FS: 6x7 lenses
offered up to the Brotherhood . All items purchased from KEH (condition excellent) just a few months ago. I was elated by my survival through a case of a lung abcess/pneumonia and over- spent on an I'm still alive! gift to myself and find I really should just have gotten the 45mm and the camera itself. The medications I was on to deal w/ severe inflamation (Prednisone) skewed my grasp of reality - we live learn, I suppose. I am list- ing the KEH costs as a basis for best reasonable offers including shipping from the Oregon Coast. 1) 165mm f2.8 (metal body SMC version) w/ hard hood from a 105mm (which works fine w/ the longer focal length) caps Lens : $275 Hood : $41 total : $316 2) 300mm f4 (late model) has built-in slide out hood caps Lens : $379 3) Set of Extension Tubes$115 My email address is mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and SnailMail is Bill Casselberry PO Box 81 Seal Rock, OR 97376 (541) 563-2687 These are really nice pieces of equipment, but my medical expenses grew much larger than I realized at the time. I'd like to see these items go to a fellow PDML'er if possible. Thanks in Advance - Brother Bill
Re: FS: 6x7 lenses
On Nov 19, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Bill D. Casselberry wrote: The medications I was on to deal w/ severe inflamation (Prednisone) skewed my grasp of reality - we live learn, I suppose. Why don't you sue the drug company? That's the American way, after all. Bob
Re: FS: 6x7 lenses
Very sorry to hear that, Bill. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bill D. Casselberry wrote: offered up to the Brotherhood . All items purchased from KEH (condition excellent) just a few months ago. I was elated by my survival through a case of a lung abcess/pneumonia and over- spent on an I'm still alive! gift to myself and find I really should just have gotten the 45mm and the camera itself. The medications I was on to deal w/ severe inflamation (Prednisone) skewed my grasp of reality - we live learn, I suppose. I am list- ing the KEH costs as a basis for best reasonable offers including shipping from the Oregon Coast. 1) 165mm f2.8 (metal body SMC version) w/ hard hood from a 105mm (which works fine w/ the longer focal length) caps Lens : $275 Hood : $41 total : $316 2) 300mm f4 (late model) has built-in slide out hood caps Lens : $379 3) Set of Extension Tubes$115 My email address is mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and SnailMail is Bill Casselberry PO Box 81 Seal Rock, OR 97376 (541) 563-2687 These are really nice pieces of equipment, but my medical expenses grew much larger than I realized at the time. I'd like to see these items go to a fellow PDML'er if possible. Thanks in Advance - Brother Bill
Re: 6x7 lenses on 645 mount?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How well do 6x7 lenses work with the adapter for 645 mount? Do you get full range focus? Paul I believe so. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
6x7 lenses on 645 mount?
How well do 6x7 lenses work with the adapter for 645 mount? Do you get full range focus? Paul
Re: 6x7 lenses on 645 mount?
They work very well, and yes, you do get full range of focus. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] How well do 6x7 lenses work with the adapter for 645 mount? Do you get full range focus? Paul
using 6x7 lenses with 35mm bodies
Hail Pentaxians! I bring you greetings from South Jersey. I am wondering about the use of 6x7 lenses with 35mm bodies and the requisite adapter. How well does it work? Are they any problems I would encounter? Specifically, I'm thinking about the 6x7 600mm lens. The 35mm version is extremely pricey and almost impossible to find used. The 6x7 600mm lens is occasionally available used and the price is a little easier to bear. Would I pay performance penalty? Thank you for any help you can give toward alleviating a small amount of my overabundant ignorance. Tom (looking forward to GFM) Reese
Re: using 6x7 lenses with 35mm bodies
- Original Message - From: Tom Reese Subject: using 6x7 lenses with 35mm bodies Hail Pentaxians! I bring you greetings from South Jersey. I am wondering about the use of 6x7 lenses with 35mm bodies and the requisite adapter. How well does it work? Are they any problems I would encounter? Specifically, I'm thinking about the 6x7 600mm lens. The 35mm version is extremely pricey and almost impossible to find used. The 6x7 600mm lens is occasionally available used and the price is a little easier to bear. Would I pay performance penalty? I expect it would work just fine. William Robb
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
Dave Brooks wrote: I think that may be my next purchase (and maybe the tubes)instead of something wider.I want to get in a bit closer now. The tubes will be necessary if you want to get tight head shots. BTW how do you print your slides. I assume you mean 6x7 slides. I scan them and send the files to the lab. My scanner is only capable of 1200ppi but this is adequate for my purposes (I can get a good 8x10 but haven't tried anything bigger yet). For really big prints I can have the lab scan the slide for me. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
David Mann wrote: AFAIK there was a Takumar 165/2.8, an SMC 165/2.8 and the leaf-shutter 165/4. I do not know if the older and newer f/2.8 versions use the same optics (I think it is likely). I went out shooting with my newly acquired 165mm f/2.8 yesterday, and again today. The 3D effect in the viewfinder is breathtaking. I hope it carries over to the slides/prints. It is a very nice lens for doing outdoor portraits. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Thanks for the update David. I have the 90 LS lens and wonder if i need the 165 LS lens too.The straight 165 f2.8 is cheaper and good to hear its liked. I think that may be my next purchase (and maybe the tubes)instead of something wider.I want to get in a bit closer now. BTW how do you print your slides.I have shot 4-5 roills of slide film with the 6x7 and it really stands out well.I scanned a few last night and printed them out on Hi Res paper for a check and even on this paper apear sharp.The one 35mm scan is good at 5x7 on the HR paper but just a tad soft. I tried a roll of Kodak E100VS and it look pretty good compared to the Provia 100F. Dave Brooks
