[Digitalis]

I'm talking about the modern design lenses with silent wave motors for AF and full weather sealing like the 25mm and the 55mm. I have the 120mm lens that is the older design. It's very sharp and I like it but I would not want to take it out in the rain.

I never had a problem with taking my pentax 645N and un-sealed lenses out in the rain, just because a lens isn't weather sealed doesn't mean it is going to catastrophically fail the instant water touches it. In fact I have had more problems with my Rollei 6008 getting wet than I ever had with any of my pentax cameras - the Rollei 6008 integral would become a useless brick if it got wet, and the 6008 is very reliant on batteries that are expensive and hard to come by, so my Pentax 645N would be my field camera of choice. And the FA 645 400mm f/5.6 is an excellent lens, presently no other medium format manufacturer makes a lens like it these days - same goes for the pentax 645 A* 600mm f/5.6 [IF]

[Shuttershane]

I also have not had any issues with the lenses out in the rain or snow. Last year while in Yosemite I was out in what seemed like a blizzard in February. Both the camera and body were soaking wet most of that trip. I had 0 issues with them. One thing I recommend is a filter on your lenses. From my understanding this helps protect the lens

BTW the new Nikon looks nice but that camera cannot compete with the larger sensor of the 645D or any other larger sensor. All of those sample pictures to my eyes lack true depth....texture appears to be missing. It reminds me of images I have done with my 5D MKII and put through heavy noise reduction.

I plan to upgrade my canon whenever the 5D MKIII comes out, but I will more and likely set it at the sraw or whatever option they have if canon decided to go for 35+ megapixels.

I grab my Pentax when shooting landscapes and portraits that require large prints....and often times on my portraits I have to soften them up a lot to make the client happy. Some people object to the amount of detail of pores when the prints are 30x40

[chicagonature]

I only hope that Pentax will get their act together and release some modern lenses for the 645D. It's been a long time and we need something in the long range to complement the 25mm and 55mm lenses that are available.

Exactly! I have been using the Pentax 645N and NII for many years for landscape photography along with a Nikon D300 for wildlife, macro, and special event photography. I can't wait any longer for Pentax to come out with acceptable wide angle lenses for the 645D and I just pre-ordered the Nikon D800E along with the Tamron 16-28mm f/2.8 virtually distortionless lens, which was rated better that the revered Nikon 14-24mm and that's saying something! Plus the Tamron is only $799 after rebate, $1200 less than the Nikon. Whoa! The whole package with 2 extra batteries is around $4200, a savings of $11,000 over a 645D and phantom 25mm lens.

I will be selling the 645N and NII as soon as I get the new camera, but will hang onto the lenses because in a few years Pentax may have their act together and also have the 645D2. The Nikon D800E may not be perfect, but I can't see it being worse than 645 film and it's a step in the right direction. It also expands my create possibilites, which is vitally important. There are certain challenges that I have that only digital can solve and that excites me.

[chicagonature]

they announced an smc PENTAX-D FA645 90mm F2.8 today for the 645. I imagine there are more in the pipeline as well

According to history, that means it'll be available in U.S. stores sometime in May of 2013!

[chicagonature]

I never had a problem with taking my pentax 645N and un-sealed lenses out in the rain, just because a lens isn't weather sealed doesn't mean it is going to catastrophically fail the instant water touches it. In fact I have had more problems with my Rollei 6008 getting wet than I ever had with any of my pentax cameras - the Rollei 6008 integral would become a useless brick if it got wet, and the 6008 is very reliant on batteries that are expensive and hard to come by, so my Pentax 645N would be my field camera of choice. And the FA 645 400mm f/5.6 is an excellent lens, presently no other medium format manufacturer makes a lens like it these days - same goes for the pentax 645 A* 600mm f/5.6 [IF]

My experience shows that if you use the 645N in the rain and ever have it taken apart for repair, you might find that it's corroded along the top portion where the water gets in around the buttons. The camera may still work, but that doesn't mean it's not water damaged. The clock is ticking. But, hey, the camera's so cheap compared to digital, just get 2 or 3 and use them in the rain all you want!

