Pentax 6x7, 90mm f2.8 vs. 105mm f2.4

dazedgonebye

dazedgonebye

Veteran
Local time
12:54 AM
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
3,932
I hear a lot about the 105mm. Everyone seems to like it. Fast is good...but 105 is a touch longer than I'd like on 6x7. Also, the newer 90mm is quite small, lighter and still f2.8.

Any thoughts on these two lenses?

Thanks,
 
I can't compare but I've recently bought a 67 (second version) and a 2.8/90mm of the latest version -- and I'm delighted by the combination.

It's very well balanced, and both camera and lens seem very very well built and extremely robust. My first pictures from it are of very high quality (but I haven't scanned any of them yet).

I chose the 90mm over the 105mm because I prefer slightly shorter than 50 to slightly longer than 50 (in 35mm terms).
 
Manufacture of the leaf shutter 90 overlaps the one without, with this duty eventually moving to the 165mm f/4 LS. The non-shutter 90 (1980 SMC Pentax 6x7, 1989 SMC Pentax 67) is indeed quite compact, and focuses closer than the 105.

Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 43mm
Angle of View @ Infinity: 53 degrees (matches 90mm)
Filter Size: 67mm
Optional Rubber Lens Hood #37663
Elements/Groups: 7/5
F-Stop Range: f/2.8 - 22 with 1/2 stop calibrations and stop-down preview feature.
Minimum Focus Distance: .65m (2.1 ft)
Dimensions: 49 x 91.5mm (1.96 x 3.66") L x W
Weight: 480g (17 oz)

I note that it seems to flare readily when a strong light source is near the edge of the frame.
 
The more I look, the more I think it's the 90mm I want.
I'm a 40mm equivalent fan, so I should be very comfortable with it.

I'm also trying to decide if I want to spend the money on a 67II vs a 6x7. The II is so sweet looking/feeling.
 
The 105 is a one-of-a-kind lens, you'll be hard pressed to find anything faster for 6x7 negatives that only costs less than $200. However, I think most people look over the latest 90/2.8 because of the 105. The original 90/2.8 leaf shutter was an okay lens, but the latest version seems really super. The 75/2.8 is really my dream lens, I think it might be a little closer to your 40mm equivalent but it's rare and expensive.

I use the 6x7 and have looked at a LOT of photos from the 67 and 67ii...they are identical (the photos I mean). Obviously the ergonomic and electronic advancements in the ii are nice, but not necessary. If I had that much money to put into a camera body, it would be the Mamiya 7 where the different type of viewfinder will likely help your composition a lot more. And I feel like the 80mm on that is a lot more like a 40mm equivalent.
 
Last edited:
The 105/2.4 is prone to separation of the rear element (which are glued together), so examine any lens you look at carefully.

My favorite remains the 75/4.5. It is big, but surprisingly light, and every example I have tried has been consistent. I also like the 90/2.8, but I prefer the field of view of the 75.
 
Thanks for the additional input guys.

I think the 90 will do for me. I want the 165 as well, so that separation makes more sense.

Going with the 67II would be a splurge...but I may still do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom