| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 75mm F4.5 Shift by desertscape on Tue February 11, 2020 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 52571
Reviews: 6
|
I bought this lens as a replacement for my 75 Takumar. I wanted the f/32 ability and the shift, as the old Takumar was limited in DOF and perspective control. It seems to be just as sharp as the 75 Takumar when unshifted and doesn't degrade much when shifted.
The lens design is a 9 element type with thick central elements that has Biogon heritage. Its cross section has similarities to the second version 55mm. The number of elements was increased to 9 (vs the 5 in the Takumar) primarily due to this lens being used off axis when shifting. Off axis aberrations become huge when any lens is used off axis, so more elements are needed to compensate. I have not seen any lateral color with this lens, as it is color corrected very well.
This lens does not have an AUTO/Man switch, as it has a manual diaphragm and therefore does not have wide open metering. But the use of 2 diaphragm rings only confuses matters. They should have used just one, like the other manual lenses to keep things consistent. I turn them both at the same time, treating them as one. Update-- After using this lens for several more years now, the second aperture ring does have value. It makes for an easy and quick opening/closing of the diaphragm. This lens will meter in the shifted mode when using the TTL prism. There is light loss when shifting because off axis light is spread thinner than on axis light. This is similar to winter light on Earth striking at a low angle and not warming the planet as much.
Most people will use the shift in the vertical mode for trees, buildings, tall cactus etc. It will however shift in many different orientations though. I use it unshifted as much as I do shifted. It is an excellent landscape lens, especially with its f/32 DOF. The DOF scale will become slightly off when shifting, so I recommend setting it a bit more conservative than when shooting unshifted. One way to do this is to set the DOF scale to f/16 but shoot at f/22. I would have preferred this lens be a bit wider, like 65mm since there are no 65mm fixed lenses. I use the 65mm setting on my zoom and find it to be a great focal length.
This is an outstanding lens that I couldn't afford many years ago but am now glad I tried one out.
| |
| Review of: 6x7 Rear Converter 2x by desertscape on Thu December 5, 2013 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 27148
Reviews: 4
| Optics-
This converter is a 6 element type consisting of two cemented achromats in the front and an air spaced negative achromat in the rear. It is afocal in that it will not produce an image by itself. Since it is overall, negative, it changes the angle of the light cone to produce a larger image. It turns a non telephoto lens into a telephoto because it magnifies the image from the front group. Using this converter on a lens that is already a true telephoto (300 Takumar, 400 Takumar, 500mm etc.) can cause image degradation. The 300ED and 400 ED are not true telephotos, so using the 2x makes them a telephoto system. Converters not only magnify the image, they magnify aberrations as well. That is why it is critically important that the converter itself does not add any aberrations in its design. The lens elements of this converter appear to be multi-coated. There are 3 positive and 3 negative elements in this converter, so it looks to be a focal system but it does not form an image, so it cannot be. The 3 negative elements have to be high refractive index, high density glass to be able to make this converter afocal. All positive elements are probably low index glass.
Fit-
The fit onto the camera body and to the lenses is outstanding. The build quality is super ( solid, nice hand grip, rugged). Surprisingly, this 2X fits on every lens I tried it on. The 1.4X is very limited regarding which lenses will fit. Even the 45mm, the two zooms and the 165LS will fit on the 2X. Of course it fits on the outer bay lenses because it has the outer bay tabs.
Shutter shake becomes a major problem with this converter because not only is the distance between the shutter and tripod increased, the added magnification aggravates the situation. Using the 2X on a 400mm or 600 becomes a problem. The use of fast film (400 or 800 speed) is required to increase the shutter speed to get sharp shots. The 600mm + 2x and 1/125 second shutter speed has worked well, although I had to brace the camera body with my hands. Using a 50 speed film and f/45 and long exposures (1-2 sec.) does not work. Shutter vib still blurs the shot.
Since this converter causes a 2 stop loss of light, that 2 stop difference can be used to increase the DOF of shots that were not possible before. As an example-- Let's say you needed to shoot a 200mm at f/45 to get enough DOF for a shot. This could be done with the 105mm plus 2X converter. It becomes a 210mm with f/45. The focal ratio changes because the diaphragm remains unchanged, yet the focal length is lengthened.
This converter allows wide open metering and also allows the lens to be shot wide open without having to stop down manually. In other words, all auto functions of the lenses are maintained. This is the same as the 1.4X converter.
Performance-
When using it on the 600mm, image degradation can easily be seen at f/4 but sharpens up by f/13 and beyond. Color correction in this converter is outstanding as evidenced by the use of the 400 and 600mm lenses on it. The 2x seems to actually improve the color fringing problem with the 600mm. After seeing the test in Luminous Landscape on this converter, I was expecting to see softness in my slides. Using Velvia 50 and the 165 LS, I shot a scene with fine detail in the middle ground and background. The slides were surprisingly sharp. As sharp as if it were shot from the 45mm. If one is careful in choosing the lens to put in front of the 2X, it can perform well. Putting the 300 Takumar in front is a mistake. Way too much shutter vib.
Conclusion-
It is better than I was expecting. Sharp when used with the best lenses. Cheap to own and good enough for publication purposes.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 100mm F4 Macro by desertscape on Sun September 16, 2012 | Rating: 0 | View more reviews | |
Views: 67783
Reviews: 7
|
This post is just to add to what has already been said about this lens.
The main part of this lens is 6 element Double Gauss that looks similar to the 90mm f/2.8 in cross section. The life size adapter is a 3 element (Cooke Triplet ?) that looks to be an apochromat (corrected for 3 colors), which is common as the front group on telephoto lenses. This degree of color correction will be an improvement over using a screw-in achromat.
This recent design could easily be used on the 645D as an alternative to the more expensive 90mm ED Macro that was just released.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F4 Leaf Shutter by desertscape on Fri August 17, 2012 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 52673
Reviews: 8
| Lens Type
To add just a bit to what has already been said, it is interesting to note the change in optical design with this newer 165mm. Pentax got away from the Double Gauss design that was used on the f/2.8 lens. This lens uses an Ernostar design originally from Germany in the 1920's. This design is also used in the Pentax 200mm but more importantly, it was used in some of the Leica reflex lenses. The 180mm Elmarit-R f/2.8 and the 90 Summicron-R f/2 were Ernostars. They are amazingly sharp. The two Pentax versions consist of a positive element followed by a positive achromat, then a strong negative element. A single weak positive element is at the rear. This design type is responsible for the Pentax 200 and 165 f/4 being as sharp as they are.
