Quality of Pentax lenses (coming from Nikon)

Omaha · 04-22-2014, 02:37 PM

You're not thinking of replacing a D4 with a 645Z for sports, are you?

funkysmurf · 04-22-2014, 04:25 PM

At 3fps and unknown autofocus capability I wouldn't expect it to be suitable for sports :-)

Uluru · 04-22-2014, 06:18 PM

Indeed it can be used in sports, delivering far better results than an FF, and is a camera of choice for some sports photographers.
It is a matter of technique and brains, not of mere machine gun power or of the number of AF dots.

To dismiss MF for sports would be same as to dismiss all fine fishing techniques apart from large scale nets or throwing a dynamite in the lake because latter two "provide more grabs".

For example, this educational video:

You Tube

revdocjim · 04-23-2014, 06:18 AM

Uluru, you really are quite the evangelist!

But I think you need to check your facts. The Pentax 645Z is most definitely not the "camera of choice for some sports photographers" since it hasn't even been released yet.
Also your xerox copy vs. oil painting comparison was surreal at best.

jonny1986 · 04-23-2014, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Tischer

I think this depends on your subjects and shooting style more than anything else. I shoot landscapes and almost never any portraits and rarely wildlife... I do huge prints and don't usually need fast lenses, so the MF makes great sense for me.

If you're shooting a lot of sports, wildlife, or low light then I'd stick with the Nikon since you're so invested already. The 645Z will have much better ISO capabilities, so you can probably just crank that up to make up for some of the 'slowness' of the MF lenses. DOF will probably be similar due to the larger sensor size.

You aren't going to be able to cover an equivalent of 14mm-200mm in three zooms, I can tell you that now! You'll need the 25mm (or wait for the new rumored zoom), 33-55mm, 55-110mm and/or 45-85mm and 80-160mm, and 150-300mm, which would be a near back breaking load of lenses! The 35mm, 45-85mm, 80-160mm can all be had for quite reasonable prices, but the 25mm is at best $3500 used +...I'd guess 6K plus for the new wide angle zoom if and when that is released.

---------- Post added 04-22-14 at 11:10 AM ----------

That being said I have the 25, 35, 45-85, 75, 120, 80-160, 200, 300 and they are ALL VERY SHARP, so much that compared to my old canon L series glass the Pentax blows them out of the water. I also love using the manual focus 35mm...so easy and bright to focus and simple!

i agree ..have all those lenses...and apart sharpness they are amazing in terms of control od distortion, ca and coma.
personally the only results corner to corner that i hav seen from a d800e comparable to those i obtain with my 645d as far as color and clarity are those with otus. personally i d like to see the cmos sensor. for me the ccd has just that better acuity that create the magic like foveon. the files in addiction are perfect out of the camera , much more than those i obtain by cmos sony pentax k5.
but if you need fast glass for low light or sport i suggest to keep nikon. the 645d in some aspects produce better files and is all around but for specific needs like sport or wildlife the nikon is more rounded system.

revdocjim · 04-23-2014, 03:55 PM

The video link above is pretty fascinating! Although technically speaking I wouldn't call that sports shooting, but rather fashion shooting with a sports theme. All shots are staged and can be shot over and over again, unlike a real sporting event.

Uluru · 04-23-2014, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by revdocjim

The video link above is pretty fascinating! Although technically speaking I wouldn't call that sports shooting, but rather fashion shooting with a sports theme. All shots are staged and can be shot over and over again, unlike a real sporting event.

In top sports everything is always staged for best shots. Always.
The NBA, NFL, Olympics, races, etc. Nikon's and Canon's cameras are installed carefully along finishing lines, along tracks, goals, poles, underwater, triggered by IR beams, radio controlled, etc. It does not differ much from this MF use — not at all.

Hunting with a long zoom and Continuous AF for some scarce shot from somewhere in the crowd, is what amateurs are left with and what they believe top sports photography is all about — if they are even allowed to enter the playground with such an equipment at all.

Omaha · 04-23-2014, 05:48 PM

Here are some amateur sports photographers (they shoot for this low-circulation, unknown magazine called "Sports Illustrated") discussing their tools.

Super Bowl Photographers Damian Strohmeyer and Peter Read Miller from Adorama Learning Center

revdocjim · 04-23-2014, 09:46 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Uluru

In top sports everything is always staged for best shots. Always.
The NBA, NFL, Olympics, races, etc. Nikon's and Canon's cameras are installed carefully along finishing lines, along tracks, goals, poles, underwater, triggered by IR beams, radio controlled, etc. It does not differ much from this MF use — not at all.

Hunting with a long zoom and Continuous AF for some scarce shot from somewhere in the crowd, is what amateurs are left with and what they believe top sports photography is all about — if they are even allowed to enter the playground with such an equipment at all.

