new 75mm f2.8

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

Has anyone tried the new 75mm f2.8? If so, what is your opinion of it?

-- Joe Piano (j.lepiano@sympatico.ca), January 16, 2002

Answers

I have not tried it yet but have to wonder why they wanted to make another 75mm. There are already three other lenses that will shoot this focal length(75 f/4.5, 75 shift and 55-100 zoom). Their time and money would have be better spent on a 40mm rectilinear. The main reason the new 75mm uses aspheric surfaces is for distortion, with spherical aberration correction being a minor consideration. But, the 75 f/4.5 has so little pin cushion distortion that it's nothing to worry about. I'm sure the new 2.8 is performer but did we need it?

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 17, 2002.

Sounds like there is a market for this lens. Gert, when the speed is increased in a lens, consideration must be made by the designer to compensate for rays that are entering the optic that are farther off axis from that of slower designs. Of particular importance is the improved correction of the off axis aberrations(coma, lateral color etc.). Usually, more elements are needed to compensate for these aberrations. The 75mm shift is a good example of how further correction is necessary beyond that of a standard 75mm to compensate for using the lens in the off axis mode(shift). Distortion is caused by many things, including element surface shape, the placement of the stop, symmetry or lack of it, etc. Please explain how increasing the speed of the 75mm to 2.8 will make distortion harder to correct? Geoff, the 75 2.8 with a 2x should be pretty close to having a flat field unless the converter was not designed with this new lens in mind.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 18, 2002.

I think we probably did need it, Steve. At least, I'm tempted by it and I already own a 75/4.5.

I shoot mainly horticultural subjects and my main lenses are the 75mm, for modestly wide-angle views and particularly for whole tree shots, and the 135mm macro for closer work. I use diopters rather than extension tubes when I want the 135mm to focus even closer.

The new 75/2.8 focuses to 45cm (I think}, which is far better than the 70cm of the old 75. Combined with the f2.8 aperture that fact has me wondering what it would perform like with a 2x converter. You'd effectively have a 150/5.6 that focuses to 45cm. Compare that with the 135 macro that focuses to 70cm. It wouldn't be flat field, I'll admit, but the prospect interests me.

-- Geoff Bryant (geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz), January 17, 2002.


Hi Steve,

If you want to increase the speed of the lens, the trade off is usually more distortion, to keep this on the same level as the 4.5 version you need to do the trick with aspheric surfaces. The report I have read in the dutch Camera Magazine stated even less distortion and 5,6 and 8 as best performinging apertures.

I would love to have a brighter view finder, but I already own the 4.5 and think the upgrate is too expensive.

And yes Steve I would like to have a 40 mm with AL lenses. I gave up on the 45mm I have owned 3 of them and they all are not sharp in the corners! maybe a re design would do.

Kind regards Gert Jan

-- Gert Jan Bollen (Gert.jan.bollen@philips.com), January 18, 2002.


Steve - There certainly is a need for this lens as far as I am concerned. I use the old 75 mm as a standard lens, almost always from a tripod, because it performs optimally at f11. This new lens is said to be very good at f5.6 and usable at f2.8.

This means handheld use is possible more often for those situations where it is not practical or possible at the moment.

Tony

-- Tony Cunningham (cmserv@wxs.nl), January 19, 2002.



Aaron Reynolds on the Pentax Discuss Mailing List http://www.pdml.net has been using the 75/2.8 for a few weeks and his preliminary reports suggest that it is very sharp with excellent bokeh. He provided some examples of handheld shots at both wide and small apertures. The results appeared to be excellent, insofar as that can be determined in lo-res web scans. Paul Stenquist

-- Paul Stenquist (pnstenquist@earthlink.net), January 20, 2002.

An image from Aaron to demonstrate bokeh. It's wide open at 1/30 second off a monopod.

http://homepage.mac.com/aaronreynolds/.Pictures/bokeh2.jpg

-- Paul Stenquist (pnstenquist@earthlink.net), January 20, 2002.


Paul gave me a heads up about this discussion. :)

I'm very happy so far with the 75mm f2.8. I had not considered the 75mm f4.5 because I thought it was a little too slow for the kind of shooting I like to do.

Not only am I very pleased with its sharpness, but also its small size and weight -- it is nearly identical to the 105mm in terms of size, shape and handling. Also, it has an excellent minimum focus distance (under 1.5 feet). So far I've mostly shot with it between f2.8 and f5.6, but I have taken a few pictures at f11 and f16. I have no complaints at all.

If anyone has any specific questions that they'd like to hear answers to or anything that I can look for in the images I've shot (or shoot a test of, within reason), please let me know.

-- Aaron Reynolds (fud@passport.ca), January 21, 2002.


I´m owner of the old 4,5/75 and the new one is on top of my list. I shoot landscapes and fashion with my 67. For landscapes the old version is ok, because I use a tripod anyway. But with fashion the faster lens is great, also the same filter size as the 2.8/165. Both uses 67mm filters. The old lens uses 82mm and that is really big.

Reinhard

-- Reinhard Becker (reinhard_becker@hotmail.com), January 26, 2002.


Tony, the 75mm f2.8 is very useable at 2.8 and fabulous at f4. I'm very much enjoying it.

Here's an image, 1/30 at f4, MLU, handheld, Ilford Delta 3200:

http://homepage.mac.com/aaronreynolds/.Pictures/ sgt%20%26%20mrs%20pepper%20at%20home.jpg (you may have to paste that together)

Here's a closer view:

http://homepage.mac.com/aaronreynolds/.Pictures/ sgt%20%26%20mrs%20pepper%20close.jpg

-- Aaron Reynolds (fud@passport.ca), March 10, 2002.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