Odds and Ends
This lens is not much larger than the 105 but weighs noticeably more. There is absolutely no evidence that this lens existed before 1987, though some make that claim. This lens was introduced at the end of 1987. Both the leaf shutter and diaphragm use 5 blades, probably because they use the same pivot pins to mount them. This may be convenient to manufacture but leaves the shooter with a 5 blade diaphragm. I was expecting at least 8 blades to keep the opening close to round. The leaf shutter is located just in front of the diaphragm. For a 165 mm focal length, this is a short lens. It is about the same length as the 55 mm but weighs about as much as the 200 mm. Four leaf shutter speeds are given (1/60, 1/125, 1/250 and 1/500) and are selected at the front of the lens. Shutter cocking is also at the front of the lens via a rotating grip. This lens uses an auto diaphragm and the lens mount is inner bay. Close focus is 5 feet. Oddly enough, the latest gray 1.4X converter will not fit on this lens; sad really. I feel it was a great idea that Pentax decided to put an f/32 stop on this lens for landscape shooters. It gives 30 feet to infinity depth. They did the same thing on the 200 Pentax; no surprise since the design type is the same. To bypass the leaf shutter and use the lens like a normal lens, rotate the leaf shutter speed selector ring to the "0" position. This lens seems to do well in macro work due to its f/32 stop and 165mm focal length. It needs the extension tubes set to do this of course.
Performance
I will report on this after I shoot it some more. Okay, after shooting this lens quite a bit now, I can safely say it is sharp. Color rendition is nice, giving saturated colors. Very little distortion is seen. Using the lens stopped down for macro work, yields sharp images. There is an upper tier of sharpness in the Pentax 67 line, where these lenses are noticeably sharper than the rest. The 55mm latest, 75 Takumar, 55-100 zoom come to mind. The 165LS belongs to this group. My estimate on LP/mm is 90 at f/11. I feel the 165 is sharper than the 90-180 zoom at 165mm but the difference is small. Speaking of the 90-180 zoom, the 165LS has noticeably less DOF with its f/32 smallest stop, compared with the zoom's f/45. This makes for a very real difference in the field with landscapes. Shooting a field of flowers at f/32, one will find that the foreground cannot be put into the frame as close as you might like due to DOF issues. The 165LS really needs the f/45 stop. Using the leaf shutter for landscape work to avoid the focal plane shutter kick, sounds like a good idea until you try it. The slowest speed of the leaf shutter is 1/60sec. That is of little use when using slow film and small stops. This lens was not designed for such use and is probably why it doesn't have slow leaf shutter speeds. I find this lens to be slightly sharper than the 200 Pentax. The specialty lenses made by Pentax have been really good and this one is no exception. Overall, a great lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M* 67 300mm F4 ED [IF] by desertscape on Sun April 22, 2012 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 57727
Reviews: 8
| Overview and Optics
Initial opinion is that this is noticeably heavier than the older Takumar. It is also a bit longer than the older 300. It is nice to have a tripod mount on this newer lens since the Takumar was plagued with shutter vib issues. The close focus is MUCH closer than the Takumar. This is a 9 element lens with 2 ED (Low Dispersion) elements as opposed to the 5 element Takumar. More elements gives the designer many more degrees of freedom to control aberrations. This new 300 departs from the traditional telephoto design because it does not use a negative rear group but has one that is slightly positive. The cross section is nearly identical to the older 400 EDIF. It consists of a quadruplet up front which contains two ED elements, a middle group with a positive and negative element and a rear group consisting of 2 positive elements and 1 negative one. This lens is designed to be shot wide open with good performance and no fear of color fringing. The 300 EDIF was designed to take advantage of the low dispersion glass by controlling colors passing through all lens areas ( paraxial, zonal and marginal). This lack of longitudinal chromatic aberration in all lens zones makes for a lens with low spherochromatism and excellent performance. The use of ED glass also reduces lateral chromatic; something that the diaphragm cannot reduce and is therefore important to correct out. Both the 400 and 300 Takumars had some of this and it was annoying at times. I suspect that the 300 EDIF is corrected for 4 colors (superachromatic), probably red, blue, green & violet. The aspect that makes the use of ED glass so much better than conventional glass is the degree in which it controls the uncorrected colors (far violet, orange, teal and yellow). These colors will focus much closer to the film plane than when using conventional glass. This is the most important advantage of using low dispersion glass. The reason this lens is longer than the older 300mm is that Pentax wanted to get away from the true telephoto design that uses a negative group at the rear to shorten the overall length of the lens. This shortening also reduces performance because it magnifies the aberrations from the front group.
Since this lens was only produced for a short time, it is not a common lens. Its rarity and reputation have turned this lens into a much sought after optic. Its price on the used market remains high.
Accessories
Focusing is smooth but too easy. The focusing ring needs more resistance. It is too easy to move the focus when not intending to. The lens needs a click stop at infinity so that you know where infinity is when using this lens in low light. The lens hood does not fit as well as the hoods on the zoom lenses. The tripod mount rotates to allow vertical shooting and locks down snugly with a small knob. When rotating the lens and body within this mount, one can feel a notch, indicating when vertical is reached. This is a great idea. The DOF scale is very cramped and hard to read. It is one of the drawbacks from having a quick INTERNAL FOCUSING system. Little motion is needed to change focus. The front filter is the same as the older 300mm; 82mm.
The diaphragm is a nine blade type and not nearly as nice as the 12 blade one on the 400 Takumar. It is close to being round at f/5.6 but nowhere else.
I'm not sure why Pentax decided to abandon the f/45 stop on this new version of their 300 mm. It was quite useful on their 300 Takumar/Pentax for tough DOF shots. All of their longer telephotos have it.
Performance
Since this lens has close focus capability due to IF, it can be used for macro work. It combines well with the inner bay extension tubes. I used the #2 and #3 tubes and could fill the frame with a couple of 2 inch flowers. The old Takumar could not even come close to doing this with these two tubes. DOF is a bit limited in macro work with the 300 ED because it only stops to f/32. After several attempts at macro work with the #2 and #3 tubes, it is obvious that shooting from 1/2 to 1/30 second range affects the sharpness in a negative way due to shutter vib. The reason is because the distance between the tripod mount and the shutter is increased substantially, thus allowing more leverage and movement. Shutter speeds out of this range do quite well.
The 1.4X rear converter (gray) fits on this lens and does not degrade the image. This combination makes for some really sharp pictures. The logical comparison is between this combination and the 400 Takumar. In sharpness they are similar but the ED + 1.4 has way less lateral color. The ED + 1.4 competes well with the 400 EDIF.
A comparison between the 300 EDIF and the 400 Takumar in the f/8 to f/11 range show little difference.