Not even vaguely similar. A pro photog at an NBA game will use half a dozen remotely triggered cameras shooting 11fps and come away with thousands of frames from one game. Then the editor goes to work and selects the keepers. Maybe one out of 500 or 1000 makes the cut. And the real money makers are even rarer than that. There is only one game winning buzzer beater shot and it most certainly isn't staged, and it definitely can't be reshot! That's the whole point of prepositioned and remotely controlled cameras... Just trying to increase the odds. If you are a pro shooting sports and you have to get the shots that count then you use the equipment that works best. If you are shooting a sporting event but with more artistically oriented goals, then something like the 645 might be great. If you're doing a catalogue shoot like the guy in the video with ample opportunity to do multiple retakes and the goal is to create a specific look then the camera he chose works to his advantage. But it really shouldn't be confused with what is normally referred to as sports photography.

As for your comments about amateurs in the stands, maybe you've had that experience but I'm not sure how it relates to this discussion...

Jonathan Mac · 04-23-2014, 10:07 PM

As has been said, f/2.8 is considered fast for medium format. The fastest MF lens made was the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. On film, my 75/2.8 gives me the same depth of field as a 75/1.8 would on FF, but with the image quality you would expect from using a lens at f/2.8. On the 645D/Z this will be less because the sensor is smaller than 645 film, but still quite nice.

revdocjim · 04-24-2014, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

As has been said, f/2.8 is considered fast for medium format. The fastest MF lens made was the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. On film, my 75/2.8 gives me the same depth of field as a 75/1.8 would on FF, but with the image quality you would expect from using a lens at f/2.8. On the 645D/Z this will be less because the sensor is smaller than 645 film, but still quite nice.

Agreed. The 645D offers some incredible images that are qualitatively different from anything a 35mm camera produces. At the same time, in the video you see the photog shooting the snowboarder on the far side of the halfpipe with what appears to be the FA 300/5.6 and talking about how 35mm simply can't touch the shallow DOF and quality of fall off he's getting. And yet I'm not really seeing it in the photos he's taking, and by the numbers I think it's pretty obvious that you can get much shallower DOF at that FOV with a 35mm than what he's getting at 300/5.6 on the cropped 645 frame. Having said all of that I still loved the video and think 645 is awesome. I just shot two rolls today with my newly acquired A-series 300/4. Can't wait to see the results!

rfkiii · 04-26-2014, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Adam

One thing to note is that there are only 3 modern 645 lenses out there: the 25mm, the 55mm, and the 90mm. All the other "new lenses" are from the film era and as such the coatings/AF mechanisms are older.

I own a full kit of both Nikon and Canon equipment. See profile if curious. The Nikon equipment featuring the D800E and D3x, the 14-24G & 24-70G and five Zeiss ZF lenses is my "critical IQ" landscape tool kit. I am seriously considering replacing the Nikon kit with the 645Z and appropriate lenses but I've experienced an information bottleneck on lenses for the Pentax 645 system via Google searches.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the Pentax lens lineup. It's simple to understand and goes straight to one of the points I was looking for. Considering that only a few new lenses have been released optimized for digital, it appears that Pentax is confident that their older lenses can perform well on digital (modern coatings used on Ver 2 releases of various Canon L lenses have made a great difference - coatings are nothing to dismiss lightl)y.

In another thread, someone mentioned Pentax Zeiss and Schneider lenses on the 645Z. So here is my question: Is there any consolidated hub of information for lenses appropriate for the 645 digital system, Pentax brand or compatible-mount 3rd party brands and alternate lenses from 3rd parties that can be mounted via adapter?

ElJamoquio · 04-26-2014, 08:01 AM

There aren't third party lenses (that I'm aware of) for Pentax 645 that will AF/AE etc. You can use manual adapters as long as the registration distance is longer, of course. Don't know if your style will allow that or not.

rfkiii · 04-26-2014, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

There aren't third party lenses (that I'm aware of) for Pentax 645 that will AF/AE etc. You can use manual adapters as long as the registration distance is longer, of course. Don't know if your style will allow that or not.

I assumed lenses from Zeiss & Schneider would most likely be manual focus. So, it sounds like adapted lenses is the only alternative options. If there isn't a consolidated source for adapted lenses of other brands for Pentax 645 system modeled like Pebbleplace & 16-9.net for Canon EOS, can you or anyone talk about lenses you've adapted to the Pentax system?

revdocjim · 04-26-2014, 04:17 PM

Good point Rick! The lens database has a section for third party lenses but it doesn't have a separate subsection for 645.
But a quick search here at PF yielded the following: link
The article says it is part II but I couldn't find part 1. This one seems to be about T&S lenses.

