clarification on comments about Pentax 645-67 lenses

[samnc0]

A few months ago I asked a question on this forum about the merits of a Pentax 67 v 645 system. I got back a few comments that one advantage about the 645 is that it has better lenses than the 67, negating some inherent advantages of the larger negative of the 67.

Can anyone else comment on this...is this the general consensus about the 645? If so, which lenses are good for the 645 (pentax)

I am thinking about the 645 1st generation "N" camera...this will give me AF and AE, right?

 

[JRJacobs]

That sounds like wishful thinking to me. The 67 SMC lenses are sharp as a tack, so are the 645 SMC lenses. The 67 negative is almost twice the size, so it shows much more detail and less grain per given enlargement.

 

[econley]

I just got my first roll of film back (Ilford XP2 Super) using my (new to me) Pentax 67II + 165mm f2.8 lens. Amazingly sharp shots. Took some portrait style shots of my wife (handheld), and it's like nothing I've ever seen in the 35mm world. I couldn't be more thrilled.

 

[JRJacobs]

Econley -

The 165/2.8 is my favorite lens of the P67 lineup - sharp wide open with incredibly bokeh. Really a fantastic portrait lens, isn't it!

 

[samnc0]

90% mirror on P67

Does the non-full coverage mirror on the P67 both you? How do you deal with that? There is also an option for mirror lock up, right?

 

[econley]

JRJacobs, It's an incredible lens...sharp all the way out to the edges. My wife, however, thinks it's a little too sharp to use on her.

Samnc0, I don't have a big issues with the 90% coverage. You just have to keep in mind that there's a little more there and know what it is. Worst case, if you do end up getting something you don't like, cropping 10% still gives you more area than a 6x6 will give you. And yes, MLU is available (and easily accessible) on all but the earliest P67 models.

 

[JRJacobs]

It is the prism, not the mirror that cuts down the coverage - if you use a WLF you get full coverage. Most 35mm SLR's and DSLRs have the same "feature".

Econley - sounds like you need a Softar filter!

 

[yurihuta]

The Pentax 645N will give you AE. It will give you AF with the "FA" series lenses, but will not AF the "A" series lenses, although it will give you focus confirmation with the older "A" series lenses.

I am thinking about the 645 1st generation "N" camera...this will give me AF and AE, right?

 

[yurihuta]

I have at one time owned both systems and have not noticed a difference in sharpness between the two (67 versus 645). I have since sold off the 67 gear and kept the 645 gear, since it suits my needs better, but it was not due to 645 being 'sharper' than 67.

A few months ago I asked a question on this forum about the merits of a Pentax 67 v 645 system. I got back a few comments that one advantage about the 645 is that it has better lenses than the 67, negating some inherent advantages of the larger negative of the 67.

 

[samnc0]

P67--AE, right?

The pentax 67 II does have auto exposure, right?

 

[JRJacobs]

The pentax 67 II does have auto exposure, right?

Yes, it has an aperture priority mode - but only if you purchase the metering prism. The metering prism also gives you some very nice metering modes: matrix metering, spot metering, and CWA.

 

[yurihuta]

I believe the metering system on the 67II metered AE prism is very similar to the one in the 645N - dual six zone meter (at least that is my interpretation of the specifications I read on both systems). I can say that this system in the 645N is very, very good. I had sent one camera body for an overhaul to Pentax, and they returned everything back to factory settings and the metering system has been terrific.

 

[econley]

With the option AE prism finder, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[bagdad child]

Are you aware of the P67-645 lens adapter? It lets you use 67 lenses on the 645 body.

 

[weasel]

For what it is worth, I ended up with a p67 and a 645 all at about the same time.
The 67 came with 55 and 90, the 645 with a 55 and 150.
I did rather extensive testing, using the same film, a big heavy tripod, mirror lock up on the 67, and found that using acros the 645 was actually sharper.
This was hard for me to stomach, as for nearly 40 years I have always been of the bigger negative is better school.
But the fact is it is not always so.
I don't know if the lenses of the 645 are sharper or not; but with my two sample cameras the 645 is better.
The bigger 6x7 negative shows no advantage, either in resolution or tone, at the biggest enlargements my d2 can make.
Anybody want to buy a 67 with a couple lenses?

 

[JRJacobs]

I did rather extensive testing, using the same film, a big heavy tripod, mirror lock up on the 67, and found that using acros the 645 was actually sharper.

I suspect the screen on your P67 was out of callibration with the film plane - I have owned both as well - P67 negs are noticably better due to the larger negative size. Lenses from both systems were equally sharp.

Get your P67 body examined by a camera doctor.

 

[weasel]

The 67 is properly collimated. I just think there are other factors at play besides negative size.
If you read the resolution specs of small format lenses the resolution tends to be much higher than lenses that cover bigger formats.
I am not a lens designer, but from this I deduce that it is easier to build high resolution lenses to cover small formats; if that is true, then it may very well be possible that the 645 lenses are sharper than the 67.
I haven't googled it, but I bet somewhere pentax or somebody published resolution numbers.
All that said, either camera, prop
erly used, gives killer images

 

[JRJacobs]

Like I said, sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

[luvcameras]

I too feel the 67 lenses are superb. See my Web page on these great lenses

Dead Link Removed

Dan

 

[Doug Webb]

I have both the 67 and 645 Pentax medium format cameras. Really like both. My 645 images don't seem to me to be sharper or better in any way than my 67 images. The difference between 645 anf 67 images in a black and white print isn't that obvious to me until I go past 11x14 and compare them. But the 645 images are better than I expected them to be, given that the 67 negative is so much larger. There is a huge difference though if you end up doing much cropping of an image. I occasionally get an image that I can't go back and reshoot and I really like a cropped portion of the negative. With the 645 there isn't much left if you crop. I don't see any problem with the lenses on either camera. I got the 645N so that I could have focus confirmation when I needed it. The cameras are quite different in many ways and my guess is that most people would prefer one over the other based on handling or features. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone would be disappointed in either the 67 or 645 unless they need features not offered by these cameras.
Doug Webb