Pentax 67 telephoto landscapes

B

bjolester

Well-known
Local time
8:32 PM
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
295
I have for a long time been wanting to purchase a decent telephoto prime lens for the Pentax 67ii, and have been looking mainly at the Pentax M* 67 300/4 ED IF. When searching eBay and internet camera shops I have also seen quite a few Pentax M* 67 400/4 ED IF that are priced only marginally higher than the 300mm.

The intended use of the lens would be mostly landscapes. Is the 400mm FOV on the Pentax 67 too narrow for landscape work. Is it a better idea (more flexible) to go for the M* 300/4 ED IF plus the possibility of using the 1.4x rear converter for landscapes?

There is also the issue of weight. The 400mm ED weighs about 3,7 kg, and that is roughly 2kg more than the 300mm ED. Do any of you have experience with using the 400mm ED on longer hikes on foot?

I am grateful for any advice on this matter!

PS: I have the 45mm, 55-100mm zoom, 105mm and 165/2.8 lenses already, a telephoto prime is meant to supplement these.
 
In my mind, the 300mm is long enough for landscape work. A 300mm FOV on 6X7 is already pretty selective. I wold worry that a 400 might be useful on too few occasions. And the weight difference means a lot. A lens you can have with you is better than one left back in the car--or at home.

If it were me, I would get a lot of use out of the 165mm. I've used the 105; it is a killer for sharpness!
 
I'm not really a long lens landscape guy but I've used the Pentax 500mm f/5.6 a couple of times. It's massive - way longer and a bit heavier than the older "Takumar" 400mm, though apparently a little lighter than the 400mm ED IF.

I hiked up a mountain on the Blue Ridge to watch the eclipse with the 500mm...it was not fun! It's really heavy, especially when you include the Pentax 67 and a couple other lenses to flesh out the kit (that 55-100mm isn't light either, I also have that lens!).

I already think the longer lenses are not well-suited to "everyday" landscape but they are certainly unique. For me the 400mm or 500mm is about the next "step" after the 200mm I usually have as a short tele (I usually like the 55-100mm as a single lens, with maybe the 200mm in additional and maybe the 35 or 45 depending on what I expect to shoot). If you can afford the 400mm ED IF go for it, it seems to be a brilliant lens from the images I've seen from it from a friend. I would love one but I have no justification to own it. I wouldn't go for a 300+TC due to the loss of light, which will inhibit focus and usability in some situations.
 
Oh yeah here's one shot with my 500mm I shot recently. Made a nice 16x20 print:

amicalola-8077ss.jpg
 
I used to own a M* 300/4 EDIF. It's a superb lens, but it is quite large. I don't think I would want to hike very far with it.
I really like using a telephoto for landscape work, but honestly I preferred my SMC PENTAX 67 200/4. It's much smaller and lighter, and at about 1/10 the cost of the 300mm, it's probably the best bargain in the entire 67 lineup.
I know 200mm isn't a lot longer than 165mm, but you might want to try it and see how you like it.
 
Rob-F said:
In my mind, the 300mm is long enough for landscape work. A 300mm FOV on 6X7 is already pretty selective. I wold worry that a 400 might be useful on too few occasions. And the weight difference means a lot. A lens you can have with you is better than one left back in the car--or at home.

If it were me, I would get a lot of use out of the 165mm. I've used the 105; it is a killer for sharpness!
Click to expand...

You are probably right about the 300mm FOV being long enough for landscape work. I have used the 165 quite a bit for landscapes, but sometimes I wish I had a longer telephoto lens.
 
Corran said:
I'm not really a long lens landscape guy but I've used the Pentax 500mm f/5.6 a couple of times. It's massive - way longer and a bit heavier than the older "Takumar" 400mm, though apparently a little lighter than the 400mm ED IF.

I hiked up a mountain on the Blue Ridge to watch the eclipse with the 500mm...it was not fun! It's really heavy, especially when you include the Pentax 67 and a couple other lenses to flesh out the kit (that 55-100mm isn't light either, I also have that lens!).

I already think the longer lenses are not well-suited to "everyday" landscape but they are certainly unique. For me the 400mm or 500mm is about the next "step" after the 200mm I usually have as a short tele (I usually like the 55-100mm as a single lens, with maybe the 200mm in additional and maybe the 35 or 45 depending on what I expect to shoot). If you can afford the 400mm ED IF go for it, it seems to be a brilliant lens from the images I've seen from it from a friend. I would love one but I have no justification to own it. I wouldn't go for a 300+TC due to the loss of light, which will inhibit focus and usability in some situations.
Click to expand...

Hiking with the 500/5.6 is impressive, I admire your stamina:)

One type of subject I enjoy capturing is the moon in landscape. Currently I use my Pentax K-5 and a 300mm lens for this subject, and I get good detail from the moon and also some landscape (water/mountains/woodlands etc.). I would like to be able to do this kind of subject also with the 67 system, although I know that the 300mm FOV in aps-c corresponds to 926mm:eek: FOV in 6x7 medium format. A good telephoto lens in the 300/400mm range plus the 1.4x converter would probably get me sufficiantly close? I would also love to do some basic astrophotography with the 67.

I live by the Trondheimsfjord in Norway, and have a great view towards the fjord. I would like to be able to capture boats on the fjord in changing weather conditions through the year.

It would also be nice to have a telephoto lens for capturing distant objects in landscape when hiking, so landscape photography in the more traditional sense.


PS: Thank your for sharing an image taken with the 500mm, very nice tones!
 
Swift1 said:
I used to own a M* 300/4 EDIF. It's a superb lens, but it is quite large. I don't think I would want to hike very far with it.
I really like using a telephoto for landscape work, but honestly I preferred my SMC PENTAX 67 200/4. It's much smaller and lighter, and at about 1/10 the cost of the 300mm, it's probably the best bargain in the entire 67 lineup.
I know 200mm isn't a lot longer than 165mm, but you might want to try it and see how you like it.
Click to expand...

I would love to try the SMC Pentax 67 200/4, I know many prefer this lens to the 165/2.8 for landscape.
 
I have the 45mm, 105mm, 165/2.8, and 300/4 non-EDIF. All are very good, the 300/4 is better than the 35mm film Takumar version of the same lens. I haven't used the 300 as much as the other lenses but it seems to hold up well if I can keep the shutter speeds up or use the tripod.

As with any of them, correct focus is paramount for best results.
 
Here's one with my Pentax 67, 300mm lens, and Ilford FP4+. From a series of images at the Rocky Mountain National Park a number of years ago.

http://[url=https://flic.kr/p/Z9phBh]

[img]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4463/37507411190_07c4b38ffe_b.jpg[/url]

Tundra
 
Thanks charjohncarter and bjolester. The "compression" of foreground with background with a fairly long telephoto offers a nice effect.

The Pentax 300mm lens was not bad for backpacking along with camera, tripod and a few other lenses. I've never tried the 400mm lens, but that extra weight could be more challenging if you are carrying for long distances with other gear. I think 300mm is a nice "compromise" if you are moving around.
 
ellisson said:
Here's one with my Pentax 67, 300mm lens, and Ilford FP4+. From a series of images at the Rocky Mountain National Park a number of years ago.

http://[url=https://flic.kr/p/Z9phBh]

[img]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4463/37507411190_07c4b38ffe_b.jpg[/url]

Tundra
Click to expand...

This one is great also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom