[rollsman4]

I have 2 67 lenses. The 55 and the 160 both manual focus. I just purchased 3 lenses for the 645Z The 55 DFA, The FA 75 2.8 and the FA 150 lenses
Do I keep the 67 lenses and buy an adaptor to fit on the Z or sell them ? Not sure how much better the 67 are vs the 645 FA lenses. Thanks

[rdenney]

The 55 DFA is much better than the wide-angle 55 for the 67.

The 150/2.8 645 versus the 165/2.8 for the 67 is a more interesting comparison. I would make photos with the 150, and if those meet your needs you will reach for it instead of the less convenient adapted 67 lens.

In my view, there are 67 lenses more worth adapting than these two.

Rick “like the 105/2.4” Denney

[Abbazz]

I have 2 67 lenses. The 55 and the 160 both manual focus. I just purchased 3 lenses for the 645Z The 55 DFA, The FA 75 2.8 and the FA 150 lenses
Do I keep the 67 lenses and buy an adaptor to fit on the Z or sell them ? Not sure how much better the 67 are vs the 645 FA lenses. Thanks

It depends mainly of the exact version of the Pentax 67 lenses you own. I you have the SMC Pentax 67 55mm F4 (the one revewed here), then it's a bit better than the D FA 55mm f/2.8 on the edge of the frame and exhibits a tiny bit less of chromatic aberration too. As for the 165mm lens, if it's the 165mm F/4 Leaf Shutter reviewed here, then it's a also a better lens than the Pentax 645 FA 150mm lens. But, believe me, the difference in image quality is really small and not worth worrying IMHO.

In fine, I think the most important factor should rather be convenience. Do you prefer a bulkier lens requiring an adapter and with more limited functionality (no autofocus, manual aperture) but a little bit better optically, or a smaller and easier to use dedicated lens with a a tiny bit inferior image quality?

Cheers!

Abbazz

[rollsman4]

I thank you for your opinion and its true that AF is Better for me than a Manual focus lens and adaptor. I might sell the 2 67 lenses. Ty Dennis