A comparison between this rare 300mm and the older Takumar shows the main difference being at wide open aperture. The Takumar would color fringe at f/4 in high contrast situations. The ED version will not. The ED 300 is noticeably sharper wide open as well. At f/8 the older 300 does quite well since color fringing is reduced and so are the aberrations (with the exception of lateral color, distortion and curvature of field). The older Takumar does nearly as well as the ED 300 at f/8 in sharpness but the big difference is in lateral color. In the ED, it is undetectable; in the Takumar, it is a problem when contrast is high. Another difference between the two is in color rendition. The ED is the hands down winner here. The ED also has better contrast than the Takumar. Possibly even more significant than the optical differences between the two, is the addition of a tripod mount on the ED version. However, it is a mistake to think, that since this lens has a tripod mount, it can't be affected by shutter vib. It can be, especially when using the tripod fully extended in the shutter range of 1/2 to 1/30 sec. This becomes much worse when adding the 1.4X converter to the lens.
| |
| Review of: 6x7 Rear Converter 1.4x by desertscape on Mon April 2, 2012 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 23451
Reviews: 5
|
This gray converter is the latest design by Pentax. Their older ones were black. This converter is made like a lens; rubber grip surface, SMC glass, lens release slider and diaphragm connection for wide open metering. The automatic diaphragm function of the lens is retained when using the 1.4x converter. To my surprise, it even has outer bay tabs for mounting the outer bay lenses. You lose 1 stop of speed with the converter because you are extending the focal length. This changes the focal ratio since the diaphragm remains unchanged. Since the focal length has changed, the DOF scale on the lens you are using will not be accurate. One solution is to put hyperfocal marks on the lenses you plan to use with the 1.4x, that represent the longer focal length.
Optics-
The optical construction is 5 elements in 3 groups. It consists of a positive achromat upfront, followed by a negative achromat, then a single positive element. This lens is afocal. It will not form an image by itself. It needs the converging rays from another lens to do that. With 3 positive elements and 2 negative, one would think that it would not be afocal but be able to form an image by itself. Not so. This means that the 2 negative elements are high refractive index, high density glass. The positive elements are most likely low dispersion, low index glass. In the telescope world, a simple 2 element achromat is used to extend the focal length of the scope. They are known as Barlow lenses. The 1.4 and 2X converters for the 67 do the same thing. So why didn't Pentax use a 2 element Barlow design as TCs? They just do not correct the off axis aberrations well enough to be used for photography. The corners would be too soft.
I was surprised at how few lenses this converter will fit on. Sure it fits the 200 Pentax, 300 Takumar, 400 Takumar and 600 Takumar but it will not fit the zooms, 105mm, 150 Takumar, 165 LS or 45mm. It was obviously designed for the longer lenses. As such, I suspect the use of ED glass in this converter. Strangely enough, when mounted on the 600 Takumar, it does not increase color fringing. It seems to actually reduce it. How can this be? The converter intercepts the rays before they reach the focal plane and before the colors can separate further. It does not allow them to separate as it would, had there been no converter in place. There is quite a distance between the rear element in the 600 and the film, so putting a highly color corrected converter in between is effective. One will get amazing results with the 600 + 1.4X when using the 600 stopped down as mentioned below. With the 200 Pentax, this 1.4X retains the sharpness of the lens. When used with the 600mm, the lens must be stopped down to at least f/13 to reduce color fringing. With the 400 Takumar, (another outer bay lens like the 600) the 1.4x converter works well at all stops. Using the 1.4x with outer bay lenses and the outer bay extension tubes is a bit strange. The setup will not fit if one tries to put the converter on the lens and then attach the tubes. This seems logical because the optics generally go in front of the tubes. But the tubes must be in front of the converter. This configuration seems to work okay though.
I have found that after having this converter for awhile now, that I seem to use it for my longer lenses and not as much for the 200 and 300mm.
When using the 1.4x with the Pentax 200, the sharpness results rival the 300mm EDIF-- Amazing. With the 200mm at f/11 + 1.4X, the estimated sharpness is 85-90 LP/mm.
Since this converter does not increase aberrations, it begs the question, how did they do that? The obvious answer is that the designer had to correct all seven aberrations within this converter so as not to add any at the focal plane. They were successful and created a great converter.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-6x7 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 800mm F4 by desertscape on Tue March 6, 2012 | Rating: 0 | View more reviews | |
Views: 31475
Reviews: 2
|
This post is informational since I don't own this rare lens.
With its 8 inch diameter front element and 39 lb weight, this lens is gargantuan. It was first produced in 1969 and went unchanged optically for its entire run. With its f/4 speed and the weight that this required, it became a limited use lens. It was just too heavy for most uses. It was superseded by a slower and lighter 800mm (EDIF). The 800Takumar was built as a big brother to the 600Takumar. Both have outer bay mounting; both use geared focusing and both have similar optical designs and physical appearance. Both have a similar lens hood. Also, both use stop down metering and have huge diaphragms. The speed range between the two is identical, F/4 to F/45.
The 800 Takumar uses a 6 element optical design like the 600, however the cross sections are quite different. The 800 uses a quadruplet up front, probably with the intention of correcting 4 colors, as opposed to the triplet up front in the 600. The rear group in the 800 consists of only 2 elements, a double concave negative and a plano convex positive element. No low dispersion glass was used in the 800; it used conventional glass. Since the 600mm had chromatic aberration issues, I would guess that the 800 does as well. They were designed in the same era. At 800mm, it is extremely difficult to control colors well enough to prevent fringing. This lens would have to be corrected for 5 colors (violet, blue, green, yellow and red) to not fringe using conventional glass. I am very doubtful that this was done. Stopping down would be the only solution to color fringing. The 800 EDIF avoids this problem because it doesn't allow the colors to separate in the first place.
The 800 has a rear filter bay like the 600. A filter holder is screwed into the back of the lens and a filter is screwed into that. The 800 also allows the camera body to be rotated for vertical shooting (just like the 600). Using a rear polarizing filter on any outer bay lens is a royal pain!
In the 1996 to 1998 time frame, this lens sold for $7300 new. Today it is only available on the used market but is rare. Used copies are generally in the $2600 to $4000 range.
Due to its large diameter front element, this lens gets some attention from Astronomers. I'm betting that chromatic aberration will negatively affect any wide open viewing/shooting.
There were very few of these lenses produced by Pentax as evidenced by how few are seen on the used market today.
It is well known by Pentax big glass shooters that the new version, the 800 EDIF outperforms the older Takumar. Plus, the new version is 1/3 the weight but at a much higher cost.