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Acceptable DOF is calculated based on the circle of confusion which varies by format. At 08:20 AM 7/24/03 -0400, you wrote: Isn't DOF computed via f stop, regardless of format? I do know that a 165mm lens projects an image the same size on the film regardless of format. In other words, if a 165mm lens forms an image 1cm high on 35mm film, it will also form an image 1cm high on 120 film, the difference being that the image comprises a larger area on 35 than on 120. Bill - Original Message - From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:28 AM Subject: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that? I could understand it if it was at close focus with tubes WO, but for a landscape shooting at infinity? Please enlighten me. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Chris Stoddart wrote: Well I have the old Tak 105/2.4 and it's really sharp - not a complaint against it. My 165/2.8 (newish model) is also sharp, but it has a shallow depth-of-field, even stopped right down which makes it a bit of a pain for landscapes. I also have the final model 75/4.5, which is just excellent apart from a dimmer viewfinder. One difference between the three is weight - as they get newer they seem to get lighter, so the 75, depite having the largest front element, is by far the lightest of my lenses. The build quality doesn't seem to suffer though as the 75's focus is the smoothest of any lens I've owned. Next purchase will be a late model 45 or 55 - by all accounts the newest 55 is among the sharpest lenses Pentax have built. Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood) Join, you won't regret it! To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Maybe I need to see a shrink, but if you saw me mentioning the focal length, I suggest you re-read my message and keep your imagination in check. I was talking about *dimensions*: d has dimensions of *length* (m, yards, leagues) c has dimensions of *length* (mm, inches, miles, a.e) m is dimensionless (magnification) f is either dimensionless (Mark, me), or has dimensions of aperture, that is, diameter, i.e. length (cm, feet, parsec) (m+1)/m^2 is dimensionless. f*c MUST have dimensions of length, to be consistent with the fact that d ~ f*c* [dimensionless constant] therefore, f *must* be dimensionless, in other words, it is an F-stop, not the actual aperture diameter. that is unless you measure DOF in square feet or magnification in inches. but that would be a totally different subject vbg. is that clear *now*? best, Mishka copied and pasted from Mark's post: d = 2fc*(m+1)/m^2 where d=dof, f = f stop, c = circle of confusion size, and m = magnification. Now, if anyone can see a value for focal length in the above formula, he needs to talk to a good shrink about his over active imagination. My reply was change f to a (aperture-diameter) to correct the formula. (Though in the copy I have f = aperture, which is the same as using a). Us people who know everything are getting real tired of you people who think you know everything GRIN. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you look at the formula, as Mark and I wrote it, the DOF has dimensions of length. if you change f- stop to the actual diameter, the dimension will become length^2, which cannot be. best, Mishka
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
At 05:37 PM 7/24/2003 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote: No, Mark, f-stop is focal-length divided by aperture-diameter. So, by definition focal-length divided by f-stop is aperture-diameter (that is, a 100mm lens at f4.0 has a 25mm aperture). Actually, that formula in the original form had the value f = aperture. The problem with that is most of us erroneously use f-stop and aperture interchangeably, so when we see f = aperture we, without thinking it through, tend to stick in f-stop. It took me weeks to figure out why my calculations weren't matching the tables I had. When I finally had an AH-HA! experience and changed it to aperture diameter, everything worked. That is why I am so conscious of the difference now, aperture-diameter really sticks in my mind after all that. Do you happen to have the actual formula that you used? A couple ting - the formula I'm using (which comes from the Close Up Photography volume in the Kodak Workshop Series) clearly uses the f-stop number (i.e. 11 for f-11) in the example. I've tested it with macro setup up and it seems to work. If you simply substitute the aperture size the logic of the equation completely falls apart. So I assume you must of been using some other equation. The formula you quote is factored down into the simplest form. Most DOF formulas you encounter have f-stop, focal-length, subject-distance, and enlargement-ratio in them. The equation I cited has f-stop, magnification (which is the product of focal length and subject distance) and circle of confusion size (which is picked to support the enlargement ratio.) So the same factors are in there. They, of course, all factor down to aperture-diameter, and magnification. The formula you show is the one that proves aperture-diameter, magnification, and COC are the only things that actually affect DOF. If you don't mind showing me how aperture diameter (as opposed to f stop) fits in, I'd like to see. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
WW penned: They are all good, some better than others. I like the smc 45mm f/4 a lot, I find it to be very sharp, very straight and very flare proof. The Tak 75mm f/4.5 is sharp and contrasty, but flare is poorly controlled. The 90mm LS is excellent, the Tak 105 f/2.4 is also excellent, but stop it down a wee bit. If it was an f/2.8 it would be superb wide open, as is, it needs to be stopped down a half stop. The Tak 135 f/4 is fantastic, the SMC 165 f/4 is also fabulous. The old Tak 200 is less good, it would be the 6x7 equivalent of the M 85mm f/2. Not a bad lens, just not a great lens. The SMC 300 f/4 is wonderful, though it would be nice if it had a tripod collar. While there is no problem with the camera supporting the lens from the tripod socket, the tripod needs to be quite meaty to support the combo without tipping over. Thats all the lenses from the line I own. Be a Big Brother. William Robb So there are 3 models of the 165.The LS,the Non LS (both seem to be at F2.8) and one at F4. I see the prices on the non LS f2.8 are cheaper than the LS model,but what about the F4 model. Sounds like all three are good though. I'm asking because i;m not sure of what lens is next for the Lowepro,the 165,200 or 300 Dave
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses
Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you don't mind showing me how aperture diameter (as opposed to f stop) fits in, I'd like to see. Well, aperture (physical size), f-stop and focal length are mathematically related: If you know any two you can calculate the third. The same is true of focal length, subject distance and magnification. I have seen a formula for calculating DOF based on f-stop, focal length and subject distance (this is the most convenient one to use in the field), but a little algebra should suffice to generate other formulae. You have to know the focal length (obviously!), desired COC and either f-stop or aperture AND either subject distance or magnification. There would seem to be four possibilities: Focal length, aperture, subject distance Focal length, aperture, magnification Focal length, f-stop, subject distance Focal length, f-stop, magnification Here's a page that shows the formula with focal length, f-stop and subject distance. Math buffs should be able to calculate the others! http://dfleming.ameranet.com/equations.html -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:51 AM Subject: Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited So there are 3 models of the 165.The LS,the Non LS (both seem to be at F2.8) and one at F4. I see the prices on the non LS f2.8 are cheaper than the LS model,but what about the F4 model. Sounds like all three are good though. I'm asking because i;m not sure of what lens is next for the Lowepro,the 165,200 or 300 I think there is only 2 models of 165mm. The f/2.8, which is a straight lens, and the f/4, which is the leaf shutter lens. I believe there was a Takumar 150mm f/2.8 in the original lens set. If you decide to go for a 200mm, get the SMC, it is better than the Tak from what I have heard. I have the 200 Tak, and have no complaints with it though. The SMC 300mm is lovely. William Robb
Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses)
And I didn't even notice the typo! HAR /Paul From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:44:25 +0200 Pål Jensen wrote: Also, you may risk to have to stop the lens so much down that sharpness reduction due to refraction comes into play. Bullshit. What has refraction to do with it. cheers, caveman REPLY: Oh my GOD!! Did I make a typo! OH mY!! I made a mistake! How terrible! I guess you could never have guesses that I meant Difraction. How could anyone guess that? Impossible!!! Pål _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses)
Pål Jensen wrote: Oh my GOD!! Did I make a typo! OH mY!! I made a mistake! How terrible! I guess you could never have guesses that I meant Difraction. How could anyone guess that? Impossible!!! There's too much difference between the two words - refraction / diffraction as to suspect just a typo. If it's about guessing, why don't you just use wildcards and write *fraction. Would be very Pentax*ist. cheers, caveman
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
Bob S. wrote: What lenses are the better ones in the Pentax 6x7 line-up? Did people trash the 90/2.8 or the 105/2.4 as not very good? What's good, better, and best among these lenses? Are the oldest (SMC Takumar?), metal bodied lenses a step down from the newer grip variety? The 45mm f/4 is an amazing lens. Small and light, and extremely sharp when you reach f/8. I am also very fond of the old 300mm f/4 Takumar (same optics as the newer one, but different from the expensive ED IF version). I haven't critically examined my slides from the 90mm f/2.8 yet but I'm certainly not disappointed with it. I am picking up a 165mm f/2.8 tonight which will finish my 6x7 lens lineup... unless I find a bargain 400mm f/4 ED IF :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
What lenses are the better ones in the Pentax 6x7 line-up? Did people trash the 90/2.8 or the 105/2.4 as not very good? What's good, better, and best among these lenses? Are the oldest (SMC Takumar?), metal bodied lenses a step down from the newer grip variety? Well I have the old Tak 105/2.4 and it's really sharp - not a complaint against it. My 165/2.8 (newish model) is also sharp, but it has a shallow depth-of-field, even stopped right down which makes it a bit of a pain for landscapes. I also have the final model 75/4.5, which is just excellent apart from a dimmer viewfinder. One difference between the three is weight - as they get newer they seem to get lighter, so the 75, depite having the largest front element, is by far the lightest of my lenses. The build quality doesn't seem to suffer though as the 75's focus is the smoothest of any lens I've owned. Next purchase will be a late model 45 or 55 - by all accounts the newest 55 is among the sharpest lenses Pentax have built. Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood) Join, you won't regret it!
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
At 04:28 AM 7/24/2003 -0700, Steve Larson wrote: Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that? I could understand it if it was at close focus with tubes WO, but for a landscape shooting at infinity? Please enlighten me. Steve Larson The simple answer is that 6x7 lenses don't have a difference in DOF compared to 35mm lenses, but you are using the lenses differently to accommodate the larger format. DOF is a function of magnification and aperture size. You really learn that with macro work where the DOF at any given magnification (say 1:1) is the same regardless of the focal length used to take the shot. With the larger negative on a 6 x 7 you need more magnification (a longer lens) to frame up a shot the same way as you do with 35mm. Let's say you are shooting a landscape with the lens set to infinity. You get it nicely framed up on a 35mm with a 50mm lens. Deciding to shoot that scene on your 6x7, you find that you need a 110mm lens (or so) to frame it up the same way. That's because the lens is projecting the image onto a larger piece of film, so you need more magnification. That increase in magnification results in a decrease in DOF. The reverse hold true when shooting with small formats - e.g. digicams with their really tiny sensors. A frame filling shot that would be 1:1 on 35mm is more like 1:4 on the digital, and so the DOF is seemingly larger. But again, the magnification is the driver. If my explanation is not clear, play around with the math. The basic equation is: d = 2fc*(m+1)/m^2 where d=dof, f = f stop, c = circle of confusion size, and m = magnification. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhoodcomments solicited)
Steve, I believe it's what Herb says. It's not the medium format itself that's the problem, it's having to use correspondingly longer lenses for the same field of view. I've just this morning bought a 55mm f/4 for my 6x7 (yay!) - and despite having the field of view of about 28mm in the 35mm format, sadly it won't have the same d-o-f as a 28mm, it'll of course have the same d-o-f as a 55mm lens! Having said that, does anyone know if the d-o-f is the same for all lenses of a given focal length? In other words, does every 165mm lens from every maunfacturer have the same d-o-f? Or can they 'tune' it a bit with better optical design? Yes or no will do - anything about circles of confusion etc will just confuse me :-) Chris On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Herb Chong wrote: it has the same depth of field as a 165 does in 35mm format. trouble is, it's not a moderate telephoto anymore in 6x7 but only a short one. From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that?
