[bensonga]

I guess I've been very lucky too Alan. I have eleven P67 lenses and five P645 lenses......not one of them is a loser. I've been shooting film with my Pentax 67 for about 20 years now. I've had the 645NII for about a year.

Most of my lenses were purchased used. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done the exhaustive testing that Sergio has shown here (amazing effort), so perhaps a few of them are substandard, but if so, it's not obvious in the negatives and prints.

Gary

[Yamanobori]

If you want more FA 35mm examples, go here:

PENTAX 645D PAGE 1

[Dougg]

I too have been fortunate in film use anyway, of sixteen P67 lenses beginning 1976, and nine P645 lenses, seven of them FA. And the 67->645 adapter too. I've seen "sunspot" flare effects shooting into the sun with the 45 P67 lens but I can't think of any other obvious performance issues. Well, a bit of barrel distortion with the FA 35.

But DigiLloyd has been critical of both the 45mm lenses and not completely positive about the A55 and DFA55, so it looks like we face a more critical judgment when it comes to use on the 645D.

I would surely have liked to see his evaluation of the FA35 and the FA33-55. But I'm new to this forum and to DigiLloyd too, so didn't know he was looking for samples to test.

I am very interested in which lenses are not up to the challenge of the 645D, but even DigiLloyd seems to have contradictory views in different parts of the report, and use in different circumstances. I have more interest in his "real world" use, where he's been less negative, yet more inclined to use small apertures too.

Having this batch of lenses already on hand is a strong influence on my interest in the 645D, as an extensive kit is only 1 fairly expensive body away. In honesty, I prefer the form factor and layout of the P67 to the P645. Having had a brief opportunity to use the Leica S2, I find it handles much like a smaller P67II. I tend to prefer an uncluttered user interface, but I read good things about controls in both rigs. And the S2 cost, including needing new lenses, is enormous.

[VoltMan]

Steven - I've also dealt with them in the past 8 years or so. My experiences have been positive in that I did get good pricing and they shipped properly (probably now more important for customs given DHS in the U.S.). They're a pretty big "value" dealer in Hong Kong. However I note if you've not dealt with Hong Kong merchants before it could be a bit trying dealing in person as they have a different shopping culture there

On another note you may want to clarify that the return policy meets your expectations - in Asia it would not be normal to return a lens because you think its IQ sucks, its more like major problems ("the focus ring is binding") ...

I just placed an order

[sergiolov]

Hi Sergio,

Thanks so much for your presentation of evidence regarding this lens. And no, your post is not too long. It is really great how your photos so vividly show the effect of no anti-aliasing filter. It is not often that we get such a persuasive post - there has been too much impulsive impuning of Pentax lenses lately based on unscientific comparison of a few quick photos or reference to the opinions of others.

True, your evidence can be easily dismissed by alluding to product variation. It is odd though, I have owned nearly 20 Pentax 67 and 645 lenses over many years, including the FA 35/3.5, and not one exhibited the negative characteristics so often referred since the availability of the 645D. And many were bought used. But of course, what do I know, I just use film!

If only the naysayers could present real evidence as you have to implicate all of these poorly designed lenses manufactured without any QA to speak of, then it would be finally confirmed that I have been shooting with junk lenses for all of these years, and I could rest easily knowing that the short comings apparent in my photos could be attributed to faulty equipment!

Best, Alan

Alan,
I agree, most are very good, but 40 MP are really a challenge. I agree also that there could be some sample variation, as suggested for the 45-85. But I tested 3 of these, and all were showing the same defects : good center sharpness, but asymmetry on sides and corners, and acceptable usability stopped down at F11.
But escluding the zooms, that must be stopped down, and the 45 2,8, all the other are
outstanding or at least very good.
I'll prepare a list, with my findings, at the end of tests.
Thank you for your kind words.

Sergio

[kuau]

Hi Sergio,
My findings are that F11 to F13 is the sweet spot for all my 645 FA lenses.
My 45-85 is not to bad at 45mm F11
Steven

[Thomas]

Dilloyd just posted his review of the 35mm FA- lukewarm praise. Likely a lot of sample variation in this lens, since many find it outstanding

[Smolk]

many find it outstanding

outstanding on the 645D, or before the arrival of that camera?

Never heard the sample variation in the film era for this lens, but what I've heard, it doesn't do so well on digital. That might suggest it's not down to sample variation.

[Thomas]

outstanding on the 645D, or before the arrival of that camera?

Never heard the sample variation in the film era for this lens, but what I've heard, it doesn't do so well on digital. That might suggest it's not down to sample variation.

Smolk:

Did you read Sergio's comments at the start of this thread? Royce Howland has also reported a good copy. The 35mm FA was hard to find even before the 645D, as many were using it on Canon bodies. The lens may have some inherent distortion issues that are more apparent as sensor size increases, but additionally there appears to be some variation based on reports I've seen.

[kuau]

Iv'e tried two of them, got rid of both of them.
I don't think they perform well as a landscape lens when shooting at or near infinity, even at F13,
My yosemite trip confirmed my findings. Just not sharp across the entire frame, forget about the distortion issue, that is fixed in LR3 with the included profile. But it can't fix softness in corners and I mean not just edges but it going soft 1/6th into both sides of the frame so I ended up with a 2/3rd's sharp image in the center area only.
I have yet to see a sample of this lens shoot at infinity where the image is sharp across the whole frame.

For short distance work, the lens performs much better, but for taking pictures lets say at tunnel view in yosemite? even at f16 forget about it. Not happening.

My next test will be the Hasselblad 40mm CFE lens via adaptor. I wish I could have access to there latest CFE IF lens, to expensive though for me.

Steven

[Smolk]

I had, but forgot — and entered this discussion on its second page... But I also did not realise there are more reports of good copies on the 645D.
Does this mean all lenses that are now reportedly not so strong should be tested more widely to see if there's sample variation, there, too? It's going to be an odd process. Unless the individual cameras also play a part, this would also suggest more and more weaker copies on the market.

[Thomas]

I thought you might have.
I guess I'm not surprised at sample variation, many lenses exhibit that straight from the factory and most Pentax 645 lenses are used and of unknown history. Camera variation is likely a factor too, considering that digital appears to place higher demands than film. I guess you have to depend on empirical results, just look for a good copy of a lens on your body.

[Yamanobori]

I have yet to see a sample of this lens shoot at infinity where the image is sharp across the whole frame.

But shooting at infinity is not a good test of a lens. First, the infinity stop is not accurate and, second, the lens is not designed to shoot at infinity. I never focus at infinity to shoot landscapes.

And as a general comment to no one in particular, many reviews that condemn or praise a lens tends to be simply reviewer bias or bad methodology. Or both. And the sample variation claim is one of those damning statements that don't mean anything. All samples have variation, but is it a significant variation? Pentax has been making lenses for some time: they are good at it. I find sample variation complaints come back down to reviewer bias or bad methodology--either that I just happen to be lucky in all my lens purchases.

[leping]

Lloyd just published two long pages testing a 35mm/f3.5 AL FA with 645D.

diglloyd.com blog - Pentax 645D + Pentax FA 35mm f/3.5

[Thomas]

Yamanobori:

I find most of my old 645 and 67 lenses are very good to excellent. The only real disappointment has been the 645 55mm, but interestingly, not the 67 55mm. I suspect that digital pixel peeping allows detection of sample variation and problems which would have been unseen in the film days.
Earlier in this thread you posted a link to some 35mm FA photos. Are those your shots of Kyoto? They are simply stunning