Just found out Cayman has the 90-180 in stock and thinking of taking the leap. Anyone out there with experience with this lens yet?

Thanks! T. Gorman

-- Tom Gorman (honeychrom@aol.com), February 20, 2002

Answers

Speaking of zooms, I shopped for quite a while before buying my 55- 100. I ended up getting it at Delta as they were willing to deal on the price. I am going to get the 90-180 as well and feel that Delta may cut a special price for members of this forum. If anyone is interested in having me arrange this, let me know. BTW, they beat Cayman's price.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), February 20, 2002.

George, thanks for your first impression on the new 90-180 zoom. I too was reluctant to buy the 55-100 due to the lack of hyperfocal marks. After putting them on the lens myself for f/32, it is a really nice lens to own. I also added marks for the near focus part of the DOF for 55, 75 and 100mm focal lengths. I am planning on putting similar marks on the 90- 180 based on my 105, 135, 150 and 200mm lenses DOF scale. Experience has shown that some experimentation is necessary to get these marks right.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), March 02, 2002.

I am also very interested in this lens, but haven't heard anything yet either. I wonder if the large size and weight would make it more prone to vibration-induced resolution degradation problems than the primes of the same focal lengths.

-- George Rhodes (betsy@colormewell.com), February 20, 2002.

It should be LESS Prone to vibration than primes because it is heavier. More mass=less vibration. However, primes are almost always sharper than zooms. Steve, I'd be interested in getting in on a deal with Delta, let me know.

-- rolland elliott (rolland_elliott@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

True, primes are *usually* sharper than zooms, but right now with the 50-100 zoom and the 200 I find the zoom to be much sharper (though from previous posts I've gathered that the 200 isn't particularly highly regarded in general). I really think the 50-100 is a fantastic lens- sharp, versatile. If the 90-180 is as good I'll be very happy indeed (well, maybe my back won't......).

Steve- I'm definitely interested if you can get a good price from Delta.

-- Tom Gorman (honeychrom@aol.com), February 21, 2002.

I'd be interrested to know what price Delta will offer. For the sake of comparrison, Cayman recently quoted me $1109.00 plus $55.00 shipping for the 90-180. Bob

-- Bobby Mahaffey (mahajen@prodigy.net), February 21, 2002.

I'd also be interested in the Delta price. I live in the UK, and would need to consider the shipping and tax costs (the saving compared to a UK-based company would need to be sufficient to outweigh these costs, and still leave a significant saving). But from experience, this is quite possible! So I would be interested...

-- Ed Hurst (BullMoo@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

Tom,

I just received my new 90-180 from B&H today. I like this impressive lens. It really is quite nice and the zoom range works well for my needs. It appears typically Pentax 67, sturdy and well built. The zooming and focusing action is nicely damped and the lens is comfortable to use when mounted on my tripod-mounted Pentax 67. I don't have the new 67II. Since the lens is f5.6, the viewfinder is a bit darker than I'm accustomed to, making focusing a bit more difficult than with my f2.8 and f4 lenses, but not bad. The viewfinder image is supposed to be 60% brighter on the new 67II, which would be a definate improvement. There are no hyperfocal markings on the barrel, but frankly I don't think I'll miss that on a zoom of these focal lengths. I personally would not be interested in the wide angle 55-100 zoom, because I consider hyperfocal markings to be an important feature on a wide angle lens. Surprisingly in my opinion, there are infrared markings on the barrel. I don't think there is much use of infrared film in medium format photography, but I could be wrong. This lens is supposed to come with a large hood that has an opening in it, so that a polarizing filter can be turned with the hood attached. Interestingly, the large lens hood that came with the lens doesn't have this opening slot. The hood is the correct configuration and obviously fits the lens perfectly, but is solid black with no markings, other than the little white alignment dots. I called Pentax regarding this curious situation. They are looking into the matter. The technical rep told me I was not the first to call with this situation and that they assume a possible reason (pure speculation at this point) might be that Pentax may have been eager to get the new zooms out onto the market, but didn't have enough of the new correct hood, so they substituted with the hood for their 55-100 zoom. Apparently, the only difference between the two hoods is the polarizer slot and some writing on the hood. I was assured that they would get the correct hood to me if possible and as soon as possible. The rep couldn't have been nicer or more helpful. I plan to shoot a few test rolls this weekend to check optical performance. I'll report back with the results.

-- George Rhodes (betsy@colormewell.com), March 02, 2002.