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
On 24 Jul 2003 at 13:41, Chris Stoddart wrote: Having said that, does anyone know if the d-o-f is the same for all lenses of a given focal length? In other words, does every 165mm lens from every maunfacturer have the same d-o-f? Or can they 'tune' it a bit with better optical design? Yes or no will do - anything about circles of confusion etc will just confuse me :-) DOF is only perception and in addition to the common guide formulas I have found that unsharp lenses seem to display a more broad DOF than a sharp lens where the absolute plane of focus is apparent. The COC factor used to produce lens DOF scales varies between manufacturers within the same format. For instance Carl Zeiss Contax SLR lenses have a far more generous DOF scale Pentax 35mm lenses. However there is no difference in the apparent DOF in prints made at the same aperture and FL using Pentax of Contax lenses. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Thanks to all who responded. The (circle of) confusion is now very clear! Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 4:28 AM Subject: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that? I could understand it if it was at close focus with tubes WO, but for a landscape shooting at infinity? Please enlighten me. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Chris Stoddart wrote: Well I have the old Tak 105/2.4 and it's really sharp - not a complaint against it. My 165/2.8 (newish model) is also sharp, but it has a shallow depth-of-field, even stopped right down which makes it a bit of a pain for landscapes. I also have the final model 75/4.5, which is just excellent apart from a dimmer viewfinder. One difference between the three is weight - as they get newer they seem to get lighter, so the 75, depite having the largest front element, is by far the lightest of my lenses. The build quality doesn't seem to suffer though as the 75's focus is the smoothest of any lens I've owned. Next purchase will be a late model 45 or 55 - by all accounts the newest 55 is among the sharpest lenses Pentax have built. Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood) Join, you won't regret it!
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
No, Bill, DOF is computed from aperture diameter, and final image magnification. Not f-stop, and negative image size. For a given f-stop a longer lens has a larger aperture and therefore less DOF. That means a 165 on a 6x7 would have about the same DOF as a 165 on 35mm if, and only if, the subject is the same size in the print (the subject would have to be farther away from the camera). However, if the shots were taken at the same distance the 35mm would have less DOF than the 6x7due to the higher image magnification. OTH, the 165 on a 6x7 would have less DOF than a 50 on 35mm which has about the same angle of view, and thus the same magnification, but a much smaller diameter aperture. Usually DOF is figured for an 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches, though some amateur only cameras had DOF markings for 5x7 prints (I do not think Pentax ever did that). It works out pretty well that way because larger prints are usually veiw from farther away. Of course here on the internet, everyone has their own opinion about DOF, but the above is what the mathematics breaks down to. Yes f-stop is often used, but only when divided into the focal length which of course factors into aperture diameter. Then focal length and subject distance and print size factor down into magnification. The only other number needed is the circle of confusion (COC), but that is taken as a fixed value normally. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) Isn't DOF computed via f stop, regardless of format? I do know that a 165mm lens projects an image the same size on the film regardless of format. In other words, if a 165mm lens forms an image 1cm high on 35mm film, it will also form an image 1cm high on 120 film, the difference being that the image comprises a larger area on 35 than on 120. Bill - Original Message - From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:28 AM Subject: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that? I could understand it if it was at close focus with tubes WO, but for a landscape shooting at infinity? Please enlighten me. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Chris Stoddart wrote: Well I have the old Tak 105/2.4 and it's really sharp - not a complaint against it. My 165/2.8 (newish model) is also sharp, but it has a shallow depth-of-field, even stopped right down which makes it a bit of a pain for landscapes. I also have the final model 75/4.5, which is just excellent apart from a dimmer viewfinder. One difference between the three is weight - as they get newer they seem to get lighter, so the 75, depite having the largest front element, is by far the lightest of my lenses. The build quality doesn't seem to suffer though as the 75's focus is the smoothest of any lens I've owned. Next purchase will be a late model 45 or 55 - by all accounts the newest 55 is among the sharpest lenses Pentax have built. Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood) Join, you won't regret it!