04-26-2014, 07:29 AM	#27
rfkiii Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 130	Pentax and 3rd party lenses Originally posted by Adam One thing to note is that there are only 3 modern 645 lenses out there: the 25mm, the 55mm, and the 90mm. All the other "new lenses" are from the film era and as such the coatings/AF mechanisms are older. I own a full kit of both Nikon and Canon equipment. See profile if curious. The Nikon equipment featuring the D800E and D3x, the 14-24G & 24-70G and five Zeiss ZF lenses is my "critical IQ" landscape tool kit. I am seriously considering replacing the Nikon kit with the 645Z and appropriate lenses but I've experienced an information bottleneck on lenses for the Pentax 645 system via Google searches. Thanks for the clarification regarding the Pentax lens lineup. It's simple to understand and goes straight to one of the points I was looking for. Considering that only a few new lenses have been released optimized for digital, it appears that Pentax is confident that their older lenses can perform well on digital (modern coatings used on Ver 2 releases of various Canon L lenses have made a great difference - coatings are nothing to dismiss lightl)y. In another thread, someone mentioned Pentax Zeiss and Schneider lenses on the 645Z. So here is my question: Is there any consolidated hub of information for lenses appropriate for the 645 digital system, Pentax brand or compatible-mount 3rd party brands and alternate lenses from 3rd parties that can be mounted via adapter?

04-26-2014, 09:01 AM	#29
rfkiii Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 130	Adapted lenses Originally posted by ElJamoquio There aren't third party lenses (that I'm aware of) for Pentax 645 that will AF/AE etc. You can use manual adapters as long as the registration distance is longer, of course. Don't know if your style will allow that or not. I assumed lenses from Zeiss & Schneider would most likely be manual focus. So, it sounds like adapted lenses is the only alternative options. If there isn't a consolidated source for adapted lenses of other brands for Pentax 645 system modeled like Pebbleplace & 16-9.net for Canon EOS, can you or anyone talk about lenses you've adapted to the Pentax system?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Coming from Nikon world	desiboston	Welcomes and Introductions	20	04-04-2014 07:52 AM
Quality of available Pentax compatible lenses	6BQ5	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	49	06-08-2013 03:04 PM
Cost of lenses equals quality?	BikerInCincy	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	12	10-02-2012 01:58 PM
Considering coming from Nikon...Please help!	rsolti13	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	52	01-16-2011 05:20 AM
Build quality of Pentax Limited lenses?	ducdao	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	05-16-2010 06:31 AM

04-22-2014, 02:37 PM	#16
Omaha Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 17	You're not thinking of replacing a D4 with a 645Z for sports, are you?

04-22-2014, 04:25 PM	#17
funkysmurf New Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 14 Original Poster	At 3fps and unknown autofocus capability I wouldn't expect it to be suitable for sports :-)

04-23-2014, 06:18 AM	#19
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	Uluru, you really are quite the evangelist! But I think you need to check your facts. The Pentax 645Z is most definitely not the "camera of choice for some sports photographers" since it hasn't even been released yet. Also your xerox copy vs. oil painting comparison was surreal at best.

04-23-2014, 09:51 AM	#20
jonny1986 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: italy Posts: 411	Originally posted by Ryan Tischer I think this depends on your subjects and shooting style more than anything else. I shoot landscapes and almost never any portraits and rarely wildlife... I do huge prints and don't usually need fast lenses, so the MF makes great sense for me. If you're shooting a lot of sports, wildlife, or low light then I'd stick with the Nikon since you're so invested already. The 645Z will have much better ISO capabilities, so you can probably just crank that up to make up for some of the 'slowness' of the MF lenses. DOF will probably be similar due to the larger sensor size. You aren't going to be able to cover an equivalent of 14mm-200mm in three zooms, I can tell you that now! You'll need the 25mm (or wait for the new rumored zoom), 33-55mm, 55-110mm and/or 45-85mm and 80-160mm, and 150-300mm, which would be a near back breaking load of lenses! The 35mm, 45-85mm, 80-160mm can all be had for quite reasonable prices, but the 25mm is at best $3500 used +...I'd guess 6K plus for the new wide angle zoom if and when that is released. ---------- Post added 04-22-14 at 11:10 AM ---------- That being said I have the 25, 35, 45-85, 75, 120, 80-160, 200, 300 and they are ALL VERY SHARP, so much that compared to my old canon L series glass the Pentax blows them out of the water. I also love using the manual focus 35mm...so easy and bright to focus and simple! i agree ..have all those lenses...and apart sharpness they are amazing in terms of control od distortion, ca and coma. personally the only results corner to corner that i hav seen from a d800e comparable to those i obtain with my 645d as far as color and clarity are those with otus. personally i d like to see the cmos sensor. for me the ccd has just that better acuity that create the magic like foveon. the files in addiction are perfect out of the camera , much more than those i obtain by cmos sony pentax k5. but if you need fast glass for low light or sport i suggest to keep nikon. the 645d in some aspects produce better files and is all around but for specific needs like sport or wildlife the nikon is more rounded system.

