Lenses for landscape and wildlife photography

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Pentax 67 SLR : One Thread

I just bought a used Pentax 6x7 with the standard lens yesterday!!! This was after reading probably a thousand entries on various forums. Lots of opinions out there.

I would like some ideas on various lenses for wildlife and landscape photography. I read a great review on the 55mm/f3.5 for landscapes and would like a longer lens for critters (Yellowstone Park is just down the road). I am looking at something in the 200/300/400mm range along with a 2x converter. All opinions would be appreciated.

Last, (this may be a stupid question), I have an Olympus T32 electronic flash (we all have a past life). I was wondering if this would work on the Pentax 6x7 if I got the proper connections.

Thanks, Steve Cook High Plains Photography

-- Steve Cook (cooksa@cu.imt.net), January 17, 1998

Answers

Steve: I have the 200mm Pentax and the 300mm Takumar. The 200 is quite sharp and good for large animals that you can get close to. The depth of field scale is accurate which I can't say for the 300. If you get the 200, make sure it is the Pentax; it is the newer five element design as opposed to the older four element Takumar. The 300mm is a good lens if you know its limitations. It prefers to be shot at f/22 for best results. The working range is f/8 to f/32. I don't recommend shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 at all. This lens was obviously designed to be stopped down. I recommend the 200 with the 2x converter but I can't say the same about the 300mm given the slight image degredation caused by even the best converters. That's why I decided to buy the 600mm f/4 (that is at least APO and possibly superachromatic). Good luck, Steve R.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 20, 1998.

Welcome! Wildlife calls for long glass and since you mentioned the 400, that's what I'd get. Of course, at 8+ lbs, the critters need to be close to the car &8-)

Don't know re the flash, but it should work if it has an X-sync cord.

If your tripod head has an Arca Swiss style clamp, I can heartily recommend the Really Right Stuff plate for the P67. Their company name is spot on.

-- Benson (btw@vnet.net), January 18, 1998.


Steve, As an answer to the landscape portion of your question, here is something to consider that I learned the hard way: the 55 3.5f is an older design which requires 100mm filters. I simply couldn't find any. I liked the image quality of the lens very much, but it was impractical for lanscape since I couldn't mount even a polarizer. I opted for the 45mm, and haven't been sorry at all. Slightly wider, still a big expensive filter at 82mm, but at least available. I also use the 135 quite a bit for my landscape work. Regards, Bob

-- Bob Cook (bcook@wc-m.com), January 20, 1998.

I purchased the 45mm. what a killer lense. What I like about it is that for simple colored filters like used for black and white, it has a holder for gelitan filters in dack of the rear element

-- david cichocki (davcic@aol.com), January 25, 1998.

Dito the new 55 F4 and new 200 F4. Fantastic lenses! 77mm filters no problem!

-- Gene Crumpler (crumpler.gene@epa.gov), May 08, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