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Your verbal explaination is great, Mark. But there is a bit of a problem with your math. Simply put f-stop is a light transmission factor, not and not the same thing as aperture size. I know I played with that same formula for a long time, and it did not work until I realized that. Change f (f-stop) to a (aperture diameter) and it works fine. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) At 04:28 AM 7/24/2003 -0700, Steve Larson wrote: Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that? I could understand it if it was at close focus with tubes WO, but for a landscape shooting at infinity? Please enlighten me. Steve Larson The simple answer is that 6x7 lenses don't have a difference in DOF compared to 35mm lenses, but you are using the lenses differently to accommodate the larger format. DOF is a function of magnification and aperture size. You really learn that with macro work where the DOF at any given magnification (say 1:1) is the same regardless of the focal length used to take the shot. With the larger negative on a 6 x 7 you need more magnification (a longer lens) to frame up a shot the same way as you do with 35mm. Let's say you are shooting a landscape with the lens set to infinity. You get it nicely framed up on a 35mm with a 50mm lens. Deciding to shoot that scene on your 6x7, you find that you need a 110mm lens (or so) to frame it up the same way. That's because the lens is projecting the image onto a larger piece of film, so you need more magnification. That increase in magnification results in a decrease in DOF. The reverse hold true when shooting with small formats - e.g. digicams with their really tiny sensors. A frame filling shot that would be 1:1 on 35mm is more like 1:4 on the digital, and so the DOF is seemingly larger. But again, the magnification is the driver. If my explanation is not clear, play around with the math. The basic equation is: d = 2fc*(m+1)/m^2 where d=dof, f = f stop, c = circle of confusion size, and m = magnification. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
The COC factor used to produce lens DOF scales varies between manufacturers within the same format. For instance Carl Zeiss Contax SLR lenses have a far more generous DOF scale Pentax 35mm lenses. However there is no difference in the apparent DOF in prints made at the same aperture and FL using Pentax of Contax lenses. DOF scales, as opposed to actual DOF, add the variable of what size image you are viewing. So if one manufacturer uses a 4x5 print and another a 5x7 their DOF scales will be different but the actual DOF of the same focal length lens will be the same. Most DOF scales are optimistic IMHO. I usually will use the scale 1 stop open from my actual shooting aperture when utilizing hyperfocal distance. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses)
Rob wrote: DOF is only perception and in addition to the common guide formulas I have found that unsharp lenses seem to display a more broad DOF than a sharp lens where the absolute plane of focus is apparent. REPLY: True as sharpness is relative (within reason). However, this also explains partly why lens quality isn't such an issue for medium format. Due to the fact that DOF is less for the same angle of view as 35mm, for the same image more of the subject is farther away from the plane of focus due to smaller aperture and hence less sharp than otherwise (only the plane of focus is truly sharp). Also, you may risk to have to stop the lens so much down that sharpness reduction due to refraction comes into play. Lens quality also have less overall input to the resultant resolution (lens + film resolution) the larger the format. The larger the format the less magnification of the lens resolution/imperfections is needed for a certain end result. Also, larger formats are genreally less flat than smaller film formats contributing to loss of sharpness. Hence, theres not much need to worry too much over optical quality for MF lenses. The DOF issue is the real problem for MF. Imagine wanting to take that landscape shot you usually do with your 24mm lens for the 35mm format; everything from your shoetips to the mountains in the distance in focus. But the lens you are using (with the 24mm's angle of view) has the DOF of your 35mm system 50mm lens. Oooops! Pål
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
At 09:32 AM 7/24/2003 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote: Your verbal explaination is great, Mark. But there is a bit of a problem with your math. Simply put f-stop is a light transmission factor, not and not the same thing as aperture size. I know I played with that same formula for a long time, and it did not work until I realized that. Change f (f-stop) to a (aperture diameter) and it works fine. I'd be interested in playing around with aperture diameter in the equations to see how it works. How do you determine the aperture diameter (short of dismantling your lenses and measuring)? F-stop is focal length divided by the diameter of the front of the lens. I've seen lenses where the aperture is directly behind the front element, and for those you could just divide the focal length by the f stop an have the aperture diameter. But with the aperture located in the rear of the lens it is smaller than the front element in any case - so how do you determine it's size? - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses
At 03:00 PM 7/24/2003 -0400, Caveman wrote: Isn't the definition talking about the entrance pupil, which is the image of the aperture in front of the lens ? So you have to determine the diameter of the aperture image, and not of the aperture itself ? Beats me Back when I used manual flash for macro I delved the concept of pupillary magnification (ratio of the exit pupil to entrance pupil) and the effect that has on the exposure increase factors relative to extension - but AFAIK the very concept of entrance pupil / exit pupil is a function of asymmetric lens design. I don't think it has anything to do with the basic definition of f-stops or with the physical size of the aperture. In my case, the lenses I used were fairly symmetrical and other factors - like the angle of the flash to the subject - had far more impact on the accuracy of exposure. So I did not spend much time dwelling on pupillary magnification. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
