Boris, The A645 45/2.8 is a dud. It's the only 645 lens I haven't bothered keeping. The other two are stellar on film, and I expect they are on the D as well. Jostein
2011/1/13 Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com>: > On 1/13/2011 7:57 AM, Tim Bray wrote: >> >> OK, let me seize my chance to show my ignorance. Compared to a K-5 or >> equivalent, the 645D is bigger, heavier, slower, and doesn't have as >> many interesting lenses. Its only advantage is a mega-huge sensor >> with correspondingly many pixels. So my conclusion was that this >> kind of thing is really only useful for those who want to do >> large-format printing, magazine pages and up. >> >> Is there any other reason to use one, aside from it being beautiful >> and seductive and all that? -Tim > > Tim, with my briefest encounter with 645 film camera and assortment of > lenses back in 2004 I should say that 75/2.8, 45/2.8 and 120 mm macro (I > think these were the ones I used) are all quite interesting lenses. > Especially if you look at the resulting pictures. > > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
