Very complete analysis. The uniformity of optical performance across the whole image field is a characteristic found in many of the Pentax 67 lenses. The last version of the 55mm 4.0 is nearly perfect in this regard. I tend to use the 90m 2.8 and 55mm 4.0 much more than a 75mm, but I do use this lens regularly. I bought my 75mm 4.5 some 15 years before the 2.8 version was issued. I've no reason to trade up. Here in the US, the 75mm 4.5 is one of the least costly Pentax 67 lens you can find. The 75mm 2.8 is the most expensive. A further issue is just finding a 2.8. It was one of the last lenses Pentax made, and its high new price meant that very few were sold. Scarcity keeps the price high..
Thanks Randall. Honestly, yes, it feels very boring talking about most of these lenses because when used as intended they're generally excellent. I'm hoping to pick up a 55/4 over the summer. Interesting to see if it handles as nicely as I've read. The 77 mm filter thread in particular will be nice.
@@Shaka1277 I made the decision many years ago to buy all 82mm filters and use stepping rings to adapt to smaller lens fittings. That was before the current popularity of 82mm, so my buy-in was not as expensive as it might be today. That covers everything from 45mm through 200mm.
Hey Richard! Thank you so much for your kind donations. I hope I explain this well for you, but it will be a long one! Reproduction ratio and magnification ratio are both ways of describing/measuring the same thing: the relative size of an object in the real world compared to its image as captured on the film. Imagine a coin that’s 20 mm in size, shot with a normal macro lens on 35 mm film. The image will be 36 x 24 mm in size, and the coin will be a 20 mm circle inside that frame. That’s 1x (magnification) or 1:1 (reproduction ratio) because the physical coin and the image of the coin are at the same scale. Not all macro lenses focus to 1:1 though, and lots of lenses for 35 mm focus to “1:2” instead. That means that if you focus the lens the closest it can possibly go, the coin can only be captured at half the full scale, so instead of a circle that’s 20 mm wide the circle is 10 mm wide - half the diameter! This is 1:2 (repro) or 0.5x (magnification). If we had a lens that focused to 1:5, the coin would be 4 mm wide on the film, and so on. A small change in repro/magnification ratio makes a huge difference. It’s a bigger change than you might think from the numbers because 1:2 is half the scale that 1:1 gets you in both the horizontal and vertical directions so the subject takes up 1/4 as much space in the frame! This is especially important for larger formats because - this is key - the reproduction and magnification ratios are defined by the physical size of the projection of the object onto the film, and not the size of the film. That 20 mm coin nearly fills the vertical height of a 35 mm frame at 1:1, but on 6x7 and also at 1:1, the image of the coin is still only 20 mm tall within the frame! Now it APPEARS to be much smaller, if you show both images at the same scale. I have an older, much less polished video titled “Macro photography theory & why "nobody" shoots medium format macro” where I have diagrams that explain this stuff a lot better, if you’d like to have a look! All the best :)
@@Shaka1277 I have the 55mm; 105mm; 135mm; and 200mm. Of those I tend to use the 105 and 55 most and the 200 rarely. For portraits the 105 forces me closer to my subject and has been excellent in enabling me to overcome any shynesses in both photographer and subject
I haven't picked up the 55 yet but otherwise I have the same three! I will likely sell the 200 and go 55/105/135. The 135 is nice for the occasional strong closeup. I agree about the 105, though. That "50 mm equivalent" style has come back into force in a large part of portraiture. I enjoy it.
Very complete analysis. The uniformity of optical performance across the whole image field is a characteristic found in many of the Pentax 67 lenses. The last version of the 55mm 4.0 is nearly perfect in this regard. I tend to use the 90m 2.8 and 55mm 4.0 much more than a 75mm, but I do use this lens regularly. I bought my 75mm 4.5 some 15 years before the 2.8 version was issued. I've no reason to trade up. Here in the US, the 75mm 4.5 is one of the least costly Pentax 67 lens you can find. The 75mm 2.8 is the most expensive. A further issue is just finding a 2.8. It was one of the last lenses Pentax made, and its high new price meant that very few were sold. Scarcity keeps the price high..
Thanks Randall. Honestly, yes, it feels very boring talking about most of these lenses because when used as intended they're generally excellent. I'm hoping to pick up a 55/4 over the summer. Interesting to see if it handles as nicely as I've read. The 77 mm filter thread in particular will be nice.
@@Shaka1277 I made the decision many years ago to buy all 82mm filters and use stepping rings to adapt to smaller lens fittings. That was before the current popularity of 82mm, so my buy-in was not as expensive as it might be today. That covers everything from 45mm through 200mm.
Got this lens as a gift and will be closing out my kit for now (55mm 3.5 + 105mm 2.4) this helped a lot to understand the dynamics of the lens.
Thanks!
Can you explain what MAGNIFICATION RATIOS are please ? Great video and lens. RS. Canada
Hey Richard! Thank you so much for your kind donations. I hope I explain this well for you, but it will be a long one!
Reproduction ratio and magnification ratio are both ways of describing/measuring the same thing: the relative size of an object in the real world compared to its image as captured on the film.
Imagine a coin that’s 20 mm in size, shot with a normal macro lens on 35 mm film. The image will be 36 x 24 mm in size, and the coin will be a 20 mm circle inside that frame. That’s 1x (magnification) or 1:1 (reproduction ratio) because the physical coin and the image of the coin are at the same scale.
Not all macro lenses focus to 1:1 though, and lots of lenses for 35 mm focus to “1:2” instead. That means that if you focus the lens the closest it can possibly go, the coin can only be captured at half the full scale, so instead of a circle that’s 20 mm wide the circle is 10 mm wide - half the diameter! This is 1:2 (repro) or 0.5x (magnification). If we had a lens that focused to 1:5, the coin would be 4 mm wide on the film, and so on.
A small change in repro/magnification ratio makes a huge difference. It’s a bigger change than you might think from the numbers because 1:2 is half the scale that 1:1 gets you in both the horizontal and vertical directions so the subject takes up 1/4 as much space in the frame! This is especially important for larger formats because - this is key - the reproduction and magnification ratios are defined by the physical size of the projection of the object onto the film, and not the size of the film.
That 20 mm coin nearly fills the vertical height of a 35 mm frame at 1:1, but on 6x7 and also at 1:1, the image of the coin is still only 20 mm tall within the frame! Now it APPEARS to be much smaller, if you show both images at the same scale.
I have an older, much less polished video titled “Macro photography theory & why "nobody" shoots medium format macro” where I have diagrams that explain this stuff a lot better, if you’d like to have a look!
All the best :)
Thanks for great info!
Great video - very informative👍💯
There is a nice sound to the shutter of the 67
Very well done presentation
Superb review - thank you. Your reasoning is similar to mine hence not a lens I have added to my kit
Happy to be of some help. :) Which lenses are in your kit?
@@Shaka1277 I have the 55mm; 105mm; 135mm; and 200mm. Of those I tend to use the 105 and 55 most and the 200 rarely. For portraits the 105 forces me closer to my subject and has been excellent in enabling me to overcome any shynesses in both photographer and subject
I haven't picked up the 55 yet but otherwise I have the same three! I will likely sell the 200 and go 55/105/135. The 135 is nice for the occasional strong closeup. I agree about the 105, though. That "50 mm equivalent" style has come back into force in a large part of portraiture. I enjoy it.
I have the 75mm shift lens, which weighs a ton, and is HUGE!
I've never seen one in person but it looks massive 😅
I thinked too, the 200mm f/4 on EOS R.
a talking head lens review with only the online review reading