No, Mark, f-stop is focal-length divided by aperture-diameter. So, by definition focal-length divided by f-stop is aperture-diameter (that is, a 100mm lens at f4.0 has a 25mm aperture). Actually, that formula in the original form had the value f = aperture. The problem with that is most of us erroneously use f-stop and aperture interchangeably, so when we see f = aperture we, without thinking it through, tend to stick in f-stop. It took me weeks to figure out why my calculations weren't matching the tables I had. When I finally had an AH-HA! experience and changed it to aperture diameter, everything worked. That is why I am so conscious of the difference now, aperture-diameter really sticks in my mind after all that. The formula you quote is factored down into the simplest form. Most DOF formulas you encounter have f-stop, focal-length, subject-distance, and enlargement-ratio in them. They, of course, all factor down to aperture-diameter, and magnification. The formula you show is the one that proves aperture-diameter, magnification, and COC are the only things that actually affect DOF. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) At 09:32 AM 7/24/2003 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote: Your verbal explaination is great, Mark. But there is a bit of a problem with your math. Simply put f-stop is a light transmission factor, not and not the same thing as aperture size. I know I played with that same formula for a long time, and it did not work until I realized that. Change f (f-stop) to a (aperture diameter) and it works fine. I'd be interested in playing around with aperture diameter in the equations to see how it works. How do you determine the aperture diameter (short of dismantling your lenses and measuring)? F-stop is focal length divided by the diameter of the front of the lens. I've seen lenses where the aperture is directly behind the front element, and for those you could just divide the focal length by the f stop an have the aperture diameter. But with the aperture located in the rear of the lens it is smaller than the front element in any case - so how do you determine it's size? - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood commentssolicited)
T Rittenhouse wrote: Change f (f-stop) to a (aperture diameter) and it works fine. if you look at the formula, as Mark and I wrote it, the DOF has dimensions of length. if you change f-stop to the actual diameter, the dimension will become length^2, which cannot be. best, Mishka
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
copied and pasted from Mark's post: d = 2fc*(m+1)/m^2 where d=dof, f = f stop, c = circle of confusion size, and m = magnification. Now, if anyone can see a value for focal length in the above formula, he needs to talk to a good shrink about his over active imagination. My reply was change f to a (aperture-diameter) to correct the formula. (Though in the copy I have f = aperture, which is the same as using a). Us people who know everything are getting real tired of you people who think you know everything GRIN. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:08 PM Subject: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) T Rittenhouse wrote: Change f (f-stop) to a (aperture diameter) and it works fine. if you look at the formula, as Mark and I wrote it, the DOF has dimensions of length. if you change f-stop to the actual diameter, the dimension will become length^2, which cannot be. best, Mishka
Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses) The DOF issue is the real problem for MF. Imagine wanting to take that landscape shot you usually do with your 24mm lens for the 35mm format; everything from your shoetips to the mountains in the distance in focus. But the lens you are using (with the 24mm's angle of view) has the DOF of your 35mm system 50mm lens. Oooops! I found this on my last trip to the mountains. Usually, I use a 4x5, but I had just purchased a couple of new lenses for the 6x7, so I took it instead. DOF that would have been routine on the 4x5 was impossible to secure with the 6x7, and bt a wide enough margin that even a 645, with it's slightly greater DOF wouldn't have helped. William Robb
6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
Dear Brotherhood, What lenses are the better ones in the Pentax 6x7 line-up? Did people trash the 90/2.8 or the 105/2.4 as not very good? What's good, better, and best among these lenses? Are the oldest (SMC Takumar?), metal bodied lenses a step down from the newer grip variety? Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood)
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
Dear Brotherhood, What lenses are the better ones in the Pentax 6x7 line-up? Did people trash the 90/2.8 or the 105/2.4 as not very good? What's good, better, and best among these lenses? Are the oldest (SMC Takumar?), metal bodied lenses a step down from the newer grip variety? Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood) Having just joined myself,i can only offer this,Bob. I have the 90 f2.8 ls lens(Takumar).Its supposed to be not super but i'm getting some nice chromes and BW negs from it.The colour proofs i get are ok,i think there soft,my SO says there fine(dont forget i'm down to an eye and 3/4 nowvbg) Even the seller said when i asked about the 90, said that it may not be the best,but i'd be happy with the results. I'm sure some are a lot better,but i'm happy so far for this,my starter lens. Its a nice step up. Dave
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited Dear Brotherhood, What lenses are the better ones in the Pentax 6x7 line-up? Did people trash the 90/2.8 or the 105/2.4 as not very good? What's good, better, and best among these lenses? Are the oldest (SMC Takumar?), metal bodied lenses a step down from the newer grip variety? They are all good, some better than others. I like the smc 45mm f/4 a lot, I find it to be very sharp, very straight and very flare proof. The Tak 75mm f/4.5 is sharp and contrasty, but flare is poorly controlled. The 90mm LS is excellent, the Tak 105 f/2.4 is also excellent, but stop it down a wee bit. If it was an f/2.8 it would be superb wide open, as is, it needs to be stopped down a half stop. The Tak 135 f/4 is fantastic, the SMC 165 f/4 is also fabulous. The old Tak 200 is less good, it would be the 6x7 equivalent of the M 85mm f/2. Not a bad lens, just not a great lens. The SMC 300 f/4 is wonderful, though it would be nice if it had a tripod collar. While there is no problem with the camera supporting the lens from the tripod socket, the tripod needs to be quite meaty to support the combo without tipping over. Thats all the lenses from the line I own. Be a Big Brother. William Robb
6x7 lenses question
Hello list, I may be interested in purchasing a 6x7 with two lenses: 6x7 SMC Takumar 75/4.5 6x7 SMC Takumar 200/4 I have little knowledge about pentax MF lenses optical qualities amongst each other. I would like to know if these lenses were among the good ones for pentax MF or if they were to avoid, especially compared with other wide angle lenses (for the 75) and with other portrait lenses (for the 200). I've heard some good things about the 150 and 165, but nothing about the 200. Thanks a lot, ___ |Thibault Grouas| | http://photofr.ath.cx | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I___I
Re: 6x7 lenses question
