[DandA]

DandA,

i find my FA 300 5.6 on the low contrast side, have you compared the two 300s?

Hi Abdallah,

If you follow the link I posted above to my comprehensive lens tests of 645 lenses (used on the 645D), it explains my findings with both these lenses. In a nutshell (what I wrote), the FA 300 f5.6 appears to be a lower contrast lens and lags behind the Fa 300 f4 in terms of sharpness at comparable f-stops. The FA 300 f4 most certainly appears to have both higher global and micro contrast. Once the FA 300 f5.6 is well stopped down, it can certainly be a competent performer. Again I cannot stress enough the importance of Af fine tuning very carefully you FA lenses. I often times have samples that are mediocre at best and once I nail the Af fine tune setting, its like I just squired a who different and far better performing lens. The pre/post performances aren't even close.

Dave (D&A)

[phonoline]

The 55-100 looks MASSIVE on the 645D, eh? I used to have it but I thought it was an overkill although it did produce nice results.

[Abdallah]

Hi Abdallah,

If you follow the link I posted above to my comprehensive lens tests of 645 lenses (used on the 645D), it explains my findings with both these lenses. In a nutshell (what I wrote), the FA 300 f5.6 appears to be a lower contrast lens and lags behind the Fa 300 f4 in terms of sharpness at comparable f-stops. The FA 300 f4 most certainly appears to have both higher global and micro contrast. Once the FA 300 f5.6 is well stopped down, it can certainly be a competent performer. Again I cannot stress enough the importance of Af fine tuning very carefully you FA lenses. I often times have samples that are mediocre at best and once I nail the Af fine tune setting, its like I just squired a who different and far better performing lens. The pre/post performances aren't even close.

Dave (D&A)

Thanks Dave,

I did the fine tune AF on y other lenses but haven't yet on the 300 5.6, will do that once i am back home in two weeks and compare the results.

Abdallah

[DandA]

Thanks Dave,

I did the fine tune AF on y other lenses but haven't yet on the 300 5.6, will do that once i am back home in two weeks and compare the results.

Abdallah

You're welcome Abdallah. Remember to perform this with the lens set to wide open (f5.6) at -10, -5, 0, +5, +10 Af fine tune settings to start with. Once you get an approx setting that yields the sharpest image, then you can narrow down the specific setting.

Dave (D&A)

[bull drinkwater]

sticking to the subject.in 645 lenses i have 45mm a,75mm fa,75mm a ls,80-160mm a, and 200mm a.in 67 lenses i have a 135mm macro and a 300mm a.with those i pair a 645 2x a converter and a 67 to 645 adapter. in hindsite i might have spent the extra money for more auto focus lenses. but whats done is done and i cut my teeth on manual focus.the 300mm 67 is a monster so i had to buy a lens support. i don't trust ebay ,amazon,or craigs list , so i buy all my glass from KEH,and am limited to what they have in stock.

[Yamanobori]

The only advantage to the 300mm f/5.6 over the f/4 lens is weight and size. You also get a closer minimum focus distance--2.2m vs 3m. I bought the f/5.6 for the weight and size as I haul my stuff manually--can't get the donkey in the car, so I have to be able to cary everything when I get where I am going and still be able to work. But contrast is low with that lens. It is not a focal length I use often, so I am happy with the compromise.

I also shoot with the D FA 55mm, A 120mm Macro, and A 35mm. I am very pleased with those lenses.

[DandA]

The only advantage to the 300mm f/5.6 over the f/4 lens is weight and size. You also get a closer minimum focus distance--2.2m vs 3m. I bought the f/5.6 for the weight and size as I haul my stuff manually--can't get the donkey in the car, so I have to be able to cary everything when I get where I am going and still be able to work. But contrast is low with that lens. It is not a focal length I use often, so I am happy with the compromise.

I also shoot with the D FA 55mm, A 120mm Macro, and A 35mm. I am very pleased with those lenses.

As I mentioned in my previous post (and my comprehensive testing of lenses)....when each of tjhose 300mm AF 645 lenses are compared, when used wide open, the difference in contrast and micro contrast between the two is quite significant and in many shooting circumstances have substantial impact. the FA 300 f4can be used quite confidentially wide open. The 300 f5.6 on the other hand generally requires some stopping down to achieve something close to a compreable image as compared to the FA 300 f4, but if you shoot it stooped down, it is a very good lens. It all depends on needs and of course as you mentioned, ease of traveling with it.

