Hello Scott, Yes, basically that is it. I used to have both the 165 LS and the 90 LS.
Yes, they did make a 90mm leaf shutter lens. It is older and slightly more dangerous to use. The reason I say that is you can't really tell from the viewfinder that the leaf shutter is cocked. On the 165, after firing the leaf shutter, the viewfinder goes black until you re-cock it. So you are very aware that you haven't cocked it yet for the next shot. On the 90, you can still see just fine, so you take the first shot at 1/8 sec and then forget to cock the leaf and take the second shot at truly 1/8 sec - severe over exposure and camera movement result. If you are more careful it works just fine. Both lenses operate as normal lenses when you don't want to use the leaf shutter. Based on focal length, I found the 90 slightly more useful than the telephoto 165. If you are doing daylight fill, they are the only way to go - otherwise you are stuck with a max shutter speed of 1/30 sec. -- Bruce Wednesday, August 29, 2007, 8:37:08 AM, you wrote: SL> Norm Baugher wrote: >> If you're gonna use a flash, go with the 165/4 LS...(lovely lens BTW). >> Also, make sure the body is thoroughly brassed, improves performance. >> Norm >> >> SL> Thanks, Norm. I'm assuming, because I haven't read up on it, that the SL> LS lenses for the 67 are much like the LS lenses for the 645. You set SL> the body to a slow shutter, 1/8th or so, and have to cock the shutter on SL> the lens manually? In situations where I wouldn't be using the LS, does SL> the lens function just like any other? SL> Brassing is, of course, required. Bargain outfits from KEH are about SL> all be able to afford, so that shouldn't be a problem. SL> -- SL> Scott Loveless SL> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