- Original Message - From: Thibault GROUAS Subject: 6x7 lenses question Hello list, I may be interested in purchasing a 6x7 with two lenses: 6x7 SMC Takumar 75/4.5 6x7 SMC Takumar 200/4 I have little knowledge about pentax MF lenses optical qualities amongst each other. I would like to know if these lenses were among the good ones for pentax MF or if they were to avoid, especially compared with other wide angle lenses (for the 75) and with other portrait lenses (for the 200). I've heard some good things about the 150 and 165, but nothing about the 200. Well, you have chosen the two weakest lenses in the 6x7 lineup. The 75mm Tak is sharp enough, and fairly contrasty. but has some real flare problems. Use it with caution in situations where flare may be a problem. The 200 is just not an exciting lens. It isn't especially sharp, nor does it have great contrast or bokeh. It isn't a bad lens, it just isn't a really good lens. I have done some very nice portraiture with the 200mm f/4 Tak though. I've never used the 150mm, but I have the 165mm f/4 and it is exceptional. I have heard that the newer SMC Pentax versions of both these optics are vast improvements over the Takumars. William Robb
Re: 6x7 LENSES
On Sunday, December 23, 2001, at 08:45 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: How good is the new 75? Not a clue. However, considering Pentax's 67 lens track record, I'm willing to bet that it's a winner. Anyone seen any tests? :) -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: 6x7 LENSES
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 6x7 LENSES William Robb wrote: Whatever. In my own small collection of 6x7 lenses, I would place the 135 macro sharpest, then the 105mm, then the 90mm LS, then the 45mm, then the 75mm. The 75mm is also very flare prone, in my tests. I definitely have an old version 75mm f/4.5. They may well have improved it recently, but I would definitely avoid the old version. Thanks for the rundown. A lot of people have high praise for the 135 macro. It's also quite pricey, but the 105 seems to be a relative bargain. However, I think I'm going to look for a 45 or 55. That will give me a good landscape lens to go with the 150, which hopefully will prove a good portrait lens. - 150 is too short for ports IMHO. That equiv to a 75 mm lens in 35mm. 200 would be much better and possibly even 300. JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
Perhaps, but the 150 is frequently a bargain. In 35mm I frequenly use the 85/1.,8, so the 150 is reasonably close to that. However I would prefer a 200 (or the leaf shutter 165), and one of these days I'll own one, but perhaps not soon. I've read a number of bad reviews of the older 300, and the new one is very expensive. J. C. O'Connell wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 6x7 LENSES William Robb wrote: Whatever. In my own small collection of 6x7 lenses, I would place the 135 macro sharpest, then the 105mm, then the 90mm LS, then the 45mm, then the 75mm. The 75mm is also very flare prone, in my tests. I definitely have an old version 75mm f/4.5. They may well have improved it recently, but I would definitely avoid the old version. Thanks for the rundown. A lot of people have high praise for the 135 macro. It's also quite pricey, but the 105 seems to be a relative bargain. However, I think I'm going to look for a 45 or 55. That will give me a good landscape lens to go with the 150, which hopefully will prove a good portrait lens. - 150 is too short for ports IMHO. That equiv to a 75 mm lens in 35mm. 200 would be much better and possibly even 300. JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 6x7 LENSES 150 is too short for ports IMHO. That equiv to a 75 mm lens in 35mm. 200 would be much better and possibly even 300. JCO Depends, believe it or not, on whether you use a prism finder or not. The 6x7 prism crops a full card size off the viewscreen. I find I need to use an E or F crop card to match the finder view. even though the 6x7 neg is a G crop. I don't own a lens longer that 135mm, so that is the one I use for portraits, and it does very well for me. The 150, 165 and 200 mm lenses don't focus closely enough for a tight head and shoulders portrait on their own, so a set of extension tubes is needed to do really tight work with the longer lenses. I have used all three of the lenses mentioned, and I found the 165 to be really nice, though it wanted a #1 tube, and the 200 to be just a wee bit on the long side for the room I was in (I had about 20 feet from the subject). The 150mm is fine for portraiture, it is long enough that there is no camelling. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
I received two 150s via UPS today. Why I received two is a long story that I'll get to later. But the best one is a very nice one, and one of the last 150s according to the serial numbers. I immediately focused on a family member to check the crop. I get a portrait with about half the torso at minimum focust. That's about what I'm looking for. I might use a short extension tube for some extremely tight head shots, but I'll bet that a crop of the minimum focus shot will be very nice. By the way Bill, you were right about the KEH excellent. The glass is absolutely perfect with no dust. Tiny blemishes on the focusing ring, but nothing unsightly. And I love the feel of this lens. It's like a giant versionof an SMC Tak screwmount lens. I'm in love. Now I just need a little bit of sun so I can shoot a few things in my garden. (To my dismay, I found that I don't have a conventional PC cord for my 400FT. I've been using the hot shoe cord with my LX, and I thought the other cord in my bag was a PC, but it's an LX PC with the extra connectors. Gotta find a cord now.) Merry, merry Paul William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 6x7 LENSES 150 is too short for ports IMHO. That equiv to a 75 mm lens in 35mm. 200 would be much better and possibly even 300. JCO Depends, believe it or not, on whether you use a prism finder or not. The 6x7 prism crops a full card size off the viewscreen. I find I need to use an E or F crop card to match the finder view. even though the 6x7 neg is a G crop. I don't own a lens longer that 135mm, so that is the one I use for portraits, and it does very well for me. The 150, 165 and 200 mm lenses don't focus closely enough for a tight head and shoulders portrait on their own, so a set of extension tubes is needed to do really tight work with the longer lenses. I have used all three of the lenses mentioned, and I found the 165 to be really nice, though it wanted a #1 tube, and the 200 to be just a wee bit on the long side for the room I was in (I had about 20 feet from the subject). The 150mm is fine for portraiture, it is long enough that there is no camelling. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
