I bought a full Pentax 6x7 kit around 1986 which someone had traded into a store. From there, I added lenses from time to time. Some I use all of the time; some almost never. I have to say that Edward's summary is spot on. There are three periods of technology in Pentax 67 lenses. From intro to around 1987, lenses were added, and a few replaced. The 55mm 3.5 was replaced with a much better 4.0 version. The 150 2.8 was dropped for a newer design and much better 165mm 2.8. The 105mm lost its radioactive thorium doped element for a non-radioactive version, basically the same lens with no performance change. All lenses periodically benefited from coating improvements, of which Pentax was always an industry leader. Around 1987, there was a major overhaul, some very low volume lenses dropped, and others added. Then in the early 1990s, Pentax went nuts, designing new telephoto lenses with the most cutting edge designs and materials available - close to perfection: 300, 400, and 800mm with ED elements, 100mm 4.0 true macro, and the practically never seen 75mm 2.8. All that said, these quality differences are more relative to one another than critical to absolute imaging performance. Even the least impressive lens still makes a better image than any user will need for nearly all uses today. Unless you are locking into a real darkroom and making 20x24 inch prints on excellent enlarging equipment, you aren't going to see a bit of difference. The one unmentioned lens which should have been covered is the 75mm 4.5. One of the least expensive, dating from the early period, but sharp as a tack at all apertures. By comparison, the last option, the 75mm 2.8, is a more complex formula, but optically offers very little quality improvement, has more linear distortion, and costs up to 20x as much..
Thanks for your videos, 7 years ago I walked into a neighbour's house and he loves shopping in Garage Sales and antique stores, so his place is packed of stuff. From far I spotted a hard case that in the front had the Pentax Logo, I ask about it and he opened it, inside there was a Pentax 6x7 with Mirror lock + 3 lenses the 55/4, the 90/2.8 ant the 200/4 ( Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR), Manual, filters with lock system for the lenses, ND filters as well, and shooter shutter release cable. The amazing thing about the hard case is that it has the mounts on the base to screw the lenses, I have never seen this box anywhere for sale. Back then I did not know anything about it but I ask if he would sell that whole thing and he only asked me for $500 dll, so I say ok. Since then I have been enjoying Pentax 6x7, it took me some patience to learn the best way to use it, your videos are very helpful for me.
Boxy hard cases in leather with pop-tops and lens mounts in the base to hold several lenses were a fad to the mid-1960s, usually high quality and relatively expensive. I still have a very nice third-party one for Nikon F and three lenses. The problem with them is that they are fairly bulky for what they can hold, and they are not as protective as a well padded, foam cutout type of unit. I got tired of my bag's size and limited capacity and replaced it after a yer or two.
It's funny, that my kit only has the 45/4 in 'overlap' to yours, as I went right to the 165/2.8 for portrait shooting, for 'stand-off' distance, allowing a non-pro model a bit more comfort zone, with a tiny bit of compression, like 85 mm, and good focus fall-off for soft backgrounds, and then to a 300/4 for my idea of more 'intimate' landscape work, and a 1000/8 for something unusual in 6x7 format, that good old scene compression, although one needs to keep bright highlights under control to avoid those 'donuts'.. I particularly like the tree root shot, of this sequence. THX for the video!
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography They are indeed beasts, but the wide zoom in particular is well worth slapping on for any landscape trip (high f stop alone sets it apart).
Ed you will be happy to know your folio images will be seen by hundreds of people a week. I have been giving my Doctor friend mounted images of wildlife I shoot, for about a year. He has 6 or 7 of my images hanging in his waiting room and I showed him your work and he asked to hang a few around his office so they will be enjoyed by many folks.
Interesting idea... I hadn't really thought about it. Maybe $15 international shipping? (I get a flat rate in the USA, I'm scared to ship one of these internationally, might cost more that I'm charging for the Folio!)
I have exactly the same series of 45, 55 (non-late) 90(non-late). 135(late) and 200 (late) of 67 lens in my stock. I love all these above 67 quality lens. Thank you for your sharing.😊
I'd have a hard time deciding on lenses for this system. The 45 vs 55 and 90 vs 105 are tough decisions, and depending on what you choose between those it might influence whether or not you consider putting a 75mm in the kit. I'd really consider the 165 if I wasn't getting the 105 as well. I like the set you have though. It's possibly worth having both the 45 and 55. Your comparison of takumar vs M vs A series is always how I've thought about them as well.
I have pretty much replicated my 4x5 lens options. 90/135/210/300, though going 55/75 would be closer. And with the 6x7 you can always crop a bit to get a longer focal length option. There isn't much of a difference between the 90 and 105. I like the smaller size of the 90mm. There is a big difference between the 45 and 55, though that's why I have both. Pentax did make a lot of lenses that are almost the same though.
