I have been using my P67II for several months with the 45, 90 and 300 lenses. I have been very satisfied except for the sharpness when used with the helicoid extension tube. I do mainly landscapes with some nature (when I stumble onto it) and a few flower closeups. I will have the opportunity to add another lens in a few months. I originally planned on adding the 165 because a) it fits nicely between the 90 and 300 and b) because it keeps me down to only two filter sizes. However, I have since thought a portrait capability would be nice for singling out a particular flower or even a head now and then. But I've thought recently the 135 might add a better macro capability than I have with the tube. One question is whether the 135 is truly a macro lens as it comes. Does it need a tube to be fully macro? How sharp is it?

-- Tom Goodrick (tgoodrick@earthlink.net), September 30, 1999

Answers

The 135 does need tubes to do any serious macro work but the lens is quite sharp. The old 150mm f/2.8 is the original portrait lens but it was not able to do a tight head shot. Plus, you must be very close to people to get a tight shot and that can make the subject of your portrait uncomfortable. The 200mm Pentax will allow tight head shots but the DOF is thin and you must use fairly fast film in order to stop it down. This lens does very well with my Helicoid also. The best lens would have been a 180mm but they don't make one. The 200 is a pretty good compromise but make sure it is not the Takumar. (This lens doesn't close focus and uses a four element design that is not as sharp as the five element Pentax). I don't have experience with the 165s. If you get one for landscapes, macros and potraits I would recommend the six element, f/2.8, double gauss design because its semi-symmetrical configuration is better for close ups than the f/4 165 which is asymmetrical(Ernostar). SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), October 01, 1999.

Given the three lenses you already have I would not hesitate to chose the 2.8/165mm. My experience with this lens is extremely satisfying. Like you, I also enjoy the possibility to share filters with the 90mm lens. Concerning the close focus distance, the 165mm achieves a magnification of 1/7.5 which corresponds roughly to a minimum object field of 40x50cm. For most portrait shots this should be sufficient. If I need a closer focus distance I attach the two-element (achromatic) close-up lens Pentax T132 which is dedicated to this lens and gives a maginfication range from 1/8 (at infinity) to around 1/4 (at 1,60m) corresponding to a minimum object field of about 20x30cm. For the few times I need to go as close as that, the T132 is a convenient alternative to a true macro lens and its performance is really excellent.

-- Joachim Inkmann (Joachim.Inkmann@uni-konstanz.de), October 01, 1999.