On Friday, December 21, 2001, at 06:15 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Just bought my first 6X7 body. Now onto the lenses. Anybody know of a website that reviews the various lenses? I'm probably going to buy 3 lenses to start with. I'm thinking a 55mm , a 105mm, and a 200mm. You bastard, I still only have this one 105mm f2.4. ;) Dunno any review sites that offer as much info as this here PDML. I heartily recommend the 105, particularly if you like to shoot wide open or mostly wide open. Also, if you shoot macro at all, the helicoid extension tube is one hell of an accessory for not a lot of money (I bought the 105 and the helicoid for the cost of just a 90mm). I'm still holding out for that 75mm f2.8. DO YOU HEAR ME, PENTAX CANADA? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE IMPORT A 75MM F2.8 FOR 67! -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
How good is the new 75? I've seen frequent mentions of the old 75/4.5. It seems that many consider it the sharpest 6x7 lens of all. It is a bit slow. If the new 75 maintains that sharpness in a faster format, it should be a very nice piece. I'm afraid to think how much it's going to cost. I love 35mm lenses in 35 mm format. A 75 might be very well suited to my kind of photography. Paul I'm still holding out for that 75mm f2.8. DO YOU HEAR ME, PENTAX CANADA? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE IMPORT A 75MM F2.8 FOR 67! -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: 6x7 LENSES How good is the new 75? I've seen frequent mentions of the old 75/4.5. It seems that many consider it the sharpest 6x7 lens of all. It is a bit slow. If the new 75 maintains that sharpness in a faster format, it should be a very nice piece. I'm afraid to think how much it's going to cost. I love 35mm lenses in 35 mm format. A 75 might be very well suited to my kind of photography. Actually, Paul, the old 75mm f/4.5 is the other Bow-Wow Takumar. I know, I have one. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
Here is my opinion of the sharpness of the lenses I use, in sequential order. All lenses are compared by using their best f-stop. Listing is from sharpest to least sharp. 1. 75mm 2. 45mm 3. 105mm 4. 600mm 5. 200mm 6. 300mm The 45, 105, 600 and 200 are very similar in sharpness while the 75 is noticeably better and the 300 is noticeably worse. SR -- Steve Rasmussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), August 23, 1998 William Robb wrote: Actually, Paul, the old 75mm f/4.5 is the other Bow-Wow Takumar. I know, I have one. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . Which just goes to prove one can't believe everything one reads on the internet. The following is from a review of lens sharpness at http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0008fN Here is my opinion of the sharpness of the lenses I use, in sequential order. All lenses are compared by using their best f-stop. Listing is from sharpest to least sharp. 1. 75mm 2. 45mm 3. 105mm 4. 600mm 5. 200mm 6. 300mm The 45, 105, 600 and 200 are very similar in sharpness while the 75 is noticably better and the 300 is noticeably worse. SR -- Steve Rasmussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), August 23, 1998 I'm going to go with your opinion on this one Bill and avoid the old 75. I've had one bookmarked on ebay, but this too shall pass g Paul - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
Whatever. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 9:04 PM Subject: Re: 6x7 LENSES Here is my opinion of the sharpness of the lenses I use, in sequential order. All lenses are compared by using their best f-stop. Listing is from sharpest to least sharp. 1. 75mm 2. 45mm 3. 105mm 4. 600mm 5. 200mm 6. 300mm The 45, 105, 600 and 200 are very similar in sharpness while the 75 is noticeably better and the 300 is noticeably worse. SR -- Steve Rasmussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), August 23, 1998 Whatever. In my own small collection of 6x7 lenses, I would place the 135 macro sharpest, then the 105mm, then the 90mm LS, then the 45mm, then the 75mm. The 75mm is also very flare prone, in my tests. I definitely have an old version 75mm f/4.5. They may well have improved it recently, but I would definitely avoid the old version. William Robb William Robb wrote: Actually, Paul, the old 75mm f/4.5 is the other Bow-Wow Takumar. I know, I have one. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . Which just goes to prove one can't believe everything one reads on the internet. The following is from a review of lens sharpness at http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0008fN Here is my opinion of the sharpness of the lenses I use, in sequential order. All lenses are compared by using their best f-stop. Listing is from sharpest to least sharp. 1. 75mm 2. 45mm 3. 105mm 4. 600mm 5. 200mm 6. 300mm The 45, 105, 600 and 200 are very similar in sharpness while the 75 is noticably better and the 300 is noticeably worse. SR -- Steve Rasmussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), August 23, 1998 I'm going to go with your opinion on this one Bill and avoid the old 75. I've had one bookmarked on ebay, but this too shall pass g Paul - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
William Robb wrote: Whatever. In my own small collection of 6x7 lenses, I would place the 135 macro sharpest, then the 105mm, then the 90mm LS, then the 45mm, then the 75mm. The 75mm is also very flare prone, in my tests. I definitely have an old version 75mm f/4.5. They may well have improved it recently, but I would definitely avoid the old version. Thanks for the rundown. A lot of people have high praise for the 135 macro. It's also quite pricey, but the 105 seems to be a relative bargain. However, I think I'm going to look for a 45 or 55. That will give me a good landscape lens to go with the 150, which hopefully will prove a good portrait lens. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
6x7 LENSES
Just bought my first 6X7 body. Now onto the lenses. Anybody know of a website that reviews the various lenses? I'm probably going to buy 3 lenses to start with. I'm thinking a 55mm , a 105mm, and a 200mm. JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 6x7 LENSES
All right! Way to go JCO. The list is making a move to medium format. Sounds like a good choice of focal lengths. I started out in about the same place, but then found an affordable 150/2.8 that was available RIGHT NOW. Sometimes that makes a difference. I might very well end up with the 55, 90, 150, and 300 if I can finance all that. In any case, I found some Pentax 6x7 reviews at http://www.photo.net/photo/pentax-67.htmlThe info here is somewhat syste oriented, but they hit on a number of the lenses. I think all of those you mentioned are highly rated, although there is some debate regarding the relative merits of the 90 and 105. Paul J. C. O'Connell wrote: Just bought my first 6X7 body. Now onto the lenses. Anybody know of a website that reviews the various lenses? I'm probably going to buy 3 lenses to start with. I'm thinking a 55mm , a 105mm, and a 200mm. JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
