pentax 6x7: On my way back from software dominated photography. I acquired a thirst of knowledge of the Pentax 6x7, (to share a bag with my Nikon F5). Is the 90 mm lens considered...

OzWizard

On my way back from software dominated photography. I acquired a thirst of knowledge of the Pentax 6x7, (to share a bag with my Nikon F5). Is the 90 mm lens considered normal? What do the Hedgehoger's think of this system? What would be a good price these days? Seen a few on ebay.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I went with the Mamiya RZ for the 6x7 format, and my 'Standard' lens was the 110mm. f/2.8 . I also had the 37mm RB Fish-Eye , 50mm. 65mm. and 250mm. lenses. I got the 6 x 7 outfit, as I had just clinched a 3 year progress photography deal of a Factory building project. I started using 6x6 format, but the Site Manager wanted 10" x 8" set of colour prints every month. To save cropping SQ negs I went for 6 x 7. Not sure if Pentax was on the scene in 1967. Cannot help with value for selling. Have not considered it for my outfit.

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

That was a great system, the only downside was the 1/30 of a sec. flash sync and no Polaroid back. I had a system for around 10 years, used it mainly for location work. I had the metered prism finder, 37mm fisheye, 45mm, 75mm, 90mm, 150mm & 300mm lenses. The lenses are very good for that system. For studio work I had a Hasselblad system with 3 lenses and eventually sold it and built up a Mamiya RZ pro II system, I liked the 6x7 cm over the square format.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I believe the 90mm was normal for that camera. Looked like a 35mm camera with a thyroid condition. Saw many "back in the day."

agillot

yes 80 or 90 was the 50mm on 35

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Normal lens for that camera was a 105mm f/2.4. They made a 90mm but it was a special purpose lens with a leaf shutter. Earlier models of the camera didn't have a mirror pre-release -- avoid those and get a later model with the mirror pre-release. You'll need it to use the camera on a tripod.

Ourspolair

Technically speaking, the "normal" lens for a 60x70mm film format would be 92mm, so the 90 would be considered the normal for this format. It is based on the diagonal width of the film (or the sensor).

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Had one back in the day. Takumar lenses are excellent. The 90mm is normal for the 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 format. The 180mm is fine for portraits.

Don't drop it on your foot.

Get the grip! You might need a larger "bag"!

Here's a link to some comprehensive information: https://schneidan.com/2016/05/08/year-pentax-6x7/

More info and a list of lenses: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_67

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Ourspolair wrote:

Technically speaking, the "normal" lens for a 60x70mm film format would be 92mm, so the 90 would be considered the normal for this format. It is based on the diagonal width of the film (or the sensor).

OK, the "standard" lens sold with the camera was the 105mm f/2.4. Pentax made a big deal about that lens as the camera's "standard" lens because the viewfinder magnification was an exact match to that lens and the camera could be used hand-held with both eyes open -- one eye in the viewfinder and the other viewing the scene. Below is a page from the 67 instruction manual.

The definition of "normal lens" is not so strict. The two lenses below were both sold by Minolta as normal lenses for their 35mm cameras and the diagonal of the 35mm format is 43mm. How many 43mm normal lenses are there for 35mm cameras as compared with 50mm lenses?

(Download)

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Ysarex wrote:

OK, the "standard" lens sold with the ca... (show quote)

The 105 was nice glass as well. Like most wedding and press photographers, at the time, a slightly wider than normal lens was preferable, thus the 90mm. It doesn't seem that 15mm in that range would make a big difference but in tight spaces, with large groups of people, and with not as much potential for distortion as an actual wide and lens, the 90mm made for a good compromise. In the very olden days of the 4x5 press cameras, the "normal" for the format was 150mm, however most press and wedding folks preferred a 135mm or a 127mm as a general usage lens. You got a little more DOP too! Didn't worry about the shooting with both eyes open- I used the "wire" sports finder so I could still see beyond the frame to anticipate the action and KNEW if I had a good expression with open eyes when the flash fired!

The only area I gave up the Pentax 6x7 was that I really needed interchangeable film magazines. I went to the Graflex XL system where my "normals" were 80mm and 95mm models, from Rodenstock.

Nowadays, one of my favourite "normals" for full-frame digital is 45mm.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ourspolair wrote:

Technically speaking, the "normal" lens for a 60x70mm film format would be 92mm, so the 90 would be considered the normal for this format. It is based on the diagonal width of the film (or the sensor).

Like the RZ, my RB67 considered 110mm to be “normal”. Using the diagonal as the equalizer is iffy when the aspect ratio is different.

The RB was a great camera but too heavy for field use.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

selmslie wrote:

Like the RZ, my RB67 considered 110mm to be “normal”. Using the diagonal as the equalizer is iffy when the aspect ratio is different.

The RB was a great camera but too heavy for field use.

I still use my RZ- It's digitized now! It's a real studio workhorse. I use 6 lenses including a macro and a shift model, plus this conversion for my soft-focus portrait lenses. The only time it leaves the studios is for the odd architectural job. This is an RZ body with an RB prism, thus the RB badge!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I still use my RZ- It's digitized now! It's a real studio workhorse. I use 6 lenses including a macro and a shift model, plus this conversion for my soft-focus portrait lenses. The only time it leaves the studios is for the odd architectural job. This is an RZ body with an RB prism, thus the RB badge!

Many of my RB67 images are better than my Hasselblad images. I preferred the 6x7 aspect ratio. But the Hasselblad beat it on portability.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

selmslie wrote:

Many of my RB67 images are better than my Hasselblad images. I preferred the 6x7 aspect ratio. But the Hasselblad beat it on portability.

The Blads were my go-to handheld location gear for all kinds of event coverage, industrial work, location portraiture. Love square format wedding albums, yet I never had problems making 30x40s portraits from 6.45 section of the 6x6 negatives.

Older Hasselbalds are extremely durable. 35-years of hard service and they still work!

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Although heavier than my Hasselblad, I liked the RZ because of the higher flash sync' speeds. My Bronica S2 was sync' at 1/40 second. Not so good for fill-flash outdoors in sunshine.