If you feel that the choice between "The 45 vs 55 and 90 vs 105 are tough decisions" I would recommend you look at the Zoom 55-100/4.5. It is very sharp already at the largest aperture, distortion-free and flexible. You can set the distance to 50cm and get a nice macro too. This is a very underrated lens and the prices are therefore very low. Do you really need 105/2.4 for 3D pop and bokeh? I have always stopped down a bit when I have used it and Edward Martins tells you why in this video. 105/2,4 is OK, but old stuff comparable to 90/2.8.
@@GOLDDYNACO definitely something I hadn't considered but will look into. I don't even have a 67 at the moment though. Just kind of dream on it 😂. I'm going to start a kit at the end of this year I think though. At least to me, it seems like prices have kind of flattened out if no dropped a bit.
Oh, it's not that tough to choose. I've had the 55mm and 45mm for decades. I shoot mainly landscape, if that's relevant. The 55mm is one of my two most used lenses. I cannot recall the last time I used the 45mm - several decades. Think of the 45mm as a 21mm in 35mm format, so how often would you use it? 90mm v. 105mm? The 90mm is optically better, and it costs about 1/3rd of the 105mm because of the ridiculous hype being spread over the 105mm. With a 55mm and 90mm, a 165mm 2.8 makes a great three lens kit, and it is about as cheap as any. Those who claim the 105mm has some sort of magical "bokah" are really talking narrow depth of field (not bokah), and for them, I note that the 165mm has an even more narrow depth of focus wide open. At $600 - 1,000, the 105mm is simply sucker bait.
@@randallstewart1224 The 105 is a fine lens, and a little less optically as good as the 90mm. Amazing what the Internet can do in the hands of people who are clueless. This is a great example of that.
The 45mm is an old school lens. The distortion is well corrected by todays standards as there was no digital distortion correction back in the day. However, this lens did not receive an update before the end of the 6x7 life and so it's not as good as a late model 55mm for example. it's still superb however. 🙂
@@thatdeafguyuk My only real criticism of the 67, or any medium format system is it is heavy. What you save in weight of film you lose in weight of gear. 4x5 is the opposite. The cameras and lenses are light, it's the film holders that weigh you down. 🙂
I never shot the Pentax 67 line. I shot Mamiya in college studios, and Bronica SQ personally. Wanted leaf shutters. But I know the Pentax 67 lenses are largely beyond reproach. Maybe you've mentioned this but what film do you shoot in the 67?
I have standardized on Ilford FP4+, I shoot it in 67 and 4x5 and even 35mm from time to time. I like the way it's sort of a old fashioned Tri-X kinda feel with better grain. I develop in ID-11/D-76 1:1 for 11 minutes at 68F. Instead of pushing or pulling the film I tend to compensate with my exposures in the field. Been doing that for years and it works for me, it's what I'm used to.
@@RoastBeefSandwich Yeah, Plus X was nice. I always shot FP4+ and HP5, didn't hurt that Ilford was a sponsor back in the day and I got it for free... though I did like Tri-X, but no point in spending real money. LOL
I do not and I wouldn't want to use a 67 lens on a 35mm. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. But it's fun to play with if you don't expect too much out of it and you can get it cheap.
The smallest tripod I use for the 67 is my Gitzo GT2541. I also use my Manfrotto 3021 Pro. The 67 is the only camera where any of my smaller tripods don't work with it and the images can get soft.
Interesting topic. So do you divide the f-stop by two to determine the 35mm equivalent aperture? Have to say your folio was awesome. I am really enjoying it.
Thanks! I appreciate the kind words! In terms of depth of field, yeah kind of. But F4 on the 90mm feels a lot like F1.2 on a 45mm in 35mm. The depth of field is pretty razor thin on the 67 lenses wide open. As far as exposure, f4 is f4 regardless of format. (I know you know that, I just threw it in in case someone reading didn't know it. 🙂)
I bought a full Pentax 6x7 kit around 1986 which someone had traded into a store. From there, I added lenses from time to time. Some I use all of the time; some almost never. I have to say that
Edward's summary is spot on. There are three periods of technology in Pentax 67 lenses. From intro to around 1987, lenses were added, and a few replaced. The 55mm 3.5 was replaced with a much better 4.0 version. The 150 2.8 was dropped for a newer design and much better 165mm 2.8. The 105mm lost its radioactive thorium doped element for a non-radioactive version, basically the same lens with no performance change. All lenses periodically benefited from coating improvements, of which Pentax was always an industry leader. Around 1987, there was a major overhaul, some very low volume lenses dropped, and others added. Then in the early 1990s, Pentax went nuts, designing new telephoto lenses with the most cutting edge designs and materials available - close to perfection: 300, 400, and 800mm with ED elements, 100mm 4.0 true macro, and the practically never seen 75mm 2.8. All that said, these quality differences are more relative to one another than critical to absolute imaging performance. Even the least impressive lens still makes a better image than any user will need for nearly all uses today. Unless you are locking into a real darkroom and making 20x24 inch prints on excellent enlarging equipment, you aren't going to see a bit of difference. The one unmentioned lens which should have been covered is the 75mm 4.5. One of the least expensive, dating from the early period, but sharp as a tack at all apertures. By comparison, the last option, the 75mm 2.8, is a more complex formula, but optically offers very little quality improvement, has more linear distortion, and costs up to 20x as much..
