Recommedation on 200mm lens for P67

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

I am looking to buy a short telephoto lens for my 6X7. I currently own the 45 and 135 lens. The 135 is a really outstanding quality lens, the 45 less so particularly at the edges. I would prefer something closer to the 135 in quality terms.

Is there a variation in quality of the 200mm lens depending on which version ? I read previous postings and gain the impression that the 200mm isnt one of Pentax's best - how does it compare to the 45/135 ?

Thanks

Dave

-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), October 21, 2001

Answers

At 200mm, I feel that this lens should have been a true Telephoto design and not the mid focal length Ernostar type. Color correction becomes an issue at this focal length and I would prefer a three color triplet up front(Cooke)and a rear triplet. My sharpest shots with this lens have been when hyperfocal settings were not used. ED glass would have been nice as well. The 200 Pentax has a highly curved front element which makes it very difficult to correct spherical aberration later on in the optical train. There is probably some zonal spherical.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), October 28, 2001.

I have used the 45, 90 older LS, 105, 135, 150, 165, 200 ( both versions ) nad old 300. The lenses I have kept are the 45, 90, 135 and latest 200. The latest 200 is slightly better than the old version and focuses closer. The old version has a built in hood and is of better ( tougher ) construction - all metal. My 45 is outstanding - I am actually in awe that a med format super wide angle lens could be so sharp at 5.6 thru 22. The 135 is also super. The old 90 is as crisp as can be at 5.6, is small, foucuses clearly and is a great value. The 200, despite my using a carbon fiber gitzo and an arca b1 ballhead, still requires a lot of work in getting a really sharp shot from it....its possible - but there is something about the lens that makes it much more difficult to get sharp shots from - other than it being a short telephoto lens...I have had equal if not better success from the old 300. I am thinking about getting the 165 2.8 again for the extra speed -but then the 135 is sort of a waste.

-- Dan (dcolucci@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Thanks for the response - thats a useful insight. One other thought for the relative infrequency that I use a telephoto would be to get a converter for the 135. I assume that, if available, a 2X is all that is made and a 1.4X is not made. The thought of a 300 is a good one but I guess that is a huge lens and wouldnt often be carried for speculative use. A 90-180 zoom when available is another option but probably will cost the earth....

Thanks

-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), October 22, 2001.


David, there is a 1.4X converter, as well as a 2X, in current production. They are both the same gray color. I believe the 2X will fit most, if not all P67 lenses, but the 1.4X, like the older 2X (knows as the T6-2X, and black in color)will only fit some of the lenses due to the problem of colliding elements. My old T6-2X will fit my old 135mm. This indicates to me that the current 1.4X will probably fit the 135mm too, but I can't say for sure. Bob.

-- Bobby Mahaffey (mahajen@prodigy.net), October 22, 2001.

I agree with Dan about the difficulty of getting a nice sharp image from the 200mm. I don't know how to describe it in technical terms, but there's just something that seems a little off with this len

-- T. Gorman (honeychrom@aol.com), October 28, 2001.


Dave-

I have the new version of the 200 and it's a gem of a lens. I use it with the 1.4 rear converter and the results are superb. The 135 is a nice lens for some things, but it just doesn't have the "reach." My 200mm Pentax is extremely sharp, although I must admit I use it on a heavy tripod & Arca Monoball and avoid shutter speeds in the 1/30 to 1/8 range. I don't know if the samples vary from lens to lens but the 200 I have is very sharp, sharper than the 165 2.8 I had and much better than the 300 Takumar; it's one of my "always carry" lenses.

-- Charles Shoffner (chasmn@aol.com), October 30, 2001.


I remember reading drastically different assessments of the 150mm lens (I still think it quite sharp). It seems the same thing is true of the 200mm lens. At one time I owned both versions of the 200mm. After numerous tests with tripods far better than mine, I was unable to distinguish the old and new versions of the lens on my standard 16x20 prints. Since I didn't need the closer focusing of the newer version, and since someone offered me more than I had paid for it, I let the newer version go. I have loaned my older version lens to friends who comment "maybe that 200 I used to have was better than I remember". But, it is possible mine is sharper than the one they owned. I am, unlike a few people I know and most of the people on this board, VERY happy with my old 200mm. I dont have any trouble getting real sharp shots, and my tripod lineup is far from top-of-the- line. The one caveat was hinted at by Steve: best not to hyperfocal. It just raises another debate, but I believe this is generally good advice for almost any medium format lens beyond the so-called normal focal lengths. As for the 200mm, I love mine. If you are in the States, you can often find a mint, original version for around $325 - and if you don't like it, you can probably get $300-325 back on the used market if you decide to sell. Then again, if you are in a big city, you could always rent one for a day and see for yourself. The 135 is sharper (55mm, 75mm, 135mm is my ranking of the sharpest), but the 135 is a less useful forcal length for many people, especially if they have a 105, 150 or 165; the 200mm is a really nice focal legnth in 6x7.

-- Miles Stoddard (p67shooter@yahoo.co.uk), October 31, 2001.

Thanks all - it sounds like I need to get one and try it.

-- David Tolcher (davidjt@btinternet.com), October 31, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