Pentax 6x7 normal lens (105 vs 90mm) comparisons?

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by ignatiu5, May 29, 2010.

  1. ignatiu5

    ignatiu5 Subscriber

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I’m thinking about piecing together or picking up a Pentax 6x7 system on the cheap to see if I like it. Can anyone who’s tried out both the multi-coated versions of the 90/2.8 and 105/2.4 lenses please comment on their optical performance versus one another? Any major differences, or is it 6 of one, half dozen of the other? How about between the early and late editions of the 90? Finances simply don’t allow buying two to try and selling one, so I’m relying on the experience of others here.

    Thanks,

    ignatiu5
     
  2. whlogan

    whlogan Member

    Messages:
    551
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Hendersonvil
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    As a long time user of the 6x7 I will sing the praises of the 105 f2.4 as perhaps the finest 'normal' lens ever made. it is also a fine close-up lens as well. As to optical performance, i have never seen it surpassed, even by the Zeiss Planar 80mm f 2.8 on the Hasselblad or Rolleiflex SL66, both of which i own and use.... far and away, the 105 is the best. But in general use, I claim it is the lens of choice. For a wide angle, the 75mmis nearly as good!
    Logan
     
  3. mtjade2007

    mtjade2007 Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have a almost new (used only a few times) 105/2.4 and a 90/2.8LS (leaf shutter). I found that I used the 90/2.8 99% of the time. I am not saying 90/2.8 is a better one. I used it more because it is a little wider and that's the reason I used it more. If you shoot a lot of portrait (full figure) the 105/2.4 is probably your choice. But if you shoot portrait (again full figure) but you also want to include more background (scenery as an example) then 90/2.8 is probably better. I sometimes use my 75/4.5 instead of 90/2.8 if I want a little wider. In most cases I simply felt 90/2.8 is the right one. If I had only one the 105/2.4 would have been totally fine with me. Since I have both I ended up using the 90/2.8 more.

    I have two 90/2.8LS actually. I picked up the 2nd one in a Camera Flea Market very cheaply. It turned out to be perfect and as good as the first one. The leaf shutter on them are very well built. They are likely to last for a life time.

    Both 105 and 90 mm lenses are extremely sharp. There is no doubt about this. I handheld my P67-II 99% of the time. I almost never got a blurred shot because of the mirror shake or shutter vibration.
     
  4. ignatiu5

    ignatiu5 Subscriber

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for the replies so far. I hadn't even considered the leaf shutter version of the 90mm, assuming it would be at a price premium. However, looking at KEH for bargain level, it's similarly priced to the regular version. If all things were equal in terms of sharpness etc., I would probably lean towards the 105/2.4. Well, really I'd go with whichever I could get more cheaply, but if there are significant differences, I'd shop for the better glass.
     
  5. dpurdy

    dpurdy Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,211
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I have both and the 90 is the leaf shutter version. They are two of the best lenses. You won't go wrong. The 90 used to be important to me to use for outdoor flash on wedding portraits. But the slightly longer 105 has a nice feel to it.
     
  6. mtjade2007

    mtjade2007 Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    In my opinion you should get a 90/2.8LS. It can be had for around $200. A 105/2.4 won't be much cheaper than that. The leaf shutter will prove to be necessary when you need to shoot indoors with electronic flash.
     
  7. sidearm613

    sidearm613 Member

    Messages:
    269
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have the non-LS 90mm. I think its a great lens. I will sing its praises any day of the week. But, depending on the depth of your wallet and your preferences, may I also recommend looking at the 75mm f/2.8 AL. It's pretty close to 35mm on 35mm, so its moderate wide. It is far and away my most used P67 lens. It feels very natural for street and landscape photography, there is almost no wide-angle facial distortion, and for what its worth it actually focusses closer and has a better macro reproduction ratio than the 135 Close Focus (er, macro.) Highly recommended, if you can find one.

    Back on topic, go for the 90mm if its between the two. Its not much slower, its a bit closer to human vision (Appx 45mm in 35mm terms), and its also a bit smaller and lighter, for what its worth.
     
  8. dpurdy

    dpurdy Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,211
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    This is probably just a typo but actually the leaf shutter is not important for indoor flash it is only important for higher speed synch as for the brighter light of sunshine or outdoor flash. In fact the leaf shutter doesn't even offer slow speeds and the regular focal plane shutter will sync at slow speeds as necessary for the ambient light of indoors. If you are in a situation of a 400 speed film and needing flash to fill harsh sunlight you will need to synch at a much higher speed than a 30th. The leaf shutter will allow synch to a 500th.
    Dennis
     
  9. mtjade2007

    mtjade2007 Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks for commenting. Yes, I should have said if higher speed sync (above 1/60th of a second) is desired for electronic flash for indoor shots. Higher speed sync will be handy for eliminating ambient light (such as tungsten light) that may affect color balance without setting the aperture to the small extreme side.
     
  10. ignatiu5

    ignatiu5 Subscriber

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It doesn't sound like any of the mentioned normal lenses have any major optical advantages or deficiencies, so it looks like I'll be okay with whichever I can find either cheaply alone or better yet in a package (here, KEH, etc.). The LS in the 90 would have little advantage for my kind of shooting. My portrait lenses are the 105/2.8 or 135/2.5 for my Spotmatic, 150/3.5 for my Bronica ETRSi, and the 28-135 IS usually fully racked out for my Canons, so I definitely like longer focal lengths for that purpose. In fact, I tend to prefer longer for my normal shooting, hence the leaning towards the slightly longer 105 over a 90. If I decide that I like the P67 system, I'll pick up the 165/4 LS for portraits/fill flash.

    Thanks for the comments.