Dave (D&A)

[Abdallah]

As I mentioned in my previous post (and my comprehensive testing of lenses)....when each of tjhose 300mm AF 645 lenses are compared, when used wide open, the difference in contrast and micro contrast between the two is quite significant and in many shooting circumstances have substantial impact. the FA 300 f4can be used quite confidentially wide open. The 300 f5.6 on the other hand generally requires some stopping down to achieve something close to a compreable image as compared to the FA 300 f4, but if you shoot it stooped down, it is a very good lens. It all depends on needs and of course as you mentioned, ease of traveling with it.

Dave (D&A)

I use my FA 300 5.6 mostly at f13 , i dont handheld MF at all because i always print Big and care for the micro details , at f16 u get a bit more depth if you stack " it soften a bit due to diffraction" otherwise the f13-14 is good enough for flat scenes and leave the rest to the 645D CCD to add the 3D effect

[groggy]

I've had some great success with Hasselblad CF -> Pentax 645 adapter made by Fotodiox. It works well with CF/CFi/CFE/F/FE lenses. For lenses with leaf shutters, set them to use focal plane shutter. I have tried quite a few lenses from this lineup on the 645D. The ones I keep coming back to are: 180mm CF f/4, 110mm FE f/2, and the 40mm CFE IF f/4. The 120mm makro-planar f/4 is also very nice, but so is the Pentax 120mm macro, which is cheaper, easier to use and goes 1:1. The great news is that a lot of these Hasselblad lenses can be rented at very attractive rates, especially over the weekend. There is no electronic communication with the 645D, so the cheaper CF & F lenses are a better deal than the CFE & FE versions. The image quality differences between CF and CFi might be too subtle to warrent the extra cost - I haven't had a chance to do any tests. For 67 lenses (also using a Fotodiox adapter), the 55mm f/4 modern version is sweet (possibly my most used lens on the 645D) and the 67 300mm ED-IF f/4 * is very sharp w/ great color but vibrations and DOF must be well controlled.

[DandA]

I use my FA 300 5.6 mostly at f13 , i dont handheld MF at all because i always print Big and care for the micro details , at f16 u get a bit more depth if you stack " it soften a bit due to diffraction" otherwise the f13-14 is good enough for flat scenes and leave the rest to the 645D CCD to add the 3D effect

I can see why the FA 300 f5.6 works well for you and it's certainly a much easier lens to travel with than say the larger heavier FA 300 f4. You tend to use the lens at f13...where its performance essentially matches the f4 version. I tend to use the FA 300 f4 (and would a FA 300 f5.6 if I had one) from wide open to maybe f8. It's using these lenses at more open apertures, that differences in optical performance can be seen. Both otherwise very nice lenses to use.

Dave

[DandA]

I've had some great success with Hasselblad CF -> Pentax 645 adapter made by Fotodiox. It works well with CF/CFi/CFE/F/FE lenses. For lenses with leaf shutters, set them to use focal plane shutter. I have tried quite a few lenses from this lineup on the 645D. The ones I keep coming back to are: 180mm CF f/4, 110mm FE f/2, and the 40mm CFE IF f/4. The 120mm makro-planar f/4 is also very nice, but so is the Pentax 120mm macro, which is cheaper, easier to use and goes 1:1. The great news is that a lot of these Hasselblad lenses can be rented at very attractive rates, especially over the weekend. There is no electronic communication with the 645D, so the cheaper CF & F lenses are a better deal than the CFE & FE versions. The image quality differences between CF and CFi might be too subtle to warrent the extra cost - I haven't had a chance to do any tests. For 67 lenses (also using a Fotodiox adapter), the 55mm f/4 modern version is sweet (possibly my most used lens on the 645D) and the 67 300mm ED-IF f/4 * is very sharp w/ great color but vibrations and DOF must be well controlled.

Great Info! Some of those Hassy lenses optically should be gems as you indicated and wish I had tried some when I had the chance not all that long ago. I'll keep a lookout for those that have unusal focal lengths. I did hear though that a few of the older wider angle ones did just so-so on the 645D, but I'd have to ask again just which lenses those were and what optical issues they found. I think it was along the sides/edges, even after stopping down. Keep in mind like some of Pentax's lenses, some Hassy ones were designed well before the digital era and certain wide angle lenses are often the most problematic when used on digital sensors. Thanks!

Dave