[kuau]

Well I just tried a loaner of a 33-55mm fa lens on my 645D,
I went and and shot my normal test subject the barn house, and to make a long story short the lens is back at the Post Office on it's way back to it's original owner.
I am not pixel peeper I don't shoot brick walls or churches like diglloyd does, that to me is not a good landscape test. To me this is my "acid" test. It has everything I am looking for when I shoot landscapes.
This was actually taken with my M9, but my point is this is where I have been testing all my lenses for my 645D, and as of today I am getting my best results with the 75mm FA, 120mm A, 200mm FA, and acceptable results with my 45-85mm FA at 45mm shooting all these lenses at F11-F16, and doing some capture sharpening in ACR or Lightroom.
My next test will be the trying a 6x7 45mm F4 lens using the 67 to 645 adaptor on order from Japan.
Steven

[Paul Ewins]

As for myths and gimmicks - if you look at the pricing on both of these lenses (both still in production):

a digital lens - Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Apo Digitar N Lens w/ Copal #0 03-019696

and its analog counterpart - Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar L Lens 01-029328 B&H Photo

you'll find the prices are darn near the same. I seriously doubt someone like Schneider would do parallel production of both analog and digital lens lines just to scrape an extra $100 from someone using a digital back. I have both of these lenses above, and for all practical purposes the Symmar is a paper weight as I don't shoot film on my technical camera and it's performance on my digital back is clearly lacking compared to the Digitar.

The Apo Symmar L is specced for a 189mm image circle, the Digitar is only 110mm. I imagine the Digitar design has been tweaked to provide maximum resolution in the centre. In all possibility the Digitar coverage is exactly the same as the APO Symmar L, but the edges are now unacceptably soft compared to the centre while the APO Symmar L provides slightly less resolution across the entire IC.

This is an extreme case since you are comparing a lens designed for 4x5" to one for a sensor smaller than 6x6cm wheras the 645D is not that much smaller than the regular 645.

[Pål Jensen]

Well I just tried a loaner of a 33-55mm fa lens on my 645D,
I went and and shot my normal test subject the barn house, and to make a long story short the lens is back at the Post Office on it's way back to it's original owner.

The 33-55/4.5 is indeed the weakest lens in the 645 line-up with the possible exception of the 45/2.8 (depending on how you judge these things).

[VoltMan]

Ok. Granted different image size but still an example of a lens designed specifically for digital imaging. My point being that digital lenses aren't myths nor marketing gimmicks (well at least not from other manufacturers). Pentax is in the same boat as Mamiya was a few years back, and I've been there done that. In the end just this week the $10,000 I paid for the 5 Mamiya analog lenses I traded in returned about $1700, whereas the Sekor D lenses I traded returned about 70% of list. Let's hope Pentax comes out with a line of digital lenses that pushes the market to depreciate and deprecate the new (old stock) FA analog series we're buying now!

The Apo Symmar L is specced for a 189mm image circle, the Digitar is only 110mm. I imagine the Digitar design has been tweaked to provide maximum resolution in the centre. In all possibility the Digitar coverage is exactly the same as the APO Symmar L, but the edges are now unacceptably soft compared to the centre while the APO Symmar L provides slightly less resolution across the entire IC.

This is an extreme case since you are comparing a lens designed for 4x5" to one for a sensor smaller than 6x6cm wheras the 645D is not that much smaller than the regular 645.

[Dougg]

How does the old A 55mm f/2.8 compare with the new DFA... might it serve reasonably well?

[kuau]

How does the old A 55mm f/2.8 compare with the new DFA... might it serve reasonably well?

I heard not well
According to diglloyd the only 55mm to get is the 67 version and use the adaptor which are of course hard to find.
F****king Pentax please get you act together sooner than later.

[Dougg]

Thanks... I do have that A55/2.8, and both versions of the P67 55/4, and the 67->645 adapter... but no P645D to put 'em on That may eventually come; it'll be intriguing to see how things shake out.

[Thomas]

I heard not well
According to diglloyd the only 55mm to get is the 67 version and use the adaptor which are of course hard to find.
F****king Pentax please get you act together sooner than later.