The production of the two 800's ran concurrently for a number of years (approximately 15).
| |
| Review of: S-M-C Reflex-Takumar 6x7 1000mm F8 by desertscape on Sun May 22, 2011 | Rating: 0 | View more reviews | |
Views: 27017
Reviews: 3
|
This post is a review for informational purposes, as I don't own this lens. The 1000mm Reflex-Takumar is probably the rarest lens for the Pentax 67 system. There is also very little information about it. This mirror lens has a 7 inch diameter and weighs just slightly more than the 600mm f/4 Takumar; not bad for a 1 meter focal length lens. As one would expect, it is for use on the outer bay of the P67 lens mount. There is no diaphragm, which is typical for mirror lenses. It is set at f/8 which is determined by its optical design. I have a background in optics and I must say that I have never seen a design like this lens. It is obviously a Maksutov Cassegrain from the telescope world, however it does not resemble any known type in that category. Instead of having a meniscus up front as the first element, it has a weak positive element, followed by a meniscus. The slightly converging light beam reflects off of a concave mirror (probably spherical) and then to the secondary mirror that is attached to the meniscus. From there, light is passed through a hole in the primary mirror and through the rear lens group. There are two mirrors and seven refracting elements. Focusing is done via large knobs, just like the 600 Takumar. This lens comes with built-in ND, Skylight, Y2 and R2 filters that can be rotated into place. Exposure can only be changed by the ND filter and shutter speed, since this lens has no diaphragm. Because of this, DOF changes are impossible. This lens is best suited for narrow focus subjects like birds or mammals at distance, although certain near infinity shots could be had as well. Since Pentax has stopped producing these lenses, I have only seen one for sale on the used market. The price of this lens when new was $5900. US.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M* 67 800mm F6.7 ED [IF] by desertscape on Sat May 2, 2009 | Rating: 0 | View more reviews | |
Views: 40710
Reviews: 5
|
This review is more of a preview than a test of this lens, as I don't own one. There is little information about this rare lens so this post is informational. The 800mm EDIF M* was introduced circa 1986 as Pentax's first M* lens. It is 1 1/2 stops slower than the 800mm Takumar (and much lighter). It weighs about the same as the 600 Takumar, which is still heavy but for an 800mm lens, it is not bad. The lens comes with a 1.4X dedicated T5 rear converter for a final magnification of 1120mm. The lens switched to inner bay mounting compared with the 800 Takumar's outer bay system. This was a good idea given the problems with outer bay metering. The M* did retain the ability to mount the camera either horizontally or vertically on the lens like the Takumar. The diaphragm is now fully automatic; the 800 Takumar was manual. This makes for a bit faster shooting because you can meter wide open. This lens uses a rear 67mm filter, which I don't like due to internal reflections. The front element is around 120mm in diameter, so a front filter would be expensive. If one were to get a front filter, purchase only the highest quality because any lack of flatness will be highly magnified by the lens and you could see the softness in the finder! Close focusing is 8 meters VS 20 meters on the 800 Takumar. A huge improvement, especially when shooting birds or other small subjects. This lens has a focus lock as well.
The optical design is pretty typical of early low dispersion lenses. It is a combination of traditional telephoto design and low dispersion designs. Newer low dispersion designs don't have the negative element at the rear which looks like a field flattener. So, we have a quadruplet up front and a negative element at the rear ( very common in old style telephotos). But what sets it apart from the older designs is the addition of a middle group (4 elements) and the ED element up front surrounded by two negative elements. The other positive element up front is most likely ED as well. They are probably an exotic Fluoride glass but I doubt they are Fluorite ( a mineral crystal -Calcium Fluoride). Fluorite crystals can't be grown to the size of the front elements of this lens without costing a fortune. The front ED element is protected from the weather by enclosing it with other elements. This is an indicator of the use of a Fluoride glass. The other glass types in the quadruplet are probably high index Barium. The use of a quadruplet up front indicates superachromatic color correction (4 colors corrected). The 800mm f/4 Takumar used a quadruplet up front as well. The advantage of low dispersion glass in the M* is that color is corrected very well in all zones of the lens ( marginal, zonal and paraxial colors are focused on the film plane) allowing wide open shooting without fringing. The above described optical design is the first version of the 800 EDIF with 9 elements. There is a 10 element version that came out later but I have not seen its cross section. This information was extracted from Pentax's own booklets on their lenses.
Even though this lens has a tripod mount, shutter vib will need to be considered as a potential problem when shooting between 1/2 and 1/30 sec due to its high magnification.
The performance tests I've read on this show it to be outstanding but this is not first hand knowledge.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 55mm F4 by desertscape on Sat March 14, 2009 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 114116
Reviews: 11
|
I have used this lens only a few times as I borrow it from my brother. The results I have seen from it are in the same league as the 75mm f/4.5; sharp, contrasty, good saturated colors and sharp in the corners wide open. The cross section shows that this design is very diffferent from the earlier 55mm lenses. This design has gotten away from the thick element style seen earlier. It is obviously a Distagon (Zeiss) variant and one can see that heritage when compared with Distagon cross sections seen on Hasselblad and Contax wide lenses. My estimate for its maximum lp/mm is 100-105. I feel the 55 needs an f/32 stop like the 55-100 zoom has. The added DOF is really important for landscape work. The 55 is slightly sharper than the 55-100 zoom but they are close. Other than this, the lens is pretty much perfect.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 45mm F4 by desertscape on Fri March 6, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 117180
Reviews: 19
|
There are two versions of the 45mm, both are optically the same. The pre-1990 version has rougher aperture ring grip and slightly different rubber focusing ring. I have owned one since 1990 and is probably my most used lens. Needless to say, it is great for landscapes and seascapes. I always take this lens for travel work as it is small and has the angle of view for travel landscapes. This 9 element cross section is very similar to the 21mm Super Angulon-R used for the Leicaflex cameras. Its thick central elements show that the design has Biogon heritage, although modified to clear the mirror box. It uses a floating element for better close up spherical aberration correction. An obvious atttempt to correct the traditional barrel distortion seen in wide SLR lenses, was made. Its slight mustache distortion is not a show stopper. One can have the ocean in the shot without worry of it being noticably curved. I have found that the 45 is better corrected for distortion than Pentax's wide lenses for its 35mm cameras. This lens has an 8 blade diaphragm. The rear of the lens has a gel filter clip, should one want to use one. I use mine stopped down to at least f/8 and mostly to f/22. I have shot it at f/4 a few times with good results. This lens is well corrected optically and is pretty sharp in the corners at f/5.6. This lens is easily sharp enough for publication purposes. My estimate for lp/mm is 85. When comparing chromes from this lens with the 55-100 zoom, they look very similar until you look way off axis, then you can see just how sharp the zoom really is. That's why the zoom is a 10 rating and the 45 is a 9. There are reports of variation in performance from copy to copy, so my estimate above is from what I have seen. Once again, the DOF scale is a bit optimistic, so one has to be a little conservative when setting up shots with DOF. I suggest at least a half stop different on the scale. I have only seen lateral color with this lens in a few shots with extreme contrast . This equates to 4 shots out of 2000 over 20 years. Be careful when using a polarizer with this one, since it is wide enough to cause differential light/dark areas across the sky.
I would have preferrred that the 45 be upgraded like the 55mm to a Distagon-like design but the 45 was probably left alone because it performed so well as is. If I have a choice between using the 45mm or my 55-100 zoom, I usually choose the zoom.
Overall a great lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 200mm F4 by desertscape on Fri March 6, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 89258
Reviews: 11
|
I have owned this lens since 1990 and feel I have a pretty good idea of its strengths and weaknesses. The 5 element Pentax 200 superseded the 4 element Takumar 200 with a smaller stop f/32, better performance and lighter weight (introduced in late 1986). They got away from the triplet-like design on the Takumar and went to the German based Ernostar type. This same design was used in some of the 180mm lenses for the Leica reflex cameras. The Pentax 200 is one of the best lenses of the line, useful in landscape work, portraits, seascapes, travel and macros. It is one of my favorites for macro use due to its small stop and right focal length. It really shines when used in landscapes with great detail in the background. Sharpness is in the upper range of the entire lens line. My estimate concerning LP/mm is 90 at f/11. This lens seems to be the most underestimated in sharpness of the entire line. It can go toe to toe with the 55 mm. The 55 is slightly sharper but the difference is so small as to not be a concern. The 200 is sharper than the 45 mm. Low distortion and good color rendition are seen in this lens. I have never seen any color aberration with this lens. The DOF scale is off slightly and needs to be set more conservatively than indicated. I like its close focus ability for portraits. The 200 can be improved with an f/45 stop to improve its DOF for landscape work. This is the main reason why I use my 90-180 zoom in lieu of the 200mm in landscape shots. However, the 200 will outperform the zoom in their sweet spot range of f/8 - f/16. Shutter vib is only a minor concern with this lens and is affected way less than the 300 Takumar.
This lens does amazingly well with the newer 1.4x converter (gray). No image degradation is seen. The 200 mm + 1.4X outperforms the 300 Takumar and is on par with the 300 EDIF. I was shocked!
Overall, the 200 is a great perfoming lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye by desertscape on Mon March 2, 2009 | Rating: 6 | View more reviews | |
Views: 54934
Reviews: 8
|
This limited use lens has some virtues but I found it difficult to use. Its built in filters only seem to benefit black and white shooting. It is soft in the corners no matter which stop is used, which leads me to believe that it has a curvature of field issue. How can this be? Only curvature of field, distortion and lateral color are not affected by the diaphragm of the seven aberrations. We know that distortion does not affect sharpness, only image magnification, so the soft edges are most likely curvature of field (image at focus is curved) The center 80% of the frame is quite sharp though and I have been known to cut down the slides to 645, using just the center. Even when shooting objects at infinity, this lens produces soft edges, so the cause is not a DOF error.
The barrel distortion in this lens is caused by the design (very asymmetrical) and more importantly, it is the result of unequal image magnification across the frame. The marginal areas of the lens magnify less than the zonal and paraxial areas and therefore, objects at the edge of the frame will appear smaller than those in the middle. Even though objects at the edge of the field will be further from the film plane and appear slightly smaller in a rectilinear lens, this lens exaggerates this because it demagnifies at the edge of the field.
This lens comes in handy for huge expanses like the Grand Canyon. The optical design is similar to the fisheyes built for the Leicaflex cameras with very negative elements up front and positive ones at the rear. This lens is obviously not corrected for distortion, nor was it intended to be. This lens design does not employ thick elements like the 45mm, which was influenced by the older Biogon designs. One can use the 35mm for landscapes without distortion if one puts the horizon at the mid point of the frame. Its diagonal coverage is not 180 degrees at close focus; more like 160 degrees. It is still super wide. Color rendition and contrast are quite good but it is the softest of the 15 lenses that I have used for this system. I sold mine. I wish it were a rectilinear 35mm instead. I feel this lens can be used for pro work but only when cropped down to eliminate the edge softness.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 105mm F2.4 by desertscape on Mon March 2, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 174503
Reviews: 26
|
The 105 is considered the normal lens for this system. I have used mine quite a bit, having owned it since 1988. It is a typical 6 element Double Gauss design that has been around for a century and commonly used in SLR cameras for normal lens. It has a nearly symmetrical design which has the benefit of correcting several nasty aberrations automatically. It is certainly not a telecentric design as was stated above by another reviewer. The oldest Super-Takumar 105 has a slightly different optical design and used super high refractive index Thorium glass for better correction of spherical aberration. The newer SMC Takumar and Pentax are the same optically. I have the SMC Takumar. A sharp lens with low distortion, good color saturation and no color aberrations seen. Can be used for macro, portraits, street work, landscapes, fashion and travel work. I have used this lens for Weddings and Quincineras, wide open, in natural light and it does quite well. It is limited in macro and landscape work by its f/22 smallest stop. It really needs f/45 for those uses. At f/8 it is sharp enough for 24 x 30 inch prints. Many shooters don't use this angle of view (46 degrees) much, myself included. My 90-180 zoom has proven itself so well that I use it more than the 105 now. I feel the zoom is just as sharp.
My estimate for lp/mm for the 105 is 80 @ f/8. It is fairly sharp wide open but really does well at f/5.6 and beyond.
Be aware that the Pentax 1.4x rear converter will not fit on this lens- somewhat disappointing.
Overall, the 105 is a rugged, well built, good performer that is cheap to own. It is suitable for pro work.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar / Super Takumar 6x7 300mm F4 by desertscape on Sun March 1, 2009 | Rating: 7 | View more reviews | |
Views: 68711
Reviews: 11
|
I have owned this lens since 1995, so I have a pretty good idea of its capability.
