Re: 645 lens question
On Nov 1, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > The 35mm > sounds nice, but I've never worked with anything quite that wide. I > have seen some results from the SWC and it seems to be a camera you'd > want to keep close to level if there's anything in the foreground. That's why all SWCs have a built-in bubble level in the viewfinder... With any rectilinear ultrawide like this (the DA14 produces the same diagonal field of view on the *ist DS), you have to be very careful of perspective distortions and keystoning. The SWC is distinguished in having absolutely superb quality, right to the corners, and virtually non-existent light falloff. I hope the A35/2.8 for Pentax 645 performs as well. > The 45 is probably more practical. It's also more available. My > window shopping has only turned up one used 55mm A lens, and it had > oil on the blades. There are three A45/2.8 lenses available on Ebay in auctions due to close between today and three days from now. Search for item numbers: 200040917669 170043846166 7538038604 I was tracking these to see what the going rates were... Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
On 10/31/06, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Others also complimented the performance of the 45 and 35 mm lenses. > > > For what its worth I found the FA645 45/2.8 to be a pretty weak performer. > It is no better than the zooms covering this range (the FA645 45-85/4.5 is > in fact better) and was more prone to flare than any other Pentax lens I've > ever used. > I have never used the 35 or the 55 mm lenses but they are both regarded > among the good ones. I recomment the 45-85 zoom instead of the 45mm. > After spending some time looking over your photos, I have no doubt that a 45-85 in the right hands can yield stunning results. Right now, though, I'm really more interested in using prime lenses. Thanks for the comments, Pal. Much appreciated. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
On 10/31/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Make that: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D501705.jpg > Mark, that's a wonderful photograph. I remember when you first shared it with us. I'm currently leaning toward the 45. Thanks! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
On 10/31/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I asked a similar question just the other day. Mark Roberts offered > this: > > --- > "The manual focus 45/2.8 is the lens I have and it's probably my > favorite (though I only have the 45, 75 and 200mm lenses). > I'm not much of a lens tester, so I can't give you a detailed report - > I just love using this lens and the results I get from it. My "award > winning" Welsh church door photo was shot with this lens: " > >http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D501705.jpg > --- > > Others also complimented the performance of the 45 and 35 mm lenses. > > I've never had any of the Pentax MFs myself, although various friends > have used them for many years with great results. My interest when I > think of medium format usually tends to wide and what's piquing my > interest right now is the thought of a 645 and 35mm lens for that > magic 90 degree FoV across the diagonal, although the 45mm is > probably a more practical overall FoV. > > I don't know yet if I really want to get back into film work, but > this kind of camera is always fun to work with for me. If I go for > one, it will be a 645 and I'll want one or two lenses at the most > (ultrawide and wide). > > If I went for a Hassy again, the only model I want is a Hasselblad > SWC. I loved my 903SWC, sold it because it was just too too much > money to sit in a closet with only limited use. That Biogon 38mm lens > on 6x6 is just an amazing thing, it has an imaging character which is > unique and wonderful. > Thanks, Godfrey. I took a look at the thread you mentioned. The 35mm sounds nice, but I've never worked with anything quite that wide. I have seen some results from the SWC and it seems to be a camera you'd want to keep close to level if there's anything in the foreground. The 45 is probably more practical. It's also more available. My window shopping has only turned up one used 55mm A lens, and it had oil on the blades. Thanks again. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
On Nov 1, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Walter Hamler wrote: >> "So Walter, what did you think of the 45mm? Which one did you have?" > > I had the 45mm f/2.8 manual focus version. I bought it used and my > only > complaint was the focus was a little stiff to me. All the others > were bought > new and were like "butter". Thanks. I had an offer from a friend to sell him his 645 and A45/2.8 with some accessories at a pretty good price. Since I've never used this equipment (other 645s yes, but never the Pentax) I'm curious about it. > Another post referred to the 45~85 zoom being sharper. I never used > one but > the size and weight made me disinterested from the beginning. Six > to 8 hours > of hauling around the camera setups I used in weddings were an > immediate > reason to keep everything as light as possible! I think Pål was referring to the FA45. I have no idea how similar the two lenses are optically. I agree with you about keeping the weight down. Medium format equipment is always a lot to carry about for any length of time. My usual inclinations on MF equipment have always been to use just one or two wide angle lenses and leave telephoto for smaller formats, partially for this reason. Tele FoV for a 645 or 6x6 takes a large and heavy lens. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE:645 lens question
Godfrey posted a question: "So Walter, what did you think of the 45mm? Which one did you have?" I had the 45mm f/2.8 manual focus version. I bought it used and my only complaint was the focus was a little stiff to me. All the others were bought new and were like "butter". Another post referred to the 45~85 zoom being sharper. I never used one but the size and weight made me disinterested from the beginning. Six to 8 hours of hauling around the camera setups I used in weddings were an immediate reason to keep everything as light as possible! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Walter Hamler wrote: > I used a couple 645 bodies and lenses when I was actively shooting > weddings. > I also used them for other types of photography as well. > In addition to the two bodies, I had several inserts, 120 and 220. > Having > more than one is almost a necessity. I had at various times the > 35mm, 45mm, > 55mm, 75mm, 120mm Macro, 150mm, and 200mm. I quickly got rid of the > 55 as it > was just too close to the 75 and was not wide enough when I needed > wide. The > 150 was next to go as it did not focus close enough for tight head > shots. > That was when I got the 120 as it had the close focus and being a > little > shorter, I could still shoot full lengths in my limited space > studio without > having to drop back to the 75. So Walter, what did you think of the 45mm? Which one did you have? > I sold the 35 in a moment of insanity. It was by all standards the > single > best lens I have ever owned in my life. Sort of the same thing I felt about the Hassy 903SWC. At least I had the pleasure for a time. :-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