[chicagonature]

I don't want to start a flame war over this, but seeing the sample images nikon posted for the D800 launch made me put this non scientific comparison together:

Nikon D800 and Pentax 645D compared

I innocently brought up this same issue on another post about a month ago (Will the 645D last?) when it was rumored that the Nikon D800 was coming out. It definitely stirred the pot and I was attacked. But, you're probably okay. Most people already got it out of their systems by taking it out on me!

[itshimitis]

If you think that was an attack you need to get a thicker skin before you enter the Internet.

[Digitalis]

My experience shows that if you use the 645N in the rain and ever have it taken apart for repair, you might find that it's corroded along the top portion where the water gets in around the buttons

fortunately I know how to repair and reduce that kind of damage.

I just pre-ordered the Nikon D800E along with the Tamron 16-28mm f/2.8 virtually distortion-less lens, which was rated better that the revered Nikon 14-24mm and that's saying something!

Aren't you referring to the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX? photozone tested this lens, a decentered version of it anyway - I took a peek at the photozone test for that Tokina lens and you do get for what you pay for chicagonature distortion with that lens @16mm is 2.45%* while at 20mm it is at 1.4% and at 28mm the lens rivals some primes - the corners at 28mm are never as sharp as a prime will be, and secondly you cannot use filters with the Tokina - the bulbous front element sees to that - the pentax DFA 25mm f/4 has a filter drawer which accepts 40.5mm filters** and that functionality is built-in. To use filters with a lens like the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X involves buying a specialised filter holder from Lee that will cost an additional $500 on top of the cost of the lens, and let us not forget the larger filters you will have to buy, lee filters aren't cheap - talk about false economy, cutting costs only to waste more money further down the line.

*My Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED has a distortion factor of 1.9% at 16mm, bear in mind anything over 1.2% distortion will be noticeable to the human eye - but even distortion of 0.8% will be visible especially if there is straight edged geometry in the scene.

**AFAIK three filters are provided with the DFA 25mm f/4, a circular polariser, ND4, and a clear glass filter.

[chicagonature]

If you think that was an attack you need to get a thicker skin before you enter the Internet.

Speak of the devil. When I give advice or ask a question, I do it to be helpful and to learn. I try to make a contribution and to forward the conversation. All you did was vent your frustration, your contribution towards making the Internet experience just a little bit worse for everyone. Thanks for that!

[itshimitis]

Speak of the devil. When I give advice or ask a question, I do it to be helpful and to learn. I try to make a contribution and to forward the conversation. All you did was vent your frustration, your contribution towards making the Internet experience just a little bit worse for everyone. Thanks for that!

And your pathetic dig through posts to say I told you so added to the discussion how? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[chicagonature]

fortunatelyI know how to repair and reduce that kind of damage.

Aren't you referring to the Tokina16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX? photozone tested this lens, a decentered versionof it anyway - I took a peek at the photozone test for that Tokina lens and youdo get for what you pay for chicagonature distortion with that lens @16mm is2.45%* while at 20mm it is at 1.4% and at 28mm the lens rivals some primes -the corners at 28mm are never as sharp as a prime will be, and secondly youcannot use filters with the Tokina - the bulbous front element sees to that -the pentax DFA 25mm f/4 has a filter drawer which accepts 40.5mm filters** andthat functionality is built-in. To use filters with a lens like the Tokina16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X involves buying a specialised filter holder from Lee thatwill cost an additional $500 on top of the cost of the lens, and let us notforget the larger filters you will have to buy, lee filters aren't cheap - talkabout false economy, cutting costs only to waste more money further down theline.
*My Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED has adistortion factor of 1.9% at 16mm, bear in mind anything over 1.2% distortionwill be noticeable to the human eye - but even distortion of 0.8% will bevisible especially if there is straight edged geometry in the scene.
**AFAIK three filters are providedwith the DFA 25mm f/4, a circular polariser, ND4, and a clear glassfilter.

