Just keep in mind that absolute majority or pentaxforum lens reviews are from digital users, it's the face of times we live in. Make sure when read one, it is NOT from a digital fit as the perspectives most of these are written from, almost entirely do not apply to film performance.While there are several P645 users here and that includes me who sadly has no experience of P645 zooms, I'd recommend a look at Pentaxforums where there is a lot of info on lenses and a lot of people to answer a thread. Membership is free. That way you get answers here hopefully as well as from users there.
pentaxuser
I’ll look into the 45-85, maybe the 75 too. I shoot smaller apertures most of the time so regarding the 45 I didn’t see any problem with it in two rolls of 220 Velvia I shot last year. In fact, my first impression was that it was really good.
If P645 means a non-N body, then FA lens is money for nothing.You definitely want the 75mm lens. It's small and light and cheap. I'd also recommend the 150mm, especially if you like portraits. The 35mm is really nice but it is pretty wide and a bit pricey. It's about like a 20mm on a 35mm camera. When I sold mine I got $500 for it and it was the manual focus non FA version. I don't know what they are going for now. If you do macro then get the macro lens. Macro people love this lens and you can do portraits with it too. I preferred the 150 strictly for portraits however. I tried the macro lens and liked it but besides the occasional flower, I'm just not much of a macro photographer.
I tried the 45-85 zoom for shooting people hand held. It's a very nice lens but I preferred using the small and light 75mm FA lens. I just zoomed with my feet. The extra coverage wasn't worth the extra size and weight to me but it may be to you.
If P645 means a non-N body, then FA lens is money for nothing.
I'm never too scientific about lens performance as I find lab results largely disconnected from majority of photographic applications and subjects. If I choose to use a lens wide open, then I'm looking for blurring of a lot of what's in the frame. By that alone, any softness, which I think is there in every lens ever produced at its maximum aperture, it is going to take some sort of magic to notice, let alone view as degrading overall quality. That said, 150 and the rest of 645 primes are in high league of quality.I have the first version Pentax 645. After doing some initial research I'm now leaning towards the 150mm lens. How is this lens shot wide open?
Besides the auto focus abilities and some switching to internal focusing, for a given focal length is there any real difference visible between an A, FA, and DFA?
The problem is that people see things, the more they read about them the more they start to see, mostly imaginary seeing though. I never noticed any difference between FA nad A (the 75 in my case) and if I did not have the 645 NII (I wish I did not) I'd only buy the A lenses as I find them classier, prettier, and at least as good as anything newer. Never had a DFA, but keep in mind, if there were no propaganda how much better a new is over an old, they would not sell nearly as well.I've read on this forum that FA lenses were a little sharper than the original lenses. All I know is that my original 35mm A lens was plenty sharp. I never did tests to compare it to my two FA lenses but I was plenty happy with it.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?