 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / July 2008Pentax 67II vs 6x7 lenses
Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7?  SignatureMichael > Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7? AFAIK there are no lenses "specifically made" for 67ii, so the answer you want to hear is, yes. >> Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7? > > AFAIK there are no lenses "specifically made" for 67ii, so the answer you want > to hear is, yes. Thanks SignatureMichael >>> Will lenses specifically made for the 67II work on the 6x7? >> >> AFAIK there are no lenses "specifically made" for 67ii, so the answer you want >> to hear is, yes. > > Thanks I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very unimpressed with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little contrast and dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the sharpest lens they make. And I had traded in a Hassy 501C for that system so I could AFFORD lenses at all! What a waste of time and money. SignatureAlex - xenarshooter > I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very unimpressed > with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little contrast > and > dull coloration... to overemphasize a bit. That should have been the > sharpest > lens they make. That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a US$600 (EX quality at KEH) lens, and might have a better chance of competing. You have to read the fine print and think: the 135/4.0 only goes down to 1:3.2 (it's not even a half-arsed macro lens) and is advertised as "also does well as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to almost 1:2, which is at least respectable. > And I had traded in a Hassy 501C for that system so I could > AFFORD lenses at all! What a waste of time and money. My condolences. Yet the P67 is the camera of choice (well, second to the P645) over here amongst landscape photographers, and they crank out jawdroppingly gorgeous work shot after shot after shot. Maybe you should check the reviews and the experience of other users, and get the lenses that actually perform in that system. There are quite a few. And many are affordable. I've seen great work with the 45/4.0 (US$500 or so at KEH in EX grade; a lot cheaper than a SWC), for example. SignatureDavid J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > That's a seriously cheap lens. Expecting Zeiss quality from a US$250 (EX > quality at KEH) lens is rather off the wall. The 100/4.0 macro is a US$600 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to almost 1:2, > which is at least respectable. Pentax made a good macro for the 645 system: The 120/4. It goes all the way to 1:1 (at 39cm) and produces magnificent results. Too bad they never released a similarly performing lens for the 67 system. >> I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very unimpressed >> with the quality of that lens. It was not very sharp, had little contrast [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as a portrait lens". Sheesh. It's a toy The 100/4.0 goes down to almost 1:2, > which is at least respectable. Yes that is some insight I do agree with, however, which 100mm F/4 macro are you referring to? F/2 compared to F/32? >> And I had traded in a Hassy 501C for that system so I could >> AFFORD lenses at all! What a waste of time and money. > > My condolences. Thank you, it's been dreadful. Especially at my financial level. > Yet the P67 is the camera of choice (well, second to the P645) over here > amongst landscape photographers, and they crank out jawdroppingly gorgeous [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with the 45/4.0 (US$500 or so at KEH in EX grade; a lot cheaper than a SWC), > for example. Learning the "culture" of the equipment. I bought the 67 new in '97, last year they were made. But I won't be going back because that thing is too heavy, including lenses. I'd rather go with 4x5 or 8x10 ...or even a 'koni omega rapid' 200 for 67 and 6x9. However it's spelled. Right now I shoot a Rolleicord Va, and it's very sharp. Also, I have always admired the idea of a Bronica GS-1 oufit. HEY! Thanks for the reply! SignatureGiant_Alex }<)))*> not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ >>> I had a new '97 67 and a new 135 macro lens for it, I was very >>> unimpressed [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yes that is some insight I do agree with, however, which 100mm F/4 macro > are you referring to? F/2 compared to F/32? I believe he's talking about magnification rather than aperture. Greg SignatureSupport the Lo Desert Proto Sites: http://lodesertprotosites.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.