165/2.8 vs. 165/4 LS

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

Another question on the 165mm lenses. I have perused the prior posts, but have not found any conclusions regarding the optical comparablity of the 165/2.8 with the 165/4 LS (newest version of both). There apparently is a different optical design between these two, with the 2.8 having one more element. Any comments? Preferences? I would like to use the 165LS for outdoor macro shots using tubes and flash.

-- Jim Korczak (korczaks@ptdprolog.net), December 30, 1998

Answers

Jim: Lenses can generally be categorized into types and the 165s are no exception. The 165LS is similar to the new version 200mm and is a telephoto design, although a strange looking one. The 2.8 is a semi-symmetrical, partially air spaced Double Gauss, similar to the 105mm and is common in normal lenses. Faster lenses will usually need more elements to correct the more troublesome off axis aberrations found in these lenses. Even though I don't own either of these lenses, my guess as to which would be better for macro work would be the nearly symmetrical 2.8. Nearly all lenses used for copy/macro work are symmetrical. Steve

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 01, 1999.

Thanks Steve,

That is what I was kind of afraid of. My reasoning was that with the LS lens, I could stay away from the 1/30 shutter speed, which is a bad one for harmonics from the shutter. Perhaps the 67II will have better shutter design and/or damping. I really plan on using the 165 with tubes for 1:1 and more, hopefully. The 2.8 lens actually takes a smaller filter size, so a Nikon 6T diopter might be useful with this lens. The LS lens takes 77mm filters(!) Plus the extra stop isnt so bad in a pinch.

-- Jim Korczak (korczaks@ptdprolog.net), January 01, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