Well summarized, thank you!
The takumar smc 200 f4 is readily available for around 100 pounds on the UK but the last version which focuses closer is usually twice that amount .
Thanks for your videos, 7 years ago I walked into a neighbour's house and he loves shopping in Garage Sales and antique stores, so his place is packed of stuff. From far I spotted a hard case that in the front had the Pentax Logo, I ask about it and he opened it, inside there was a Pentax 6x7 with Mirror lock + 3 lenses the 55/4, the 90/2.8 ant the 200/4 ( Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR), Manual, filters with lock system for the lenses, ND filters as well, and shooter shutter release cable. The amazing thing about the hard case is that it has the mounts on the base to screw the lenses, I have never seen this box anywhere for sale. Back then I did not know anything about it but I ask if he would sell that whole thing and he only asked me for $500 dll, so I say ok. Since then I have been enjoying Pentax 6x7, it took me some patience to learn the best way to use it, your videos are very helpful for me.
Wow, what a great find, and good fun! It really is a camera for the ages though the learning curve is steep at first. Glad I could be of help.
Boxy hard cases in leather with pop-tops and lens mounts in the base to hold several lenses were a fad to the mid-1960s, usually high quality and relatively expensive. I still have a very nice third-party one for Nikon F and three lenses. The problem with them is that they are fairly bulky for what they can hold, and they are not as protective as a well padded, foam cutout type of unit. I got tired of my bag's size and limited capacity and replaced it after a yer or two.
Great video. Great information. Thank you.
RS. Canada
It's funny, that my kit only has the 45/4 in 'overlap' to yours, as I went right to the 165/2.8 for portrait shooting, for 'stand-off' distance, allowing a non-pro model a bit more comfort zone, with a tiny bit of compression, like 85 mm, and good focus fall-off for soft backgrounds, and then to a 300/4 for my idea of more 'intimate' landscape work, and a 1000/8 for something unusual in 6x7 format, that good old scene compression, although one needs to keep bright highlights under control to avoid those 'donuts'..
I particularly like the tree root shot, of this sequence. THX for the video!
I'm amazed people aren't going for the two zooms. They're INSANE. Those two, then a whopper (400mm) and you're golden.
I'd need a Sherpa... but they are great lenses and a great combo.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography They are indeed beasts, but the wide zoom in particular is well worth slapping on for any landscape trip (high f stop alone sets it apart).
Ed you will be happy to know your folio images will be seen by hundreds of people a week. I have been giving my Doctor friend mounted images of wildlife I shoot, for about a year. He has 6 or 7 of my images hanging in his waiting room and I showed him your work and he asked to hang a few around his office so they will be enjoyed by many folks.
Awesome! Thanks for sharing my work, I appreciate it!
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Oh, just out of interest, what's your Black Friday deal on your folio set?
Interesting idea... I hadn't really thought about it. Maybe $15 international shipping? (I get a flat rate in the USA, I'm scared to ship one of these internationally, might cost more that I'm charging for the Folio!)
I have exactly the same series of 45, 55 (non-late) 90(non-late). 135(late) and 200 (late) of 67 lens in my stock. I love all these above 67 quality lens. Thank you for your sharing.😊
Great video, thanks for sharing. Which cable release do you use? Where did you get it?
@@Joel4JC Thanks! The red ones are just generis ones I got years ago. The short black ones are Nikon ones which are short but really high quality.
The 90mm f:2.8 is a killer lens.55mm f:4 I find much better than the 45mm f:4 IMO.The zoom is just ok.
The 45mm is OK. The 135mm M is probably the best lens in the system. The 200mm is great as well and can be had for $100 USD.
I'd have a hard time deciding on lenses for this system. The 45 vs 55 and 90 vs 105 are tough decisions, and depending on what you choose between those it might influence whether or not you consider putting a 75mm in the kit. I'd really consider the 165 if I wasn't getting the 105 as well. I like the set you have though. It's possibly worth having both the 45 and 55. Your comparison of takumar vs M vs A series is always how I've thought about them as well.
I have pretty much replicated my 4x5 lens options. 90/135/210/300, though going 55/75 would be closer. And with the 6x7 you can always crop a bit to get a longer focal length option. There isn't much of a difference between the 90 and 105. I like the smaller size of the 90mm. There is a big difference between the 45 and 55, though that's why I have both. Pentax did make a lot of lenses that are almost the same though.
