jan normandale
Film is the other way
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
I would like a longer focal length for photographing at night (the 105 is not long enough from the sidewalk in general) but I can't decide between the 135, 150, and 165. Any input? Is the 135 going to be different enough from the 105?
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I have the 165 but haven't made much use of it. Certainly not enough to contribute an opinion.
What about the 200? I believe it is highly regarded.
I wouldn't think the 135 would be enough of a step up.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have the 200, and like you I don't use it much. It is nice but just not that useful for me.
maclaine
Well-known
From a poorly exposed roll of Tri-x at 1600. This was the only salvageable picture on the roll, and it's pretty thin at that. Still, I like the moody quality of it.
This was a camping trip I took with a few friends down to the Redwoods in August. I hiked with that enormous camera and two lenses (as well as a back pack full of other stuff) for miles and miles and I was just fine. Who says you need to travel light when hiking?
S-M-C Takumar 75mm f/4.5.
This was a camping trip I took with a few friends down to the Redwoods in August. I hiked with that enormous camera and two lenses (as well as a back pack full of other stuff) for miles and miles and I was just fine. Who says you need to travel light when hiking?
S-M-C Takumar 75mm f/4.5.
maclaine
Well-known
More from the same trip.
Tmax 400, S-M-C Takumar 75mm f/4.5.
Tmax 400, S-M-C Takumar 75mm f/4.5.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I really like the BW results of the TMax 400 ... did you use D76 or something else?
maclaine
Well-known
Thank you. Yes, this and the previous shot on Tri-x were both developed in D76 1:1 according to the development times on Kodak's data sheets for both films. I constantly struggle with which one I like more, Tri-x or Tmax 400. The grain in Tmax is barely noticeable, and I don't mind the tonality that so many others complain of, but Tri-x on a 6x7 negative is almost as grainless, and it just looks so, so smooth.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
That's a really nice photo. I like the balance a lot.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I'm so upset by this thread and its awesome photos. I just bought a 67 and 105 lens so I could join you. 
I'll see how the lens compares to Zeiss.
I'll see how the lens compares to Zeiss.
Last edited:
IK13
Established
I'm so upset by this thread and its awesome photos. I just bought a 67 and 105 lens so I could join you.
Yeah, I hate them too
Great pictures, guys. Keep 'em coming.
The P67 lenses are excellent, in general. I had the 165LS at Grand Canyon this summer, first use, bought inexpensive on eBay. This copy is not as crisp as my newer 200/4, but it did fine I think.
maclaine
Well-known
S-M-C Takumar 75mm f/4.5, Tmax 400.
BIG trees deserve a BIG camera.
BIG trees deserve a BIG camera.
maclaine
Well-known
I think this thread is consistently showing some of the best MF shots I've ever seen.
This is just stunning ... that back light is amazing, there is so much detail in it!
Thanks, Keith. All these shots from the Redwoods were pretty tricky, because the light in the forest was all over the place. When the sun would poke through the canopy, there would be crazy hot spots everywhere, which made metering tricky, and makes some of the pictures a little unappealing even if they are exposed correctly. The Tmax 400 performed very admirably, though. The roll of Tri-x I shot at 1600, though, not so much. Too much contrast, not enough shadow detail (almost none, really).
Another caution would be shooting such a slow lens in sub optimal lighting conditions. Many of the shots I took with the 75mm were wide open at f/4.5, which means a bit of corner softness, and occasionally I'd miss the focus and not have enough depth of field to cover me. If I'm ever in a similar situation, I'd probably shoot at 800 to give myself some breathing room.
notraces
Bob Smith
The 75 f/2.8 AL -- STELLAR lens. The negs are incredibly sharp with just the right amount of contrast and minimal distortion (if any). What I love about it over the f/4.5 version (I have the latest version of that lens, too) - is focusing distance - I can get real close with the f/2.8 -- which makes it a lot of fun to use.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Great picture, notraces!!!!
notraces
Bob Smith
thanks so much -- i have two great supermodels to work with
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Hello you people. You have caused my bank account pain. My 67 has arrived. In retribution, I'll make you view my pictures from it in some thread.
Congrats, Snowbuzz... Looks pretty clean, and I hope you enjoy it. I have one that appears the same except it says Honeywell instead of Asahi. Later 6x7 (before name change to 67) just had Pentax in large white letters across the prism front, and no logo on the upper slope.