Make that: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D501705.jpg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
Scott Loveless wrote: >The wide lenses I'm considering are the 45/2.8 and 55/2.8. >Landscapes and street use for those. Differences in focal length are >not a big factor. I currently use 28 and 35mm lenses in 35mm format >and find that either suits my needs. Contrast and resolution are more >important to me. Would anyone mind sharing their opinions on these? >If anyone can compare the two, that would be swell. I've never used the 55 but I own the manual focus version of the 45 (I don't know how similar the AF version is) and I really love it. Here's a link a I posted a couple of days ago with one of my favorite 45mm shots: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D506703.jpg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Others also complimented the performance of the 45 and 35 mm lenses. For what its worth I found the FA645 45/2.8 to be a pretty weak performer. It is no better than the zooms covering this range (the FA645 45-85/4.5 is in fact better) and was more prone to flare than any other Pentax lens I've ever used. I have never used the 35 or the 55 mm lenses but they are both regarded among the good ones. I recomment the 45-85 zoom instead of the 45mm. Pål -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
645 lens question
I used a couple 645 bodies and lenses when I was actively shooting weddings. I also used them for other types of photography as well. In addition to the two bodies, I had several inserts, 120 and 220. Having more than one is almost a necessity. I had at various times the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm, 75mm, 120mm Macro, 150mm, and 200mm. I quickly got rid of the 55 as it was just too close to the 75 and was not wide enough when I needed wide. The 150 was next to go as it did not focus close enough for tight head shots. That was when I got the 120 as it had the close focus and being a little shorter, I could still shoot full lengths in my limited space studio without having to drop back to the 75. I sold the 35 in a moment of insanity. It was by all standards the single best lens I have ever owned in my life. Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645 lens question
I asked a similar question just the other day. Mark Roberts offered this: --- "The manual focus 45/2.8 is the lens I have and it's probably my favorite (though I only have the 45, 75 and 200mm lenses). I'm not much of a lens tester, so I can't give you a detailed report - I just love using this lens and the results I get from it. My "award winning" Welsh church door photo was shot with this lens: " http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D501705.jpg --- Others also complimented the performance of the 45 and 35 mm lenses. I've never had any of the Pentax MFs myself, although various friends have used them for many years with great results. My interest when I think of medium format usually tends to wide and what's piquing my interest right now is the thought of a 645 and 35mm lens for that magic 90 degree FoV across the diagonal, although the 45mm is probably a more practical overall FoV. I don't know yet if I really want to get back into film work, but this kind of camera is always fun to work with for me. If I go for one, it will be a 645 and I'll want one or two lenses at the most (ultrawide and wide). If I went for a Hassy again, the only model I want is a Hasselblad SWC. I loved my 903SWC, sold it because it was just too too much money to sit in a closet with only limited use. That Biogon 38mm lens on 6x6 is just an amazing thing, it has an imaging character which is unique and wonderful. Godfrey On Oct 31, 2006, at 9:39 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > If you don't my my picking the collective brain once again, I have a > question about wide angle lenses for the Pentax 645. > > The enablement bug continues to bite pretty hard and I find myself > considering a new (used) medium format system a little earlier than I > anticipated. My current darkroom setup allows up to 6x6 so I've ruled > out the 67. It's down to either an older Hassy or a Pentax 645. I > rented a Hasselblad a few years back and really liked it, but the cost > of building a system of one or two bodies and three or four lenses > means that it will probably take several years. Plus, the Hasselblad > bodies in my (wife's) price range leave me with something that might > not be repairable depending on the specifics of a possible breakdown. > So I'm kinda leaning toward the 645 manual focus body. > > I'll most likely order a kit with the 120 insert and 75mm/2.8 to > start, and very shortly thereafter add a short telephoto and a wide > lens. The wide lenses I'm considering are the 45/2.8 and 55/2.8. > Landscapes and street use for those. Differences in focal length are > not a big factor. I currently use 28 and 35mm lenses in 35mm format > and find that either suits my needs. Contrast and resolution are more > important to me. Would anyone mind sharing their opinions on these? > If anyone can compare the two, that would be swell. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
645 lens question
Howdy gang! If you don't my my picking the collective brain once again, I have a question about wide angle lenses for the Pentax 645. The enablement bug continues to bite pretty hard and I find myself considering a new (used) medium format system a little earlier than I anticipated. My current darkroom setup allows up to 6x6 so I've ruled out the 67. It's down to either an older Hassy or a Pentax 645. I rented a Hasselblad a few years back and really liked it, but the cost of building a system of one or two bodies and three or four lenses means that it will probably take several years. Plus, the Hasselblad bodies in my (wife's) price range leave me with something that might not be repairable depending on the specifics of a possible breakdown. So I'm kinda leaning toward the 645 manual focus body. I'll most likely order a kit with the 120 insert and 75mm/2.8 to start, and very shortly thereafter add a short telephoto and a wide lens. The wide lenses I'm considering are the 45/2.8 and 55/2.8. Landscapes and street use for those. Differences in focal length are not a big factor. I currently use 28 and 35mm lenses in 35mm format and find that either suits my needs. Contrast and resolution are more important to me. Would anyone mind sharing their opinions on these? If anyone can compare the two, that would be swell. Thanks so much! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
