well! (FYI, this is a very late 67 90mm lens; I also have the 6x7 90mm LS lens, which optically I don't like as much). The star trail image even involved using the lens close to wide open (for the sky area anyway)...

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[barondla]

Hi,

I have a very old bag. Used to store bag dividers. You know, out of service bag, but maybe one day I might want it again. Like the large medium format bag with extra 645 and 67 lenses which has been pressed back into service.

Well, it's a bit too heavy. Dig out the dividers and in the bottom is my antique Nikkor 300mm f4.5 'H' lens. The thing the was already old in 1981 when I got it. The thing with many hours at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen shooting on an FE. I had even changed out the aperture ring to AI (for those other Pentax MF shooter who recall old Nikon stuff).

I had parked that for a newer ED variant, which died at The Glen And was replaced in turn by an AF one which was replaced by an AFS 300/4 which is since sold off.

So, a happy find to go with the Df.

And I still recall how to Pre focus and pan and shoot fast cars with it. And being the 'H' that's the Good Version compared to the 'P' one. Six elements v five.

So, I know the feeling. What else is lurking in the shadows forgotten??

Stan

Always cool to find a lens. I remember Prongers and AI. So long ago. I've stated reusing a Tamrac with the hidden bottom compartment. All the bottom dividers are removed to allow the 300 to stand straight up. If I take the 400 it goes in the front compartment.

Thanks,
barondla

[PhilRich]

I've found these comparisons of the 67 series lens to the 645's interesting. I own several 67 lens to use with my 67 film camera and also with the Z. Personally, I've found that the 645 35 DFA, the 45-80 and the 80-160 are giving slightly superior results with less color fringing. This is in comparison with the 67 55-100, the 45, the 200 lens. My 645 80-160 is giving very good resolution at 160mm. The 67 105 is the equal of my 80-160 at 100 mm, or slightly better. My 645 200 is superior to the 67 200. These comparisons are at f10 using the scene from my front porch. Here I can compare tree leaves, branches, houses and power line insulators with sharp edges at varying distances up to 600 yds. These tests have been using the Z camera. However, the 67 lens give a different rendering which is useful.

I should do more head to head testing on the same day conditions as most of my evaluations have different lighting situations. Why carry several 67 primes with adapters when the two zooms listed above are so very good? One reason would be if a different aperture was needed.

My go-to bag for the Z has the 35 dfa, the 80-160, sometimes the 55 dfa and when longer reach is needed, the 67 300 ed-if in its case. For the 67 film camera the 55-100 is most used. I do enjoy collecting the 67 lens and testing them, however they are mostly sitting on the shelf.

[Ed Hurst]

Just goes to show that each person's experiences may differ somewhat, perhaps an indication both of sample variation and differing criteria when determining "goodness" ;-)

I have compared the 645 FA 45-85 and 80-160 lenses to various other lenses, both primes and zooms (and spanning both the 645 and 67 offerings). I've found the FA 45-85 to be a good lens up to about 65 and only "ok" from that length upwards. It certainly does noticeably less well than the 67 55-100 lens at all comparable focal lengths. The 645 55mm DFA, the 67 55mm (late version), the 67 75mm f2.8 and the 645 90mm DFA certainly beat it. At 45mm, it's better than the 645 and 67 primes, but it's worse than the long end of the 28-45mm DA, so there really isn't a focal length for me where the FA 45-85 is the best option.
The 80-160 I find to be inferior (and quite different) to the 67 105mm lens; it's also inferior to the 645 90mm DFA, the 150 FA, and the 67 200mm (late version). Speaking of 200mm lenses, I have compared the 67 late lens with the 645 200 (both A and FA versions) and I find the 67 lens to be the best of those three (though none of them really makes me perfectly happy). So, for me, the 67 lenses represent superb options (and, in some cases, the best option) at a given focal length.

At 75mm, the 67 f2.8 simply beats everything I have compared it with at that length (though there is some fringing on occasion, so it isn't perfect). Similarly the 67 300mm f4 EDIF and the 400mm f4 EDIF are the best lenses at those lengths that I have tried (and that includes comparisons against the various 645 alternatives).

