Pentax-67-35mm-F4.5-Fish on Pentax 645d

spacevoid8 · 05-18-2011, 12:38 PM

As i understand, it is almost exclusive solution for fish-eye photography on Pentax 645d. Am i right?

this lens:
SMC Pentax 67 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database

via this converter:
Pentax 67 Lens to Pentax 645 Body Adapter Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database

I am very curious to see sample pictures from this lens

veraikon · 05-19-2011, 09:11 AM

or a 35mm Zodiak with a P[entaconsix]6 to p645 adapter (the economic way

) or (of course more costly

) a 30 mm Carl Zeiss F-Distagon with Habla to P645 adapter t.b.c.

Makten · 05-19-2011, 09:31 AM

Using a fisheye for 55x70 mm on a 33x44 mm sensor will spoil most of the "effect", and only give you a wideangle with very bad distortion. Thus, a bad idea in my opinion.

spacevoid8 · 05-19-2011, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Makten

Using a fisheye for 55x70 mm on a 33x44 mm sensor will spoil most of the "effect", and only give you a wideangle with very bad distortion. Thus, a bad idea in my opinion.

hmm... it`s hard to disagree with you..it is interesting have anybody try to use this lens with 645? i google this topic, but found nothing concrete....
now i realize that, if i want to get best quality wide angle - i must get pentax 25mm f4 lens, but it is too expensive for me right now

Last edited by spacevoid8; 05-19-2011 at 09:42 AM.

veraikon · 05-19-2011, 10:54 AM

there is a thread here in the forum about the Zodiak 35mm.

The new Pentax 25mm is really a fisheye ? - I allways thought it is a ultra wide

spacevoid8 · 05-19-2011, 11:19 AM

>there is a thread here in the forum about the Zodiak 35mm.
thanks for advance

yes it is ultra-wide, i`ve mistaken.. sorry..

Warped · 05-19-2011, 05:42 PM

I've chipped in on a few threads as I bought a Zodiak 8 30mm for my 645D from a fellow forum member.

It's a rectangular fisheye and the distortion at the edges is easily corrected and not averly dramatic, so it's much more like an ultra wide than a fish'

would love to try the new 25mm, but the budget is still recovering from the 645D purchase and $5K for a lens is a bit beyond me at the moment.

spacevoid8 · 05-19-2011, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Warped

I've chipped in on a few threads as I bought a Zodiak 8 30mm for my 645D from a fellow forum member.
would love to try the new 25mm, but the budget is still recovering from the 645D purchase and $5K for a lens is a bit beyond me at the moment.

Exactly the same situation

veraikon · 05-20-2011, 01:51 AM

Adapter + a Carl Zeiss F-Distagon CF 3.5/30mm is a 2k solution. The ukrainian way costs a quarter ...

Thomas · 05-20-2011, 04:57 AM

I tried the 67 fisheye a few times on the 645D. It's angle of view is somewhat larger than the 645 35mm, but it is not as sharp and makes the camera unbalanced, so I concluded it wasn't very useful unless you want distortion or really need the larger angle of view. I took some examples today to post. First a shot that shows the distortion in the 67 lens; 2nd a shot with the 645 35mm lens; last the 67 35mm. (same position and f/8; left sides aligned.

spacevoid8 · 05-20-2011, 11:08 AM

many thanks for sharing examples!

Thomas · 05-20-2011, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by spacevoid8

many thanks for sharing examples!

You're welcome.

veraikon · 05-21-2011, 05:47 AM

thanks @ Thomas for sharing the samples and a nice room - I always dreamed from a writing desk on such a window.....

D W · 05-21-2011, 01:32 PM

A fisheye lens at the same focal length will give a wider FOV due to the fisheye design.

One advantage of using Fisheye lenses for smaller format is that the curvature is not as pronounced and easier to correct if needed.

When I needed fisheye for my 645 I just use my Arsat (Ukrainian) 30mm. It is much wider than the Pentax 35mm. The tradeoff is curvature and sharpness even stopped down.

desertscape · 05-22-2011, 12:44 PM - **1 Like**

Distortion is a strange thing. It has been said that optical systems (lenses, telescopes etc.) can correct for rectilinear distortion (Barrel, Pin-cusion) or spacial distortion but not both at the same time. It is really interesting to see this in the shots shown above. The rectilinear 645, 35mm shot shows the pot in the lower left corner to be stretched, indicating a spacial inaccuracy, while the 35mm from the 67 with uncorrected barrel distortion has the pot looking more normal spacially.

