I hope this bulletin board is still actively used.

My main question goes out to the participants of this forum. Steve Rasmussen, I've read your lens field tests. In fact, I've read every post on this forum to help with some questions regarding the 67II and the 6x7 and 67 in general.

I've purcchased, actually on lay-a-way, the 67II body, AE-Prism finder and the 105/f2.4 standard lens. Now I'm planning future lens purchases and am trying to decide which lenses to purchase (i.e. focal lengths, new/used, leaf-shutter offerings new/used, etc.) and need help determining the best path to take.

I had initially put a Mamiya 645E with 55mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses and rapid-wind grip on lay-a-way, but decided to check out the new 67II. Upon checking it out, I liked the way it felt. It has more features that I like compared to the older cameras (I didn't need a key to operate the camera without film as one of the older models needed).

About 10-15 years ago I assisted a photographer who initially used Hasselblad but switched over to the 6x7 and 67 for fashion photography. I always liked the look of the 6x7 chromes.

I have done mostly 35mm and 4x5 photography since then and have decided that 4x5 is becoming a bit too cumbersome for shots not requiring perspective control. Hence, my foray into the medium format world.

Anyhow, back to the question at hand. Which lenses are the best (newer or older models) throughout the line. I'll be purchasing a 45mm or 55mm, 165mm leaf shutter, and most likely the 300mm and possibly the 55-100mm zoom and would like feedback regarding these lenses with previous offerings, where applicable. Also, are there any real sleepers or dogs (new or older models) in the line I should be aware of?

The other items I intend to purchase over the next two years are: a backup 67II body with AE-Prism finder, the helicoid extension tube set or auto extension tube set (what is the difference ?) and possibly some of the older longer focal length lenses and leaf shutter lenses.

Where can I get information regarding previous offerings of the longer focal length lenses and leaf shutter lenses.

Regards

Stephen Ratzlaff

-- Stephen Ratzlaff (ratzlaff@ticnet.com), December 29, 2000

Answers

Having owned this camera system for many years, I think I would do things a bit differently than I did originally as far as lenses are concerned. The 45mm, 55, 75 shift, 90 leaf, 150 Takumar, 165 leaf and 400 Takumar would be my choices. The 75 shift would be chosen over the regular 75 because of the f/32 DOF and PC. The 90 leaf would be chosen over the other normal lenses because of the lack of focal plane shutter influence. The 165 leaf would be chosen over the f/2.8 for the same reason as above. The 400 Takumar would be chosen over the 400 Pentax because the performance is so similar from f/5.6 to f/45. You pay a tremendous price for that one stop superiority. The 150 Takumar is an incredible lens. Similar in design to Leica's 90mm Elmarit-R f/2.8. The 150 is tack sharp wide open. The 400 Takumar will color fringe at f/4 however, so be prepared. The 600 Takumar is a fine lens but with its use of conventional glass, will fringe at f/4 and f/5.6. The Helicoid does not have the close up ability of the 3 set auto tubes but your DOF is so limited anyway that it really doesn't matter. My limitation with macro work is not magnification but DOF. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), December 29, 2000.

In general, the production sequence of the lenses from old to new went; Super Takumar---SMC Takumar---SMC Pentax. Of the lenses I mentioned, the 45mm has only one version and the 55 has three. Buy the newer f/4 with the lettering on the outside of the barrel. The f/3.5 is actually better than the second version. David Meunch has used this lens(f/3.5) quite a bit if that tells you anything. The 75 shift has only had one optical version. The 90 Takumar Leaf shutter has had only one version as well. The 150 Super Takumar and SMC Takumar are no longer in production and are the same optically. The Super Tak has a two layer coating but performs great. The 165 Leaf is a recent design and there has been only one version. The 400mm has two designs but I suggested the older Takumar that uses conventional glass. I don't suggest buying any lens over 400mm that uses conventional glass due to the color fringing problem. The 400 Tak is a great lens. See my test report. The Takumars are not necessarily inferior to the Pentax lenses. Generally, the Takumar designs are older than the Pentax ones but in some cases, they just changed the name and left the optics the same. So, the 105 Pentax uses the older Takumar design and so do others as well. Good prices for these lenses in Ex++ condition are: 400 Tak--$1150 150 Tak--$250 75 Shift--$1000. I don't know the prices on the other lenses very well so maybe someone else can fill that in. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 01, 2001.

