135 macro limitations as a "standard" lens

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Pentax 67 SLR : One Thread

About to buy a P67 for outdoors work. I would like to use the 135 Macro as my "standard" lens. Sharpness is my #1 priority, and I'm concerned that when used in non-macro situations the 135 may have compromises in image sharpness, depth of field or whatever.

Also, not sure whether to go with the metered finder or not. Somebody at a pro shop said, these are inaccurate, unsophisticated, and of little utility in medium format cameras. "Go w/ handheld meter, use the 35mm as a spot meter."

Thanks for any feedback on these to

-- Gary Trudeau (garytrudeau@earthlink.net), April 10, 1998

Answers

Hi Gary, I have both the 135 and the 90. The 135 has a little too much magnification for my taste to be a "normal" lens. The 90 or 105 would be a better choice; faster too.

While it's true that the TTL prism is not center weighted, it's still handy to have for "grab" shots. I also just bought a set of extension tubes and it will come in handy for macro shots.

-- Benson (btw@vnet.net), April 10, 1998.


Gary: If you are happy with the focal length of the 135 (approximately 72mm in 35 terms), you certainly don't have to worry about the sharpness. It is an outstanding lens, by anyone's standards. The 135 and the 45 are my most used lenses; I also have the 90 and the 200. I do agree with Benson that it is a little long for my tastes as a "normal," but that is very subjective. Regards, Bob

-- Bob Cook (bcook@wc-m.com), April 11, 1998.

I recently bought a Pentax 67 with a 135mm lens as a long standard lens. This is my first medium format setup. I have had great success with this setup sooting portrait and fashion shots, as well as nature close-ups. I have shot some archetcture and travel type photos, but I wish I had the 55mm for a lot of that work. My style of photography tends to be "close" with tight cropping of the subject, so the extra magnification of the 135 is welcome.

The 135's depth of field is rather shallow at f4 -- I have taken head shots with the eyes in focus and the tip of the nose soft. One drawback of the lens is that it is larger than the 105mm or 90mm lenses, so it's harder to whip it out of a shoulder bag to capture fast situations. Yes, I have been handholding this lens at speeds of 125 and faster, so far with no major loss of quality. Also, be advised that the 135 is not a 1:1 macro. Its true ratio is 1:3.2. There are magnification ratios marked on the barrel of the lens.

Overall, I recommend using the 135mm as a long standard lens for those photographers that are on a restricted budget and like to shoot tight compositions.

Joel Collins | jwc3@mindspring.com | http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3

-- Joel Collins (jwc3@mindspring.com), April 13, 1998.


Gary - Re the comments you've heard about the TTL meter - wrong, wrong, double quadruple wrong. I use the TTL meter extensively and have been amazed at how accurate it is considering the fact that it's not matrix metering, it's not even center weighted metering, it's just a good old primitive match needle system. Nevertheless, to my surprise it works very well. When I first bought it I tried taking two photographs of the same subject, one with the exposure based on the TTL meter and the other with the exposure based on my Pentax Digital Spot Meter. I seldom saw a signifcant improvement with the hand held meter and I now use it only when I know I'll be able to shoot a whole roll in the same light and can develop the roll to zone system standards. Otherwise (which is most of the time) I use the TTL meter. I would guess that the person who is telling you how bad it is has never used it.

-- Brian Ellis (beellis@gte.net), September 30, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