aldenphoto.RemoveThis@aol.com (Ken Smith) wrote in message news:<eb5d68c1.0410151613.fd0f354.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
> James Dunn <jdunn.RemoveThis@augustmail.com> wrote in message news:<HETbd.5253$Lk3.4930@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
> > I am looking for lenses to fit a Pentax 67 II.
> > I understand that there are some "new" designs and some
> > "old" designs. How does one tell them apart ?
> > I understand the "new" designs are generally sharper
> > than the "old" ones. Is there somewhere on the web
> > (not pentax.com) that has info on this subject ?
> > Thanks
>
>
> The new design lenses are rubber focus on the barrel. Many have been around
> for awhile. The are listed as "late", or 67, as opposed to 6x7, in places
> like KEH and other used equipment sites. The older designs are metal focusing
> barrels. The 55mm f/3.5 is metal, theres a 55mm f/4 mid design, and a 55mm f/4
> late design. The latest is considered to be sharpest, but the oldest design
> has the least wide angle distortion.
>
> The newest designs are
> generally considered to be sharper by folks who shoot lens charts or bend
> over chromes with high powered loups, but older Pentax lenses have rarely
> lacked high praise, with the exception of the odd lemons. Its rumored that
> older quaility control was uneven, so if you buy older ones, make it from
> a returnable source, and give a few tests. I recently picked up a 150mm that
> has no new version, and was really impressed, having shot a home-made lens
> chart test, and bent over the neg with a high powered loupe. The Carl-Ziess
> lenses of a Blad are considered to be sharper, but I have heard time and
> again that Takumars, ( and Always get SMC, Super Multi-Coated ) are warmer,
> meaning not as antiseptically precise. The absolute best way to get a stinging
> sharp result from any lens, is of course, a rock steady tripod, mirror lock
> up, and a slight hand pressure to dampen the large focal plane shutter. And
> I would recommend 1/125 for hand held normal lenses, and 1/250 for short tele.
A think Shelley posted a more intelligent line of thinking. However the
reason I did go ahead and suggest the newer designs were generally considered
"sharper" was due to a months worth of reading posts from many groups, and
though its mostly opinion, there was alot of enthusiasm overall for newer
lenses. There is after all newer technology available, and Pentax probably
wouldn't waste their time on only cosmetics. OTOH the 165mm was mentioned
a few times as being a little soft.Others disagreed. Who knows. Again, the
older ones are brilliant lenses, have been raved about for years, and if
they have been cared for would definitly produce a sparkling image. You
would have to dig up a every post I read to find the occasional mention of
an older having more flare problems than the new version, but thats about
it as far as complaints.
This is a hard nut to crack from the speculation or
reccommendation side of the picture. The best thing to do, is buy and test.
I knew a woman still life photographer in New York, that shot 35mm for her
signature style. She choose Leica, would buy three lenses of a given focal
length, test, then return two. KAS<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Need Pentax 67 lens info 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
