Lenses for Pentax 645z

[Dshelly]

Can anyone comment on their experiences using the FA Pentax lenses? I'm considering the 645z, but buying the DA lenses ($5k per lens) is not in my budget. I have no experience with Pentax, so I would be interested in hearing other users experiences. I'm considering the primes 45mm, 75mm and 120mm, but would also be interested in to know if their zoom lenses are worth putting in my camera bag. I primarily shoot portraits and fashion editorials.

Thanks for any suggestions or comments.

[ndevlin]

Hey,

Here's the skinny:

- both 35mm lenses are good.

- the 45mm f2.8 is the perfect size, the perfect focal length, and a total dud.

- the new 55mm is good.

- the 45-85mm is surprisingly good, especially on the wider-to-medium range. I've had four of them over the years, and none has disappointed.  

- the 75mm f2.8 is generally cracking sharp

- the new 90mm is excellent, but WAY too big.

- the FA 120 macro is outstanding. I've owned two and shot with a third - universally excellent

- I personally found the 150mm f2.8 not outstandingly sharp, but it might be nice for portraits.  I just bought, mostly by accident an A-150mm f3.5, for $60 (gotta love ebay). It's not super easy to focus (better on liveview), and doesn't focus close, but has a nice rendering.  For the money, why not try one?

- the FA 200mm was very hit and miss for focus on the 645D.  Have not tried it again.  I have a 24x30 from it on my wall that's perfect.  Shot a comparison against the 180mm (I think) Leica S in Moab with Andy Biggs a few years back (simply switching cameras on a fixed tripod), and I could really not tell them apart at f8.  But it has a short, film-style focus-throw, which isn't ideal for middle distances.  For portraits, it might work.

- the FA 80-160mm is insanely useful.  I've had two, and both were decent.  Michael likes his a lot.  It is probably not Leica-sharp, but if you're a working photographer more than a brickwaller, you'll probably like it.  It is only obviously a touch weak at 160mm.  Up to 150 I think it's quite sufficient.

- both FA 300mms are quite good. The f4 at around f8-9 particularly so. Both are very vulnerable to vibration, from the shutter and elsewhere. Won't really use them under 1/1000th. A bit too long for studio, though.

- the 150-300mm is interesting, but not as good as the primes in the range, on the sample I tried.

For your applications, I'd get the new 45-85mm, the new 55mm, the 75mm, the 120 and the 80-160 (to try out).

ps. I have bought ALL of my lenses used and had generally good luck purchasing the best-quality used I can find.

- N.

[ndevlin]

Shot this with the $60 special manual focus A-150mm yesterday. Wide open, ISO 3200, min. focus distance. The jpeg looks funny on my monitor via the website - posting this for rendering only.

[Ray Cox]

I own the 645D and 645Z. I will agree whole heartedly with Nick. All of these lenses will perform well in their focal length. I also have the FA400 which I really like. I also purchased the new 28-45 lens. I am impressed with this lens, although it may not fit into your work flow. I use it mainly for group photos and landscape. It is a BEAST. Did I mention it is heavy? But the results are great. At least toting this thing around I don't have to go to the gym!

Ray

[Doug Peterson]

All lens reviews are relative. You'll get more relevant feedback if you indicate what your point of reference is / what you are comparing them to. I remember when I used to rave about how great Canon L glass was (and to be fair, it is great, depending on what you are comparing to).

[Paul2660]

Nick:

Did you get a chance to shoot the 33-55?  Supposedly it's been reworked and is all new.  The old one, that was around when the 35mm FA was shipping (original) no re-release, was very good when I used it on 35mm DSLR's with a zork.

The 35mm FA I had was excellent on a 645D, but I sold it long ago.  Loved that lens on both 35mm DSLR and 645D. 

I never found any of the older 67 lenses to be very good on the 645D. 

Paul

[ndevlin]

Paul, I had the 33-55mm with the 645D and liked it.  I bought another for the 645z, and found it not up to standard in the corners. Probably sample variation. I also always found that lens kind of 'loose'; wobbly in both focus and zoom. That never made me comfortable.  If I end up getting the camera I'll probably buy a 28-45. 

As re: Doug's comment, I have shot with just about everything over the years.  I have a closet full of Leica and Mamiya "M" glass, and recently spent time with a high-end hassy.  When I say 'good' I mean good enough for any professional application. I make no representations about 'how good compared to a theoretical maximum quality extraction from the sensor'.  IMHO, the only systems which come close to full realization of sensor quality are perfectly calibrated/shimmed tech-cams using DBs and the be$t glass and the Leica S.  The Otus on D810 would, but it's MF so not optimal on non-stationary subjects.

Put simply, when you find a good copy of a good Pentax 645 lens, you're not giving anything away to Fujiblad or Phasemiya.

- N.

[Ken R]

I agree with a lot of what has been posted already.

Would like to add my own experiences (with lenses on the 645D)

The 35mm FA (AF) lens. Great lens when focused at medium to close distances. Not good at all at infinity focus. Soft corners and parts of the image when at or near infinity.