Here's the link to the Popular Photography test of the Tokina lens:
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/12/tested-tokina-x-16-28mm-f28-pro-fx

Essentially, here's thesummary of the important results:
DISTORTION: At 16mm, 0.04% (Imperceptible) barrel. At 24mm,0.02% (Imperceptible) pincushion. At 28mm, 0.02% (Imperceptible) pincushion.
LIGHT FALLOFF: At 16mm, none. At 24mm, none. At 28mm, none.
WHAT’S HOT: Opticallybest in class.
WHAT’S NOT: No image stabilization or filter compatibility.
WHO IT’S FOR: Any photographer who’s into distortion-free, wide-angle shooting.

There's a very cool company calledFotodiox that makes all kinds of lens adapters and other funky stuff. They'vealready come out with a VERY affordable adapter and filter holder for the Nikon14-24mm f/2.8 lens that uses a 145mm C-POL filter that DOES NOT VIGNETTE. And,they're coming out with Split Grad Filters that also will not vignette. What'smore, they're going to make adapters for the Tokina and other ultra wide anglelenses. Here's a list of filters they're planning on that will be availableabout 3 months. According to my contact:

We are going to launch a seriesproduct for entire family of ultra wide angle lens to use our filtering system.The Tokina lens is one of them.
The filter we are going to introduceto the system includes the ones you have seen plus a several more.
MC UV
CPL
MC CPL
MC ND2
MC ND4
MC ND8
MC ND16
MC ND32
Variable ND (4-600), or 2-8 stops
Split ND2 (165x200mm square filter),it is a solid split, non-grad. We will introduce the Grad. ND later.
Split ND4
Split ND8
A square holder system will beintroduced with two stackable square filters in 165mm diameter. We should have the product in three months.

Check out this link for theircurrent products and "kit" pricing here: http://www.fotodiox.com/index.php?cPath=22_125. As you can see the prices are less than half what Lee is charging for theirhalf-cocked design that dosn't even take polarizers. The Fotodiox squarefilters are also going to be 165mm, 15mm wider than Lee.

[Digitalis]

DISTORTION: At 16mm, 0.04% (Imperceptible) barrel. At 24mm,0.02% (Imperceptible) pincushion. At 28mm, 0.02% (Imperceptible) pincushion.

I stopped reading popphoto a long time ago, I personally smell a rat when a magazine states that a 16-28mm f/2.8 zoom lens has 0.04% distortion at 16mm - and let me put this in perspective, Popphoto rated the Pentax DA 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens with 0.02% pincusion distortion, so you're telling me a 16mm f/2.8 zoom is only going to be slightly worse than a high performance macro prime? Personally I prefer the testing regimen that klaus uses on photo zone to give me an approximation* on what to expect from a lens, Germans have a cultural tendency to be rather precise and somewhat neurotic about equipment testing. Klaus has copped more than a bit of flak from certain areas of the photographic community for demonstrating that certain lenses simply aren't up to snuff despite popular opinion. Klaus stands by his testing regime - which in my eyes makes him more trustworthy than popular photography magazine, who use imprecise and rather subjective parameters in lens testing. When it comes to lens testing: keep things empirical.

As you can see the prices are less than half what Lee is charging for theirhalf-cocked design that dosn't even take polarizers

The Lee Filter holder does take polarisers, I use them on a regular basis. However, I do not typically use polarisers on lenses 24mm and wider because uneven polarisation of the sky can be very distracting in an image . Also Lee ND filters are solid borosilicate float glass,which is superior to resin filters in just about every way. Lee glass ND filters have negligible colour-cast and are impervious to fading,discolouration and scratching- though the resin filters are still prone to getting scratched. Lee also make the "Big stopper" - 10Stop ND in solid borosilicate glass and is by far the best 10stop ND I own, it has a very slight cyan cast which is easily removed with a custom white balance.


*I use the word approximation because there is always going to the variation in performance characteristics with mass produced lenses, as the old axiom goes : 90% of everything is crap.

[chicagonature]

The Lee Filter holder does take polarisers, I use them on a regular basis.