05-18-2011, 12:38 PM	#1
spacevoid8 Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Russia/Moscow Posts: 55	Pentax-67-35mm-F4.5-Fish on Pentax 645d As i understand, it is almost exclusive solution for fish-eye photography on Pentax 645d. Am i right? this lens: SMC Pentax 67 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database via this converter: Pentax 67 Lens to Pentax 645 Body Adapter Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database I am very curious to see sample pictures from this lens

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Fish-Eye DA 10-17mm, Pentax DA* 50-135mm, Tamron 28-75mm	MrPetkus	Sold Items	28	04-13-2011 08:02 PM
Pentax 67 75mm Shift and 35mm Fish-Eye	Rorschach	Pentax Medium Format	3	03-19-2011 10:09 AM
Pentax SMCP-FA 645N 80-160mm f/4.5 lens on Pentax 645D Imatest results	JDOAK	Pentax Medium Format	6	01-23-2011 12:56 PM
Pentax-A 16mm fish eye vs. 17mm Fish-eye-Takumar	Nick Siebers	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	05-26-2010 03:51 PM
Pentax 645D: Equivalent focals (35mm)	Ramón	Pentax Medium Format	6	05-02-2010 02:04 PM

05-19-2011, 09:11 AM	#2
veraikon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Inside the Blue Banana ;) Posts: 255	or a 35mm Zodiak with a P[entaconsix]6 to p645 adapter (the economic way ) or (of course more costly ) a 30 mm Carl Zeiss F-Distagon with Habla to P645 adapter t.b.c.

05-19-2011, 09:31 AM	#3
Makten Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 224	Using a fisheye for 55x70 mm on a 33x44 mm sensor will spoil most of the "effect", and only give you a wideangle with very bad distortion. Thus, a bad idea in my opinion.

05-19-2011, 09:37 AM	#4
spacevoid8 Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Russia/Moscow Posts: 55 Original Poster	Originally posted by Makten Using a fisheye for 55x70 mm on a 33x44 mm sensor will spoil most of the "effect", and only give you a wideangle with very bad distortion. Thus, a bad idea in my opinion. hmm... it`s hard to disagree with you..it is interesting have anybody try to use this lens with 645? i google this topic, but found nothing concrete.... now i realize that, if i want to get best quality wide angle - i must get pentax 25mm f4 lens, but it is too expensive for me right now Last edited by spacevoid8; 05-19-2011 at 09:42 AM.

05-19-2011, 10:54 AM	#5
veraikon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Inside the Blue Banana ;) Posts: 255	there is a thread here in the forum about the Zodiak 35mm. The new Pentax 25mm is really a fisheye ? - I allways thought it is a ultra wide

05-19-2011, 11:19 AM	#6
spacevoid8 Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Russia/Moscow Posts: 55 Original Poster	>there is a thread here in the forum about the Zodiak 35mm. thanks for advance yes it is ultra-wide, i`ve mistaken.. sorry..

05-19-2011, 05:42 PM	#7
Warped Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 351	I've chipped in on a few threads as I bought a Zodiak 8 30mm for my 645D from a fellow forum member. It's a rectangular fisheye and the distortion at the edges is easily corrected and not averly dramatic, so it's much more like an ultra wide than a fish' would love to try the new 25mm, but the budget is still recovering from the 645D purchase and $5K for a lens is a bit beyond me at the moment.

05-19-2011, 08:32 PM	#8
spacevoid8 Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Russia/Moscow Posts: 55 Original Poster	Originally posted by Warped I've chipped in on a few threads as I bought a Zodiak 8 30mm for my 645D from a fellow forum member. would love to try the new 25mm, but the budget is still recovering from the 645D purchase and $5K for a lens is a bit beyond me at the moment. Exactly the same situation

05-20-2011, 01:51 AM	#9
veraikon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Inside the Blue Banana ;) Posts: 255	Adapter + a Carl Zeiss F-Distagon CF 3.5/30mm is a 2k solution. The ukrainian way costs a quarter ...

05-20-2011, 11:08 AM	#11
spacevoid8 Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Russia/Moscow Posts: 55 Original Poster	many thanks for sharing examples!

05-20-2011, 06:18 PM	#12
Thomas Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 434	Originally posted by spacevoid8 many thanks for sharing examples! You're welcome.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2011, 05:47 AM	#13
veraikon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Inside the Blue Banana ;) Posts: 255	thanks @ Thomas for sharing the samples and a nice room - I always dreamed from a writing desk on such a window.....

05-21-2011, 01:32 PM	#14
D W Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Hogtown, ON, Canada Posts: 329	A fisheye lens at the same focal length will give a wider FOV due to the fisheye design. One advantage of using Fisheye lenses for smaller format is that the curvature is not as pronounced and easier to correct if needed. When I needed fisheye for my 645 I just use my Arsat (Ukrainian) 30mm. It is much wider than the Pentax 35mm. The tradeoff is curvature and sharpness even stopped down.

05-22-2011, 12:44 PM - 1 Like	#15
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Distortion is a strange thing. It has been said that optical systems (lenses, telescopes etc.) can correct for rectilinear distortion (Barrel, Pin-cusion) or spacial distortion but not both at the same time. It is really interesting to see this in the shots shown above. The rectilinear 645, 35mm shot shows the pot in the lower left corner to be stretched, indicating a spacial inaccuracy, while the 35mm from the 67 with uncorrected barrel distortion has the pot looking more normal spacially.