The 300mm Takumar is the same optically as the 300 Pentax. The Pentax has a rubber grip. The optical design is similar to the 400 Takumar in that it has an APO triplet up front followed by a weak positive element and a negative element in the rear. The design corrects for yellow, blue and red, as one can see uncorrected colors fringe at f/4 in extremely high contrst shots. Color correction improves as one stops down due to differential color correction in the different lens zones(spherochromatism). Even though this lens is technically Apochromatic, it cannot focus the colors in the marginal zone of the lens close enough to the film plane to compete with ED lens performance. This lens is difficult to judge concerning sharpness because it is so prone to shutter vib. It has no tripod collar. I have some shots taken with this lens that are very sharp, especially at infinity and f/8. This lens is not however in the top 10 sharpest lenses of the line. My estimate for lp/mm is 75. Shooting between 1/2 and 1/30 sec is problematic due to shutter vib issues. Using its f/45 stop comes in handy to get the shutter speed in an acceptable range with slow film. Contrast with this lens is one of the worst of the line, so exposure becomes very critical. Using a contrasty film helps this situation. This lens likes Velvia 50. The DOF scale on this lens is the most inaccurate of all the P67 lenses I have used. Use 3 stops more conservative than what is shown. Using inner bay tubes with the 300 is difficult because you have so much overhang off the tripod with little support. This lens does well in portrait work and landscapes. It is well built and tough! When used correctly and with the right film, one cannot tell the difference between this lens and the rest of the P67 lens line.
Overall, not the easiest lens to use but it can be used for published work. I finally sold mine in 2013 after many years of fighting with it and many lost shots. Replaced with the ED version.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 6x7 150mm F2.8 by desertscape on Sat February 28, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 55631
Reviews: 5
|
The 150 Super-Takumar and 150 SMC Takumar have the same optical configuration, just a coating difference. I believe the Super-Takumar has a three layer coating; the SMC version is a 7 layer coating. They are both 5 element Double Gauss type designs, which is quite common in the industry. This lens does well for portraits and weddings due to its speed(f/2.8) and focal length. It is not so good for landscape work due to it only having an f/22 smallest stop. Color rendition seems to be good, distortion is low and no chromatic aberrations have been seen. Its use for macro work is limited by it not having smaller stops. The 150 is a solid, well built but heavy lens that can be bought "used" only, since it has been out of production for at least 24 years. It is one of the best values on the used market. Sharpness is not quite as good as the 105mm but it is close. This makes sense because the 105 has 6 elements instead of 5 in the 150. Because this is such an old optical design (circa 1970), people tend to think it can't compete with the latest Pentax designs. This is just not true. Stopped down just a bit, this lens does really well and is sharp enough for publication purposes. My estimate concerning lp/mm is in the 80 range at f/8 to f/11. It is sharpest at f/8 to f/11 but does well between f/5.6 and f/22.
Be aware that the 1.4x rear converter will not fit on this lens. This was a mistake in my opinion.
Overall a good lens that was intended for portraits and weddings and does okay for both. It does well in hand held action work too. I use mine for hand held travel work as well. It is limited for other uses. It was superseded by the 165 f/2.8 and 165 f/4 LS. I tend to use my 90-180 zoom instead of this lens now, as the zoom is more versatile. I have no intention of selling my 150 tho. It is the best value of the entire lens line.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 90-180mm F5.6 by desertscape on Sun February 22, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 34152
Reviews: 3
|
This is one of my most used lenses and have owned it since it was introduced. The focal length range covers the most common lenses bought by owners of this system. I have not seen a cross section of this lens but it is safe to say that it is a two zoom group type like the 55-100 zoom. One difference from the 55-100 is the f/45 stop. This is somewhat radical for Pentax but I welcome the addition. Mamiya has done this for quite some time on their lenses for the RZ/RB. This lens has some limitations for landscape work due to its lack of DOF scale. Hyperfocal marks can be added to the barrel, as seen in the picture. It is best to use the prime lenses as a guide when putting hyperfocal marks on the zoom. Put temporary marks that can be taken off, since getting it right the first time is rare. Sharpness is nearly as good as the 55-100 zoom and slightly better than the 150 Takumar. It competes easily, regarding sharpness, with the prime lenses in its focal length range. My estimate for lp/mm is 80-85 in the f/8 - f/16 range. Distortion is very low, color rendition is excellent and no chromatic aberration has been seen. Its color rendition is better than most of the primes designed in the 70's. This zoom does very well in macro work, especially since it is in the right focal length range and has small stops. Its zoom ring can be used to focus in macro work since the focus does not hold when changing focal lengths when used up close. Its close focus ability without tubes is a foot shorter than the comparable 150mm Takumar and 200 Pentax (4 feet instead of 5 feet). This gives the zoom more flexibility when shooting portraits. Its DOF in landscape work is just amazing. At the 90mm setting and using f/45, one can shoot wildflowers that are fairly close to the camera and still have infinity in focus. Caution must be exercised when shooting at f/45 since diffraction is noticeable! This lens works well for travel work too, because of its focal length range. It is a heavy lens, expensive and somewhat slow but its benefits outweigh its negatives. It should be noted that the gray 1.4X converter will not fit on this lens. The 2x converter does fit however. The performance with the 2X seems about the same as when using the lens by itself. Only a very slight difference is seen. This zoom is not as tough as the primes so be careful. If you have landscape or macro work published, this is your lens. One of the best lenses in the lineup. It could have easily been given the M* designation. Between the two zooms, the 55-100 is slightly better due to its sharpness.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 600mm F4 by desertscape on Sun February 22, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 38651
Reviews: 2
|
The 600 Takumar was a small production lens with few owners. My estimate at the number produced is 1000. I have owned this lens since 1996 and have used it quite a bit (for a large lens) and feel I am a pretty good judge of its capabilities.
This big and heavy lens takes some getting used to. It amplifies shutter vib enormously and makes shooting between 1/2 sec and 1/30 sec impossible, unless you use two tripods or a Wimberley+ long lens support. Caution, using 2 tripods for this lens and camera is a major pain! Any single tripod used should be at least 10 lbs and preferably 20 lbs. When using this lens on a fully extended tripod, even 1 second exposures will be soft due to shutter vib. This lens comes with a built-in lens hood and also has the ability to rotate the camera body within the lens mount for vertical shooting. It uses the outer bay mounting on the camera body. Longitudinal chromatic aberration is easily seen at f/4 but not in flat lighting conditions. By f/13 and beyond, color aberrations are not seen. One can see the reduction of the fringing in the finder as you stop down from f/4. This is strange to see! I use mine for sunsets, rainbows, lightning and birds (with tubes). It can be used for large mammals as well. It can be shot handheld but is a challenge. Forget packing this one in! I hauled mine 1/2 mile once and was exhausted. It is very sharp for big glass but not quite at the level of the 400mm Takumar. Its sharpest stop is f/16 and my estimate for lp/mm is 85-90. Part of the reason why this lens is sharp is due to it being so large in diameter. Physics tells us that diameter has a significant affect on resolution. One can get an accurate idea of this lens's sharpness when using a 35mm body on it because the shutter shake is so low that the image is not affected. The 600 has the 12 blade diaphragm like the 400. It can be set at 1/16 stop increments. Its huge front element is 150mm across and the optical cross section is made up of an APO triplet followed by a weak positive element and a negative achromat. It is corrected for red, blue and yellow because it fringes in violet and green (meaning that it is not corrected for violet and green ). I use mine sometimes with a 35mm body attached for birds; this gives a 12x magnification. It doesn't use helical focusing like the smaller lenses; it uses a geared system with knobs. It makes for very quick focusing.