Remember, we were discussing the super-wide bulbous lenses like the Nikon 14-24mm and you brought up the concern of not being able to easily use filters and, to do so, you need to pay A LOT for Lee's design. But, Lee's version for the 14-24 lens (SW150 System) does NOT take polarizers. See this link to their video: The LEE Camera Filters System - Includes Filter Holders, Adaptor Rings and Lens Hoods. On the bright side, Fotodiox already has such a filter system for the 14-24 that takes polarizers at a much more affordable price and soon they'll be offering split grads for it. When trying to bring down the sky exposure, combining a split grad with a C-Pol allows for a less powerful grad to be used, making the transition much cleaner and natural. This is important for my application.

If Fotodiox split ND grads are truly neutral (and not screw things up like Cokin did with their more recent X-Pro filters), then Lee is going to have a lot of competition on its hands. Resin is fine for me because I can live with a few minor scratches if the price is right, given that you can never see them anyway (they're so close to the lens). I don't know how expensive it is to make a good split grad, but the way Lee prices them, you'd think it was close to impossible.

As far as the Pentax 645D new 25mm lens, it's a $5K lens. For that price it should have a rear filter slot, given how Pentax designed the camera for landscape photographers. And, you're still stuck buying a filter system for split grads.

[chicagonature]

Aren't you referring to the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX? photozone tested this lens, a decentered version of it anyway - I took a peek at the photozone test for that Tokina lens and you do get for what you pay for chicagonature distortion with that lens @16mm is 2.45%* while at 20mm it is at 1.4% and at 28mm the lens rivals some primes - the corners at 28mm are never as sharp as a prime will be, and secondly you cannot use filters with the Tokina - the bulbous front element sees to that - the pentax DFA 25mm f/4 has a filter drawer which accepts 40.5mm filters** and that functionality is built-in. To use filters with a lens like the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X involves buying a specialised filter holder from Lee that will cost an additional $500 on top of the cost of the lens, and let us not forget the larger filters you will have to buy, lee filters aren't cheap - talk about false economy, cutting costs only to waste more money further down the line.

*My Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED has a distortion factor of 1.9% at 16mm, bear in mind anything over 1.2% distortion will be noticeable to the human eye - but even distortion of 0.8% will be visible especially if there is straight edged geometry in the scene.

I just took a look at the Photozone tests (for both the Nikon 14-24 and Tokina 16-28). They do show the 14-24mm with a slight lead, but it's definitely not 2.5 times better (price ratio). But, I just pre-ordered the Nikon D800E and it might be worth biting the bullet and getting the 14-24. However, I do have a friend who might want to sell hers. Hmm. The biggest problem is that the review of the Tokina said that they weren't happy with the wide variation in the quality of this Tokina lens. Is there a straightforward way to get a good lens? They talked about center alignment. I was thinking that if it's repairable, I could simply send the lens into Tokina the moment I receive it and tell them to optimize it, even if there's no problem. Is that possible? Do you know of any other super-wides (20mm and below) that can be used with Nikon that matches teh 14-24mm.

[chicagonature]

I stopped reading popphoto a long time ago, I personally smell a rat when a magazine states that a 16-28mm f/2.8 zoom lens has 0.04% distortion at 16mm - and let me put this in perspective, Popphoto rated the Pentax DA 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens with 0.02% pincusion distortion, so you're telling me a 16mm f/2.8 zoom is only going to be slightly worse than a high performance macro prime? Personally I prefer the testing regimen that klaus uses on photo zone to give me an approximation* on what to expect from a lens, Germans have a cultural tendency to be rather precise and somewhat neurotic about equipment testing. Klaus has copped more than a bit of flak from certain areas of the photographic community for demonstrating that certain lenses simply aren't up to snuff despite popular opinion. Klaus stands by his testing regime - which in my eyes makes him more trustworthy than popular photography magazine, who use imprecise and rather subjective parameters in lens testing. When it comes to lens testing: keep things empirical.

Sorry to those who see lots of posts on this topic, but I'm simply breaking things down into small portions.

So, if Photozone does things by the numbers, the opposite seems to be Ken Rockwell who essentially takes real world pictures and compares the centers and the corners at various f-stops. What do you think of that approach? Is there an obviously flaw? He's also claiming that the Tokina is better optically, but he's literally looking at it from a completely different point of view.