04-23-2014, 03:55 PM	#21
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	The video link above is pretty fascinating! Although technically speaking I wouldn't call that sports shooting, but rather fashion shooting with a sports theme. All shots are staged and can be shot over and over again, unlike a real sporting event.

04-23-2014, 05:27 PM	#22
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by revdocjim The video link above is pretty fascinating! Although technically speaking I wouldn't call that sports shooting, but rather fashion shooting with a sports theme. All shots are staged and can be shot over and over again, unlike a real sporting event. In top sports everything is always staged for best shots. Always. The NBA, NFL, Olympics, races, etc. Nikon's and Canon's cameras are installed carefully along finishing lines, along tracks, goals, poles, underwater, triggered by IR beams, radio controlled, etc. It does not differ much from this MF use — not at all. Hunting with a long zoom and Continuous AF for some scarce shot from somewhere in the crowd, is what amateurs are left with and what they believe top sports photography is all about — if they are even allowed to enter the playground with such an equipment at all.

04-23-2014, 05:48 PM	#23
Omaha Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 17	Here are some amateur sports photographers (they shoot for this low-circulation, unknown magazine called "Sports Illustrated") discussing their tools. Super Bowl Photographers Damian Strohmeyer and Peter Read Miller from Adorama Learning Center

04-23-2014, 09:46 PM - 1 Like	#24
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	Originally posted by Uluru In top sports everything is always staged for best shots. Always. The NBA, NFL, Olympics, races, etc. Nikon's and Canon's cameras are installed carefully along finishing lines, along tracks, goals, poles, underwater, triggered by IR beams, radio controlled, etc. It does not differ much from this MF use — not at all. Hunting with a long zoom and Continuous AF for some scarce shot from somewhere in the crowd, is what amateurs are left with and what they believe top sports photography is all about — if they are even allowed to enter the playground with such an equipment at all. Not even vaguely similar. A pro photog at an NBA game will use half a dozen remotely triggered cameras shooting 11fps and come away with thousands of frames from one game. Then the editor goes to work and selects the keepers. Maybe one out of 500 or 1000 makes the cut. And the real money makers are even rarer than that. There is only one game winning buzzer beater shot and it most certainly isn't staged, and it definitely can't be reshot! That's the whole point of prepositioned and remotely controlled cameras... Just trying to increase the odds. If you are a pro shooting sports and you have to get the shots that count then you use the equipment that works best. If you are shooting a sporting event but with more artistically oriented goals, then something like the 645 might be great. If you're doing a catalogue shoot like the guy in the video with ample opportunity to do multiple retakes and the goal is to create a specific look then the camera he chose works to his advantage. But it really shouldn't be confused with what is normally referred to as sports photography. As for your comments about amateurs in the stands, maybe you've had that experience but I'm not sure how it relates to this discussion...

04-23-2014, 10:07 PM	#25
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	As has been said, f/2.8 is considered fast for medium format. The fastest MF lens made was the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. On film, my 75/2.8 gives me the same depth of field as a 75/1.8 would on FF, but with the image quality you would expect from using a lens at f/2.8. On the 645D/Z this will be less because the sensor is smaller than 645 film, but still quite nice.

04-24-2014, 06:47 AM	#26
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac As has been said, f/2.8 is considered fast for medium format. The fastest MF lens made was the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. On film, my 75/2.8 gives me the same depth of field as a 75/1.8 would on FF, but with the image quality you would expect from using a lens at f/2.8. On the 645D/Z this will be less because the sensor is smaller than 645 film, but still quite nice. Agreed. The 645D offers some incredible images that are qualitatively different from anything a 35mm camera produces. At the same time, in the video you see the photog shooting the snowboarder on the far side of the halfpipe with what appears to be the FA 300/5.6 and talking about how 35mm simply can't touch the shallow DOF and quality of fall off he's getting. And yet I'm not really seeing it in the photos he's taking, and by the numbers I think it's pretty obvious that you can get much shallower DOF at that FOV with a 35mm than what he's getting at 300/5.6 on the cropped 645 frame. Having said all of that I still loved the video and think 645 is awesome. I just shot two rolls today with my newly acquired A-series 300/4. Can't wait to see the results!

04-26-2014, 08:01 AM	#28
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	There aren't third party lenses (that I'm aware of) for Pentax 645 that will AF/AE etc. You can use manual adapters as long as the registration distance is longer, of course. Don't know if your style will allow that or not.

04-26-2014, 04:17 PM	#30
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	Good point Rick! The lens database has a section for third party lenses but it doesn't have a separate subsection for 645. But a quick search here at PF yielded the following: link The article says it is part II but I couldn't find part 1. This one seems to be about T&S lenses.