Lenses shorter than 400mm can get away with the use of conventional glass, however, at 600mm, colors are so difficult to control that 5 colors would need to be corrected to eliminate fringing. This is called superapochromatic (Super APO) correction and sometimes involves the use of low dispersion glass. This is what was done with the 800 EDIF, except that it may not be corrected for 5 colors; it may only be 4 colors (superachromatic). Unfortunately, the 600 was never upgraded like the 800 f/4 was, to ED status. There is a huge difference in color correction between the 400 Takumar and the 600. The 400 rarely fringes, while the 600 is plagued by it. This comparison only applies from f/4 to f/13. The use of a 1.4x converter on the 400 Takumar (560mm) proves to have much less fringing than the 600mm at the wider stops. Pentax dropped the ball on the 600mm. When it was designed in the 70's, there was established technology to correct for 5 colors using conventional optical glass. This is what was needed to adequately correct colors for this lens. Why this was not done on a pro quality lens is a mystery. It is important to remember that this lens will have near zero fringing from f/16 to f/45.
This lens also uses a rear filter. It should be remembered that any filter placed in a converging light beam will cause aberrations to a small degree. In addition to this, one has to deal with the slight loss of contrast with rear filters. I rarely use rear filters on my 600. When I do, it is a multi-coated one. Rear filters also change the focus slightly. It should be noted that the optical design does not include the filter, so one is not necessary for this lens to perform well. One way you can tell that the filter is not a part of the design is to note the infinity focus as seen though the lens is not as seen on the lens barrel as infinity with a filter in place.
The 1.4X rear converter (gray) will fit this outer bay lens. The lens should be stopped down to at least f/8 to reduce the longitudinal chromatic when using the converter. The results when using the 1.4x are amazing. No image degradation is seen. The 600 + 1.4 is at least as sharp as the 45mm, maybe sharper. Also, when using the outer bay extension tubes, the 1.4x needs to be attached to the camera with an extension tube placed in front of the converter. Using the 2X gray converter on this lens just adds to the shutter induced vibration. The lens needs to be stopped down to at least f/11 so that the 2X converter does not make fringing visible. The use of the 1.4X on the 600 actually reduces the CA a bit. With the lens at f/8, there is slight CA but at f/8 with the 1.4X added, it is much less. The 2X converter reduces CA also and probably as much or more than the 1.4X. The reason why both converters reduce CA is because of the following: uncorrected colors leaving the rear element will expand in footprint, the further they are from that element. So, putting a well color corrected converter in place, intercepts the diverging color rays and prevents further separation.
Using to 2X converter on this lens is more of a problem than the 1.4X. More shutter vib influence, more distance between the shutter and tripod and more magnification add up to soft images unless high speed film is used to get the shutter speed up to at least 1/125 sec. When this is done, images nearly as sharp as the 1.4x are produced; still very sharp.
The close focus of this lens is 39 feet but Pentax makes a two piece extension tube set (as mentioned above) that reduces this to 13 feet. The tubes are essential for most bird shooting. These two piece outer bay tubes have become rare, so be advised.
Lots of effort needs to be taken to use this lens successfully. I have published several shots from this monster so it can be done. Overall I like mine and consider it a good lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F4.5 by desertscape on Sat February 21, 2009 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 68893
Reviews: 10
|
This lens was released with the 67II (1998) and was expected to encourage sales of this upgraded system. This lens is basically a modernized version of Pentax's older 35mm film format zooms. It is a typical two zoom group type, based on Itoh's earlier designs. Each group is corrected for aberrations separately. The front group is slightly negative while the rear group is a fairly strong positive group. The cross section of this lens shows several elements being aspherical. There is no mention of their use by Pentax, which is pretty typical for them. I have had this lens since its early days (2001). Not the fastest lens around but it has quite a reach with its f/32 ability. Near/far DOF is nice, especially at the 55mm setting. The major advantage of this lens over other Pentax very wide lenses is that it has the f/32 stop, giving it a large advantage in landscape work. An excellent landscape lens with great color rendition and contrast. Distortion is near zero for all focal lengths. In sharpness, it is in the top 5 of the entire P67 line. It is sharp wide open. My estimate for lp/mm is 95-100. It is noticeably sharper than the 45mm in the corners and the equal of the 75 Takumar and the latest 55mm. When looking at slides on the light table, I can tell which ones are from this lens. The most recent Pentax optical designs are really great when compared to the lenses designed in 1969 to 1976. This zoom is no exception. When I can only carry three lenses for landscape work, this is one of them. It will vignette if you have more than one filter in front at the wider settings. Diaphragm changes as you zoom, so your focal ratio remains the same. There are no DOF scales on this lens nor hyperfocal marks, so one has to add them as seen in the picture. It should be noted that the 1.4X converter will not fit on this lens but the 2x will. The 55-100 is a bit too short for macro work but can be used in a pinch (and does well). It would be interesting to compare this lens at 100mm for macro work against the 100mm macro lens. This is a delicate lens, so be careful with it. This lens changed my perception about zoom lenses being inferior to primes. This zoom is a pro quality landscape lens. I suggest that new users of this camera system who are landscape shooters, skip the prime lenses that this zoom covers (55mm, 75, 90 and 105) and get this lens instead. Really, a nice lens and could have easily been designated as an M* lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 75mm F4.5 by desertscape on Sat February 21, 2009 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 95831
Reviews: 12
|
One of the few, truly retrofocus lenses available. It looks like the original French design in cross section. It uses an eight blade diaphragm. The Takumar and Pentax 75mm are the same optical configuration. The Pentax has the rubber grip as shown, while the Takumar has a fluted metal barrel. It is an amazingly sharp lens and could easily be the sharpest of the entire line. If I were forced to choose between the 55mm latest version and this lens for sharpest, I would choose this lens. It has good contrast and color rendition too. For landscape work I feel it needs an f/32 stop to be able to get the DOF sometimes needed. It competes easily with the sharpest 67 lenses out on the market (Mamiya7,etc.). Have never seen any lateral color with this lens. Distortion is minimal and not a problem. I seem to use my 55-100 zoom more than the 75mm now, so the 75 doesn't get much use. The 75 is slightly sharper though, but they are close. My estimate as far as lp/mm is concerned is 95 -105. The DOF scale is off slightly, so the setting needs to be 1/2 stop more conservative when using the scale. Sharpest stop- f/8, but it is not soft anywhere. Large prints can be made with this lens (24 X 30 inch or a bit larger) with no fear of softness. At f/8 shot at infinity, it will rival some 4x5 camera work in sharpness. This lens really shines when you have small detail in the distant background that needs to be resolved.