If you feel that the choice between "The 45 vs 55 and 90 vs 105 are tough decisions" I would recommend you look at the Zoom 55-100/4.5. It is very sharp already at the largest aperture, distortion-free and flexible. You can set the distance to 50cm and get a nice macro too. This is a very underrated lens and the prices are therefore very low. Do you really need 105/2.4 for 3D pop and bokeh? I have always stopped down a bit when I have used it and Edward Martins tells you why in this video. 105/2,4 is OK, but old stuff comparable to 90/2.8.
@@GOLDDYNACO definitely something I hadn't considered but will look into. I don't even have a 67 at the moment though. Just kind of dream on it 😂.
I'm going to start a kit at the end of this year I think though. At least to me, it seems like prices have kind of flattened out if no dropped a bit.
Oh, it's not that tough to choose. I've had the 55mm and 45mm for decades. I shoot mainly landscape, if that's relevant. The 55mm is one of my two most used lenses. I cannot recall the last time I used the 45mm - several decades. Think of the 45mm as a 21mm in 35mm format, so how often would you use it? 90mm v. 105mm? The 90mm is optically better, and it costs about 1/3rd of the 105mm because of the ridiculous hype being spread over the 105mm. With a 55mm and 90mm, a 165mm 2.8 makes a great three lens kit, and it is about as cheap as any. Those who claim the 105mm has some sort of magical "bokah" are really talking narrow depth of field (not bokah), and for them, I note that the 165mm has an even more narrow depth of focus wide open. At $600 - 1,000, the 105mm is simply sucker bait.
@@randallstewart1224 The 105 is a fine lens, and a little less optically as good as the 90mm. Amazing what the Internet can do in the hands of people who are clueless. This is a great example of that.
Nice review, How does the 45mm f4 distortion perform ？super wide lens tends to have barrel distortion and some lens is quite heavy distorted。。。
The 45mm is an old school lens. The distortion is well corrected by todays standards as there was no digital distortion correction back in the day. However, this lens did not receive an update before the end of the 6x7 life and so it's not as good as a late model 55mm for example. it's still superb however. 🙂
Great video
Thanks!
Hi, would you be willing to list the screw-in filter sizes for the 55, 90, 135 & 200 lenses perchance? Thank you.
That's an easy one! 67mm and 77mm for the 200mm. 🙂
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography thank you so, so, so much.... in the process of putting a Pentax 67 shopping list together :)
@@thatdeafguyuk My only real criticism of the 67, or any medium format system is it is heavy. What you save in weight of film you lose in weight of gear. 4x5 is the opposite. The cameras and lenses are light, it's the film holders that weigh you down. 🙂
Have you played with the LS lenses?
No, I've never used a Pentax LF lens. Not sure why... 🙂
I never shot the Pentax 67 line. I shot Mamiya in college studios, and Bronica SQ personally. Wanted leaf shutters. But I know the Pentax 67 lenses are largely beyond reproach. Maybe you've mentioned this but what film do you shoot in the 67?
I have standardized on Ilford FP4+, I shoot it in 67 and 4x5 and even 35mm from time to time. I like the way it's sort of a old fashioned Tri-X kinda feel with better grain. I develop in ID-11/D-76 1:1 for 11 minutes at 68F. Instead of pushing or pulling the film I tend to compensate with my exposures in the field. Been doing that for years and it works for me, it's what I'm used to.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography FP4+ was my standard as well after Plus-X went away.
@@RoastBeefSandwich Yeah, Plus X was nice. I always shot FP4+ and HP5, didn't hurt that Ilford was a sponsor back in the day and I got it for free... though I did like Tri-X, but no point in spending real money. LOL
Do you have P67=>K mount adaptor and if yes, how do those lenses behave on K1 or K3 in terms of image output?
I do not and I wouldn't want to use a 67 lens on a 35mm. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. But it's fun to play with if you don't expect too much out of it and you can get it cheap.
What tripod do you use for your 67?
The smallest tripod I use for the 67 is my Gitzo GT2541. I also use my Manfrotto 3021 Pro. The 67 is the only camera where any of my smaller tripods don't work with it and the images can get soft.
Interesting topic. So do you divide the f-stop by two to determine the 35mm equivalent aperture?
Have to say your folio was awesome. I am really enjoying it.
Thanks! I appreciate the kind words!
In terms of depth of field, yeah kind of. But F4 on the 90mm feels a lot like F1.2 on a 45mm in 35mm. The depth of field is pretty razor thin on the 67 lenses wide open. As far as exposure, f4 is f4 regardless of format. (I know you know that, I just threw it in in case someone reading didn't know it. 🙂)