I am about to take the plunge into medium format with the 67 II, and have selected the 100mm f/4 macro as my normal lens. My primary use for the lens will be landscape photography.

However, the August 99 "Popular Photography" hands-on test of the 67 II shows the resolution for the 100 f/2.4 lens to be better than the 100 f/4 macro, at least at f/4.0, 5.6, 8.0 and 11.0. I am now questioning the need to pay the higher cost for the macro if it yields less-sharp images. Can anyone confirm that the 100mm f/2.4 is in fact the sharper of the two lenses?

Regards,

J.W.

-- J. W. Gambrell (j-gambrell@ti.com), August 01, 1999

Answers

Even though I can't answer your question as you asked it, I can give an opinion on the 105 for landscape work. It sure would be nice if the 105 had that f/32 stop like the 100 macro. Paying the difference in price for that one stop(and better DOF) may not be warranted though. The 105 is limited for landscape work due to its lack of DOF in certain situations. The 105 is quite sharp in macro situations stopped down and I doubt if the 100 could beat it. One solution might be to go with the older 135 macro which is tack sharp and stops to f/32. SR

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

Even though the 100 macro is newly designed, it is not a new design. Let me explain. The rear component is a Double Gauss while the front part is an APO Cooke triplet closeup attachment. Many macro lenses use the Double Gauss design because of its symmetrical benefits. It is no surprise that the 100 is not as sharp as the 105, but the difference would not sway me away from the 100 either. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), August 03, 1999.

J.W.,

I have both the 90mm 2.8 and the 135mm f4 macro for the 6x7. For landscapes both are outstanding; the longer lens stops down to f32, and has the ability to pull up the background a bit. The 90 is very compact and extremely sharp and will give you more depth for views 5-8 ft away; it focuses to 2.2 ft, which is actually pretty close. Before I bought the 135 macro, I even used a #1 close-up diopter on the 90mm and shot a magazine cover with it. If I were you, I would check each of the "normal" lenses, the 90, 100 macro, 105 and 135 macro to weigh the pros and cons of each. I have no experience with the 105mm, but the 90 and the 135 are both superb optics for the P67.

Cheers, Charles

-- Charles Shoffner (Chasmn@aol.com), August 02, 1999.

J.W. Asked the question I have been wanting to post. I'm more-or-less in the same position he is. I also do landscapes, but a lot of my shots are close-ups using a 90mm macro lens, so the decision between the 135/f4 and the 100/f4 is a key one for me.

The one thing I wanted to contribute is that - to me anyway - one of the advantages of the 100/f4 over the 135/f4 is that the 100/f4 can get to 1:1 without the use of extension tubes. To me, it's tough enough to judge depth-of-field at f/16+ without the 2 f-stop penalty on brightness the use of all three extension tubes would extract (at least I think it's 2 stops - my source was http://hogranch.com/files/Bitmaps/Pentax6x7/6x7Tubes.html).

But like J.W., I was surprised at Pop Photo's test results. Now I know it's easy enough to critize Pop's equipment and methods (just listen to what some Rollei fans have to say about Pop's evaluations of Rollei lenses...) but I have to think that their results have at least some foundation in fact. It's just that their evaluation of the 105/2.4 was surprisingly good, given what has been written recently on this and other Pentax 67 lists, and that the 100/f4 is a recent design... Oh, well, we can always chalk it up to sample-to-sample variations...

Thanks - Bill Brant

-- Bill Brant (wm_brant@msn.com), August 02, 1999.