By contrast, the 645 system contains the best (and, in some cases, the only) option at other lengths: 25 (DA), 28-45, 55 (DFA), 120mm and 600mm...

Overall, I find the 67 system to contain some superb lenses that represent the best option at some focal lengths, though you have to willing to carry around some beasts.

Not saying anyone else is wrong - we have different samples of these lenses and use them with different goals/criteria in mind; these are just my observations!

[RICHARD L.]

And don't forget that, except for the 67 M 75 mm f/2.8 AL which sells upwards of 2000 USD, most "late 67" used lenses are offered at ridiculously low prices on eBay. I paid 103 $ for a like-new late 67 M 200 mm f/4 that performs amazingly well. The late 67 M 500 mm f/5.6 was offered for 319 $ and it surprised me with its image quality. Just this Saturday, I tried my 67 M 45 mm f/4 on the 645Z for the first time and the resulting landscape pictures were the best I have ever seen at that focal length.

Regards

75 mm f/2.8

500 mm f/5.6

90-180 mm f/5.6

200 mm f/4

45 mm f/4

[kaseki]

It's not quite on a par with the 645 90mm f2.8 DFA, but I have used it on the 645Z (in some cases before I owned the newer lens, and in one recent case merely because the older lens is lighter and smaller, so it was easier to carry with me on a hike).

Here are a couple of the results. Personally, I think it does very well! (FYI, this is a very late 67 90mm lens; I also have the 6x7 90mm LS lens, which optically I don't like as much). The star trail image even involved using the lens close to wide open (for the sky area anyway)...

[/url][/IMG]
[/url][/IMG]

The 'choo choo' image seems to have exceptional depth of field, at least as presented here on the PF.

[barondla]

It's not quite on a par with the 645 90mm f2.8 DFA, but I have used it on the 645Z (in some cases before I owned the newer lens, and in one recent case merely because the older lens is lighter and smaller, so it was easier to carry with me on a hike).

Here are a couple of the results. Personally, I think it does very well! (FYI, this is a very late 67 90mm lens; I also have the 6x7 90mm LS lens, which optically I don't like as much). The star trail image even involved using the lens close to wide open (for the sky area anyway)...

[/url][/IMG]
[/url][/IMG]

The "island" looks like it is under attack! Awesome composition. Agree that the train image is very 3D. Two fabulous images.

---------- Post added 12-21-20 at 09:41 AM ----------

And don't forget that, except for the 67 M 75 mm f/2.8 AL which sells upwards of 2000 USD, most "late 67" used lenses are offered at ridiculously low prices on eBay. I paid 103 $ for a like-new late 67 M 200 mm f/4 that performs amazingly well. The late 67 M 500 mm f/5.6 was offered for 319 $ and it surprised me with its image quality. Just this Saturday, I tried my 67 M 45 mm f/4 on the 645Z for the first time and the resulting landscape pictures were the best I have ever seen at that focal length.

Regards

75 mm f/2.8

500 mm f/5.6

90-180 mm f/5.6

200 mm f/4

45 mm f/4

Fine images. All the evidence points to the 67 90mm lens being very high quality.

Thanks for sharing,

barondla

[ivanvernon]

The "island" looks like it is under attack! Awesome composition. Agree that the train image is very 3D. Two fabulous images.

---------- Post added 12-21-20 at 09:41 AM ----------



Fine images. All the evidence points to the 67 90mm lens being very high quality.

Thanks for sharing,

barondla

I was influenced by the Russian portrait photographer Sasha Krasnov to try the 67 90mm, which he regards highly. His remarks may be seen here: Pentax 67 90mm F2.8: Lens review, Details, Experience, Sample images

[RICHARD L.]

All the evidence points to the 67 90mm lens being very high quality.