This is a well built and solid lens and is not delicate like the zooms.
A pro grade landscape lens/ a great lens.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C Takumar / Super TAKUMAR / Takumar 6x7 400mm F4 by desertscape on Sat February 21, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 50600
Reviews: 7
| Overview and Optics
As far I have seen, there has been only one optical configuration of the 400 Takumar, although there was an early 400 with a narrower focusing grip. I've owned this lens since 1998 and continue to be impressed with it. Its cross section (optical) is very similar to the 300mm Takumar, with an APO triplet up front and a weak positive element and negative element in the rear. But the two lenses couldn't be more different in performance. The 400 has better contrast, better color rendition, better sharpness and has a better diaphragm. It also has a tripod mount, which the old 300 could have used. Yes, the 400 will color fringe a bit at f/4 in high contrast situations but no worse than the 300. The 400's 12 blade diaphragm is a masterpiece. It is perfectly round at f/45. I do not recommend the use of a rear filter on the 400 because they cause reflection which can show up on film. Even the use of a multi coated rear filter does not solve the problem. The 600 is not as bad as the 400 in this regard. The front thread is 108mm and it is not possible to find this size filter unless custom made. I use a 105mm B+W polarizer and have it mounted inside a polycarbonate ring. This ring fits over the lens hood. The dual knob focusing of the 600 was not employed on the 400. It should have been. The helical system is really slow and shots will be missed because of it.
Sharpness
This lens shot at f/8 and infinity is amazingly sharp. My estimate in lp/mm is 90-95. It can rival any lens in the P67 lineup, (although its color rendition is not quite as good as the 300EDIF). It is sharper than the 45mm. In a comparison of slides taken with the 400 and the 55-100 zoom, it is difficult to tell them apart. The 400 and 75 f/4.5 are the sharpest Takumars. This lens is susceptible to shutter vib but not nearly as much as the 600 mm. Shooting at 1/2 to 1/30 second is risky on a tripod.
Odds and Ends-- Technical Info
This lens can be shot handheld without too much problem. Its weight muffles the mirror and shutter vib and so it can be shot at 1/125 sec with little worry. Strangely enough, some bodies have trouble metering with this lens attached. Outer bay lenses have this inherant problem. Only two of my three bodies will meter with this lens. But, the lens is only party to blame. The machining of the body metering pin is not accurate. There is a reason why Pentax went with inner bay, for the newer telephotos. At first, the manual diaphragm of this lens sounds like a major problem but in actual use, it is not. This lens uses a locking lens hood
that can take a bit of getting used to. To fully extend it, one needs to get the hood into a channel by twisting, to move it forward and lock it. There are some 400 Takumars that have a free moving lens hood though.
The use of conventional glass in the Takumar, puts it at a disadvantage to the 400 EDIF. Even though the Takumar is probably APO, it cannot focus all colors at the film plane from all zones of the lens. It is APO in only one zone. Outside this zone, colors focus in front or behind the film. This change in color focus by lens zone is known as spherochromatism. The marginal zone is always the worst and this is done by design. It allows the shooter to stop down to eliminate the poorly corrected marginal colors. By f/8 the Takumar does well in color elimination. The 400 EDIF has some color aberrations as well, but the spherochromatism is way less than the 400 Takumar. The EDIF has less spherochromatism than the Takumar but from f/8 to f/45 the color correction between the two is similar. Lateral color can be seen at the edges of the frame with the Takumar, on occasion, if there is very high contrast in the scene. The EDIF is better in this regard. I think 400 EDIF shooters would be surprised with the excellent performance of the 400 Takumar.
A comparison of the degree of color correction between the 400 and 600 Takumars shows a huge difference. The 400 is way superior to the 600 in regards to Longitudinal Chromatic aberration. The remedy for the 600 is stopping down.
Pentax's 1.4x rear converter will fit on this lens but I suggest stopping the lens down to at least f/6.7 to reduce color fringing possibilities. Be forewarned, that attaching the 1.4x to this lens can sometimes be aggravating, as it will resist seating. Oddly, the 400 with 1.4x (wide open = f/5.6) has less color fringing than the 600mm at f/5.6. Using the 1.4x and outer bay tubes on the 400 is a bit strange. The tubes must be put in front of the converter to fit correctly. This lens with the 1.4 yields 560mm focal length. The performance of this lens with the 1.4x is great- no degradation noticed. The use of the 1.4x will increase the susceptibility of this lens to shutter vib.
Overall, the 400mm Takumar is one of my favorite lenses for this system for reasons you have just read.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6x7 135mm F4 by desertscape on Sat February 21, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 96605
Reviews: 11
|
One can tell that a lot of thought was put into the design of this lens, being that it is nearly symmetrical, which is good for close work. It is a 5 element Dynar type. Both the Takumar and Pentax 135 are the same optically. I just love the look of the Takumar with its fluted barrel. This lens was intended for macro use and does a good job at that, however it is limited by its f/32 stop and really needs an f/45 stop for better DOF. It is corrected for spherical aberration at close distances, so when shooting at or near infinity, it must be stopped down to compensate. Also, since it is corrected for close up work, reversing this lens with a 67mm reverse adapter is not advised and will actually degrade your image. One cannot get anywhere near life size with this lens unless tubes are used. Without tubes, the max magnification is .31x. With all 3 tubes, one can get life size mag. This lens is actually no better for macro work than the other lenses in its focal length range. The 200 Pentax and 90-180 zoom come to mind. When these lenses are stopped down for macro work, it doesn't matter that they are not macro lenses. The close up aberrations that they have, are reduced by the diaphragm. I sold my 135mm and now use the 90-180 zoom for 90% of my macro work. The 135 is great for macro if you are on a budget, as the zooms are quite expensive. It is sharp enough for professional work and my estimate concerning LP/mm is 70-75.
This lens does very well for landscape work when stopped down, especially at f/32. That small stop gives this lens an advantage over the 165 f/2.8, the 165mm LS and the 150 Takumar as far as DOF is concerned. Since DOF is a problem with the 6x7 system in landscape work, this lens helps solve this problem. The 135 is very affordable on the used market.
A nice lens overall.
| |