Thanks for your prompt reply Steve.

Of the lenses you mentioned, which are the newer lenses and which are the older lenses? Are any of the older lenses marked as Pentax or are they always marked Takumar?

What would be good prices new/used for the lenses you mentioned? Also, which lenses, if any, have several versions?

Regards

-- Stephen Ratzlaff (ratzlaff@ticnet.com), December 30, 2000.

Congratulations you've just made your first mistake by buying the 105. If you have the dough then the 55-100 is a must. If you do macro then you must purchase the 100mm, this is an awesome lens, sharper than any other lens. You can never have too many LS lenses so keep an eye for a used 90LS (this lens is superb). Now you see why I say you made a mistake with the 105, too much focal length duplication. If you buy any of the above three suggestions then your 105 becomes redundant, the other lenses can be justified because they are specialties i.e. wide angle zoom, macro, LS, but the 105 is just plain ordinary. My first recommendation for a first lens purchase for the P67 is always a used 90LS and never the 105. Just make sure the 90LS is in top shape, pay a little extra (a used one in mint condition will sell for greater than new price). Also remember that if there is any possibility of buying the 55-100 zoom in the future then dont waste money on the 55,75,90 (unless its a 90LS). I have personally shot with both the 55 and a borrowed 55-100 and see no reason to own the 55mm if I had the later lens. As you might be able to guess here is my lens selection if I had to do it all over again (for <200mm).

1) 90LS 2) 55-100 3) 100 macro 4) 160LS

-- M.B. (mbarroca@americasm01.nt.com), January 02, 2001.

Hi, I wouldn't say the 105 is a mistake. Where else can you get an f2.4 lens for 6x7. I would look at getting a 55mm lens next, I have the old f3.5 lens, big but I love the chromes. There has been lots of debate about the best lens- they all depend on what you are using it for! I have bought the older lenses and I'm happy with them, they suit my style and provide me with a nice income. I would rather have a 55 and a 200 rather than just one. No matter how good the 55mm, and old 200 will still take better photos when you need a long focal length. What I'm getting at is if you can try before you buy don't right the older lenses off and not being "the best".

-- Leif Pigott (leifpigott@hotmail.com), January 08, 2001.

I don't think you went wrong with the 105. The worst that can happen is you use it learn from that use and move on to a more specialized use and lens for that use. I have owned the 105 and the 165 2.8 non ls and I have rented the 135 macro. It is possible to get very sharp images with the P67, my approach is to become very familiar with the "personality" of my gear. For example on the tripod at all shutter speeds i get tack sharp images if I simply push down on the camera with my free hand! Back to the lens issue. It all depends on what the task is. I sold my 165 because the minimum focus distance is to far. Pay attention to the minimum focus distance. The next lens I will pick up is the 200 or 135. Btw my new project is developing handholding and or monopod techniques to be utilized in low light work for the P67. I recently shot the S.F. "underground theatre" with the 165. All the phtgs had everything maxed out wide open and tmz pushed a stop or two, all 35mm guys. Well, the 165 rendered some incredible images with great tones and sharpness handheld at 1/60 and 1/125.The 8x10s I print will sail over the 35mm because of the grain of pushing 3200 film and lack of detail in 35mm. Hope this info helps.

-- mike walker (mikewalker@home.com), January 12, 2001.

Tyanks for all the replies. I'm looking at the 165LS and 45mm as the next purchases. With a possible 90LS in the future if I can find a good used one.

Regards

Stephen Ratzlaff

-- Stephen Ratzlaff (ratzlaff@ticnet.com), January 14, 2001.