In 6X7 medium-format photography, I began with the late 67 90 mm f/2.8 lens in 1991, along with a late 55 mm f/4 and a late 200 mm f/4. I bought my Manfrotto tripod later so I struggled with the 90 mm all the time, having to shoot with wide apertures to keep a decent shutter speed on slow films and my landscape images always came out "shitty" with it. After acquiring my Manfrotto, I still resented the imaging quality of the 90 mm as being "substandard" when compared to the 55 mm f/4, which is undoubtedly the "best lens ever" created for 6X7. Then I bought my 75 mm f/2.8 AL and compared it with the 90 mm : it was a "no-contest". The 90 mm f/2.8 had poor contrast and overexposed my slide films all the time (maybe a quirk of the particular copy I had) so I took it in aversion and simply put it in a drawer for good. I got a late model 105 mm f/2.4 which proved equally capable as the 55 mm and 75 mm and never looked back on the 90 mm. Apart from close-ups done with this lens, I didn't find it had any pictural ability for my kind of landscape photography. There, I said it, my tantrum has ended !


P.S. I have mellowed with the years and I will nonetheless give the 90 mm f/2.8 a try on the 645Z. You never know ....

[barondla]

In 6X7 medium-format photography, I began with the late 67 90 mm f/2.8 lens in 1991, along with a late 55 mm f/4 and a late 200 mm f/4. I bought my Manfrotto tripod later so I struggled with the 90 mm all the time, having to shoot with wide apertures to keep a decent shutter speed on slow films and my landscape images always came out "shitty" with it. After acquiring my Manfrotto, I still resented the imaging quality of the 90 mm as being "substandard" when compared to the 55 mm f/4, which is undoubtedly the "best lens ever" created for 6X7. Then I bought my 75 mm f/2.8 AL and compared it with the 90 mm : it was a "no-contest". The 90 mm f/2.8 had poor contrast and overexposed my slide films all the time (maybe a quirk of the particular copy I had) so I took it in aversion and simply put it in a drawer for good. I got a late model 105 mm f/2.4 which proved equally capable as the 55 mm and 75 mm and never looked back on the 90 mm. Apart from close-ups done with this lens, I didn't find it had any pictural ability for my kind of landscape photography. There, I said it, my tantrum has ended !


P.S. I have mellowed with the years and I will nonetheless give the 90 mm f/2.8 a try on the 645Z. You never know ....

Sounds like your 90 could be one of those sample variations. Hopefully it wakes up on the 645Z and redeems itself.
Thanks,
barondla

[RICHARD L.]

Amen !

[TDvN57]

In 6X7 medium-format photography, I began with the late 67 90 mm f/2.8 lens in 1991, along with a late 55 mm f/4 and a late 200 mm f/4. I bought my Manfrotto tripod later so I struggled with the 90 mm all the time, having to shoot with wide apertures to keep a decent shutter speed on slow films and my landscape images always came out "shitty" with it. After acquiring my Manfrotto, I still resented the imaging quality of the 90 mm as being "substandard" when compared to the 55 mm f/4, which is undoubtedly the "best lens ever" created for 6X7. Then I bought my 75 mm f/2.8 AL and compared it with the 90 mm : it was a "no-contest". The 90 mm f/2.8 had poor contrast and overexposed my slide films all the time (maybe a quirk of the particular copy I had) so I took it in aversion and simply put it in a drawer for good. I got a late model 105 mm f/2.4 which proved equally capable as the 55 mm and 75 mm and never looked back on the 90 mm. Apart from close-ups done with this lens, I didn't find it had any pictural ability for my kind of landscape photography. There, I said it, my tantrum has ended !


P.S. I have mellowed with the years and I will nonetheless give the 90 mm f/2.8 a try on the 645Z. You never know ....

Stay strong 2020 is almost over.... :-)

[RICHARD L.]

---------- Post added 12-21-20 at 03:10 PM ----------

Stay strong 2020 is almost over.... :-)

Thank you, Theuns. Have a marvelous Year 2021 too !

Regards

[w2ck]

Hi,

The water looks C O L D!!

I am getting zero shooting in these days. It's been Print, Print, Print. Mostly on the Direct To Garment printer. Lots of quilt blocks and T Shirts. Christmas stuff. Next week is likely to be Zero work. However, I am not complaining here.

The other side of having run hither and yon shooting when it was warmer out.

Who knew it was going to be this much work?

Stan