The 35mm A (MF). Gem of a lens. Good optically but awesome small size and weight and easy to filter. Much better than the FA lens at infinity. If you shoot landscapes find one and buy it before they come up in price. (might be too late)

The 120mm A lens. Fantastic. Simple and effective 120mm lens at all distances.

The 55 f2.8 DFA. Good lens, Not great. Overall solid. A bit cheap feeling.

The 75mm f2.8 FA lens. Cheap lens, feels like it. Sharp closed down pretty bad wide open.

45-85mm FA. Solid lens at f8-f16. Great workhorse lens if you work at those apertures at any distance.

In short the 645z is a Great camera looking for lenses, specially if you like to shoot wide open.

[Paul2660]

Paul, I had the 33-55mm with the 645D and liked it.  I bought another for the 645z, and found it not up to standard in the corners. Probably sample variation. I also always found that lens kind of 'loose'; wobbly in both focus and zoom. That never made me comfortable.  If I end up getting the camera I'll probably buy a 28-45. 

As re: Doug's comment, I have shot with just about everything over the years.  I have a closet full of Leica and Mamiya "M" glass, and recently spent time with a high-end hassy.  When I say 'good' I mean good enough for any professional application. I make no representations about 'how good compared to a theoretical maximum quality extraction from the sensor'.  IMHO, the only systems which come close to full realization of sensor quality are perfectly calibrated/shimmed tech-cams using DBs and the be$t glass and the Leica S.  The Otus on D810 would, but it's MF so not optimal on non-stationary subjects.

Put simply, when you find a good copy of a good Pentax 645 lens, you're not giving anything away to Fujiblad or Phasemiya.

- N.

Nick

As I remember the 35 FA and 33-55 were full frame 645 lenses.  The new 25mm is designed around the crop sensor, is the 28-45?  I totally missed that lens being announced and just looked at it on B&H, it's not cheap, but in line with other 645 zooms out there.

Thanks
Paul

[Dshelly]

Gents - thanks so much for the profusion of good information. It serves as a good guide for me to follow. Per chance, have any of you worked at all with the 55-110mm Pentax zoom? I don't often use zooms, but I had this same version for my old Hassy, and it served me well. No one has mentioned the lens, so I figure it's probably not a worthy contender.

As ndevlin mentioned, the 45-85mm appears to be a good lens to have.

[tsjanik]

I haven't used the 645 55-110mm, but my impression from reviews I've read is that is not highly regarded.  If that's the zoom range you want, you might be better served by the Pentax 67 55-100mm.  It's a superb lens and will retain the auto diaphragm (Pentax 67/645 adapter) both for metering and exposure on the 645 bodies.  No AF however.

[ndevlin]

I had a 55-110mm too 

Nothing special. Really compact, but optically not amazing. 

Let me put it this way: if I take the plunge on the "z" (I was spoiled with having a loaner for longer than usual) I will do so with the expectation of spending a lot of money on one or two of the new lenses in the next couple of years.  The Hassy 35-90mm is $8K new, and around $6K used, so I won't feel that hard done by, considering how much more usable the camera is than its competitors.

That said, EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) is the one thing it needs most for landscape. If I knew it was possible via firmware, and likely coming, I'd buy tomorrow.  If I knew it were never coming, I would be more hesitant.

- N.

[tsjanik]

Nick,

Nice shot of Michael  BTW. Considering the great shot of him in the 645Z review, he should make you his official portrait guy.    The 150mm A is a really nice lens - small, sharp and slide-out hood.  The 35mm A, 75mm and 150mm A make for an excellent, compact system.

Tom

[araucaria]

The pentax 67 105 2.4 lens can be had for less than 100$ and has some nice rendering.

[BernardLanguillier]

That said, EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) is the one thing it needs most for landscape. If I knew it was possible via firmware, and likely coming, I'd buy tomorrow.  If I knew it were never coming, I would be more hesitant.

As far as I know, this is a hardware feature of the sensor.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dfarkas]

The pentax 67 105 2.4 lens can be had for less than 100$ and has some nice rendering.

I compared the 105 f/2.4 Pentax vs. the Leica 120 f/2.5 APO a few years ago on the S2:

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2011/08/testing-the-pentax-105mm-f-2-4-vs-the-leica-120mm-f-2-5-apo-on-the-leica-s2/

[ndevlin]

Hi David.  Fun test, but the only reason you'd ever put a 1980s Takumar lens on a modern MFSLR is to shoot wide open and enjoy the softer rendering that the razor-like Leicas can't manage. 

For that application, the 105mm might be just the ticket.

- N.

[synn]

Hi David.  Fun test, but the only reason you'd ever put a 1980s Takumar lens on a modern MFSLR is to shoot wide open and enjoy the softer rendering that the razor-like Leicas can't manage. 

For that application, the 105mm might be just the ticket.

- N.

I've always wondered if one of these would help one do that with modern, razor sharp lenses.

[ndevlin]

That filter costs more than the vintage lens in question. Just get the real thing 

[synn]

Haha, you've got a point there!