Steven:

Where did you hear that? diglloyd has not yet tested a 645 55mm A. My experience with the lens has been very good and here is what 16:9 had to say:
"The SMC-A 55mm f2.8 is a cracking manual focus Pentax 645 lens that outperforms the Hasselblad 50mm CF. "
This is on a Canon body, i.e., digital

[Prox-iee]

I attempted to sell my FA 75 2.8, but no bidders. at all. wtfffffff. I'm just going to try and buy a 645 to k mount adapter

[Smolk]

As I see it the real problem we have with Pentax (and the 645D) is that the FA lenses were designed for analog film, in later times by probably not the most skilled or motivated optical engineers available (let's keep in mind where they were a few years ago until Hoya threw them a lifeline)

I think these lenses were designed well before the problems started, just before digital really took off. There is no reason at all to suspect that some of the redesigned lenses such as the FA 35mm, FA 150 and FA 200mm were poor; in fact, they are deemed better performers than their A counterparts. Another question is whether they'll do well on digital. Pentax didn't like the wide end. The 45mm was always weak, and apparently the 35mm has problems on digital. The latter still has to be confirmed I think, but it would suggest that the FA tele-lenses do well on digital.

What I would like to see is a comparison of the A 2.8/55mm with both the new FA version as the 4.5/45-85mm at 55mm (quite apart from the 67). Steven suggested that the zoom looses its edge beyond 65mm. I've not read consistent reports about the A 55mm.

[Pål Jensen]

I think these lenses were designed well before the problems started, just before digital really took off. There is no reason at all to suspect that some of the redesigned lenses such as the FA 35mm, FA 150 and FA 200mm were poor; in fact, they are deemed better performers than their A counterparts.

Another question is whether they'll do well on digital. Pentax didn't like the wide end. The 45mm was always weak, and apparently the 35mm has problems on digital. The latter still has to be confirmed I think, but it would suggest that the FA tele-lenses do well on digital.

I hope that the issues with QC are temporary indeed.

I like to repeat myself. The problem with lenses on digital is pixel peeping. If you study a piece of film under a microscope you would have been dissatisfied with the same lenses.

Another issue due to pixelpeeping, is that people expect lenses to be perfect at all focusing distances. At the corners; in the center with no distortion or fringing. Try to find a Canon wide angle with sharp corners - for those who think that only Pentax lenses are designed with compromises.

[jwjohnson]

I attempted to sell my FA 75 2.8, but no bidders. at all. wtfffffff. I'm just going to try and buy a 645 to k mount adapter

Your lens didn't sound too attractive with cracks in the filter ring and no rear cap.

[Prox-iee]

Your lens didn't sound too attractive with cracks in the filter ring and no rear cap.

well I can easily get a rear cap from my local camera store, and the cracks only only cosmetic. Oh well

[MetaD]

If you subscribe to Lloyd's DAP he lists KEH used lens prices, which is usually set according to Blue Book values. The price for "EX" condition ("Like New" everywhere else) used 75mm/2.8 A is $149 and 150mm/3.5 A is $165. Samples with caps and hood (the 150mm has a built-in hood) can cost little bit more.

The only problem is, of course, they don't have them. In case anything shows up at all the life time is usually about few minute

Manual P645 lenses come up regularly in local craigslist ads, and as you can see, the pricing is pretty reasonable. Just keep shopping. As for P645N FA lenses, that is a game of waiting and luck.

A good strategy would be to wait to buy a whole set of lenses with the camera. The package price will be fine, and you can sell off any of items you don't need. If you are parting out the set, the easiest package sale would be P645, 75mm and a 120 back.

[MetaD]

I like to repeat myself. The problem with lenses on digital is pixel peeping. If you study a piece of film under a microscope you would have been dissatisfied with the same lenses.

Ken Rockwell has a new review of Ziess 21mm lenses on the M9, which is relevant to the question of analog lenses on digital cameras. The 21mm f2.8 works, but the 21mm f4 does not work:

This f/4.5 lens is not for use on the LEICA M9 because its rear nodal point is not in a position for which the M9's internal lens profiles can compensate. If you're shooting an M9, get the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZM or LEICA ELMARIT-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH instead, because their rear nodal points are in positions for which the 21 f/2.8 11134 profile compensates quite nicely.

Go look at the two photos comparing the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 with and without in-camera profile applied. The un-compensated lens looks horrendous. What this tells me is that two things (at least) are necessary to make lenses (digital or whatever) work on a digital camera: (1) Whether the lens works at all due to the geometry of the final optics, and (2) whether the camera has the lens profile for compensating color shifts and other problems.