[iCrop]

I know what you mean by flare without the hood.

Yes, the flare in the photo, off the ND filter, would have been a lot less, or nonexistent, if I could have used the hood.

My hood fell off and into the sea out of reach in Holland, and I get more flare as a result. it won't take a standard 82mm hood either as it is recessed.

Ouch!

---------- Post added 01-15-15 at 06:45 AM ----------

Let's hope the core zooms on the roadmap are more reasonably sized.

From your keyboard to Pentax's eyes!

[Ryan Tischer]

I know what you mean by flare without the hood. My hood fell off and into the sea out of reach in Holland, and I get more flare as a result. it won't take a standard 82mm hood either as it is recessed.

Could you use a screw in 82mm filter until you can get a genuine Pentax replacement? I have a cheap one I used to use for my 35mm A...it still allowed me to put screw in filters into the hood as well. Was under $10 too.

[iCrop]

I use it a walk around lens ...

Ah, yes, the body-builder lens. I can see where a step-down ring would work. The front element is very small compared to the O.D. of the lens. Variable ND works for me, I just don't turn it too far. Helps a lot when the minimum ISO is 100.
Enjoy the lens.

[iCrop]

Thanks for the follow up Mike.

... I guess we are stuck with the bulk and cost of the 28-45.

I agree that the K3 is no slouch but my switch is purely to produce large 60x80 or something in that neighborhood prints. I was wondering if you had gone super big on prints and seen comparative print results from the K3 and the 645Z side-by-side. If I were to stay with up to 20x30 or even a little bigger prints, the K3 is more than adequate. However, the intended application is much large prints hence the 645Z.

Boris, no problem. Optically the 28-45 is excellent by all accounts. And size wise, while cumbersome, I don't have a problem with it. The weight, and its effect on the balance of the camera is what bothers me. Given all the discussion here, I'm inclined to contact Pentax to see what it might cost to buy a 28-45 without AF and OS. I suspect the weight could be dropped by maybe 1/3, which would help a lot. AF is nice, and for me OS is unnecessary, especially since the camera turns it off once you plug in a wired remote to use on a tripod, which I do 99% of the time anyway.

Regarding printing, my printer is only 24" wide. I regularly make prints on 24x18 paper and have gone as large as 24x60, but not yet from the K-3 or 645Z. Given what I've seen from both, the 645Z would exhibit more detail in that range.

[iCrop]

Thanks for the useful and entertaining report Mike. I love the brick comparison. I remember hiking that trail in 1973 with my new-to-me Pentax Spotmatic.

Tom

Tom, glad you liked it. I'm sure the trail is quite different now than in '73. Given all the fires lately, there are probably a lot fewer trees...

[btnapa]

Boris, no problem. Optically the 28-45 is excellent by all accounts. And size wise, while cumbersome, I don't have a problem with it. The weight, and its effect on the balance of the camera is what bothers me. Given all the discussion here, I'm inclined to contact Pentax to see what it might cost to buy a 28-45 without AF and OS. I suspect the weight could be dropped by maybe 1/3, which would help a lot. AF is nice, and for me OS is unnecessary, especially since the camera turns it off once you plug in a wired remote to use on a tripod, which I do 99% of the time anyway.

Regarding printing, my printer is only 24" wide. I regularly make prints on 24x18 paper and have gone as large as 24x60, but not yet from the K-3 or 645Z. Given what I've seen from both, the 645Z would exhibit more detail in that range.

Thanks Mike. I guess I have to get a 645Z and try it for myself. I have a project in mind that calls for super large prints. I was just trying to see if anyone had actually done very big prints from a 645Z and how it compared to prints from a smaller sensor DSLR.

In my Canon days I did a stitched panorama printed on canvas and stretched on a 36"x165" stretch bars. It was a daytime pic at ISO 100, so it came out pretty good but the image I had in mind had to be done after sundown and there the 7D fell apart at ISO 800. Needless to say I printed the daylight image but I want to go back and do it again at night with a sensor capable of better DR and high ISO. The extra resolution can't hurt either.

Again, thank you for all your feedback.

[Lacunapratum]

It certainly stretches conventional limits for the wide angle range.

But then it covers an important range of focal lengths, and dimensions and weight are similar to either one of the two ED telephoto lenses, the 300mm F4 and the 400mm F5.6.

For myself, I often prefer the added image circle of the 25mm or the convenience of the smaller 35mm. Even though both may not be entirely up to the performance of the 28-45mm.

For me it's definitely a wash.

---

Last edited by Lacunapratum; 01-15-2015 at 10:17 PM.

[672]

This lens balances poorly because none of us has made or commissioned a proper camera plate for the larger lenses. If my stock Acratech camera plates were .85 inches longer the lens would balance just fine. I suspect that if Acratech or RRS or Kirk would make us a proper length plate we would all buy two of them . The need is certainly there.

The plates currently on the market are holdovers from designs which were set up in the A primes days. To properly balance the 90MM dfa , the 28-45 dfa, the 67 zooms , the 80-160mm we need a new longer better plate . Any body got the pull to get one of the companies to make these for us?

[bull drinkwater]

as i'm a casual shooter, $5000.00 lenses were never meant for me. as I use my 645d as a field camera I find the zooms and the 6x7 300mm heavier than I like. a lens support does work wirth my tripod. to get the wide angles I use either the 45mm or the 35mm with .5 and .33 aux screw on lenses. it's way cheaper and i'm getting pleasing results. as with teleconverters and other things, when people say I won't like the results, I try it for myself, many times I've been pleasantly surprised.

[Lacunapratum]

This is very nice to know. Thank you for sharing.

[Victor Wolansky]

Is heavy. No doubt, but probably lighter than two primes :-). And yes, most of the lenses of this camera the size of this one would need a lens tripod collar.. But good glass is heavy.

[Stan43]

I've had the 28-45 for a couple of weeks, love it. I've only shot hand held so far but have no problem with the weight. I was used to carrying a 1d MK4 and 70-200 as well as another DSLR and zoom. I have been very happy with the balance on the 645Z and most of all the great IQ.

[Lacunapratum]

I realize the 28-45mm is a great lens and you get a lot of focal lengths in one.

I must say that for myself, I often prefer using the 35mm/25mm combo. For one because each individual lens is more convenient, and second, I just adore the 25mm, with its shortcomings. I love the focal length (19mm in 35mm FF terms) and I am awed by those straight lines, considering this is a medium format wide angle. I live with the slightly reduced sharpness in the corners and some color fringing. It is also a very sharp lens, in fact one of the sharpest lenses I have. I must confess I bought a second one as I am not sure whether they'll continue producing them and also since some of them seem to have some mechanical issues and getting them fixed seems to take forever.

I guess it's just different personal shooting preferences.

[iCrop]

This lens balances poorly because...

Some like the balance of the lens, others don't. Seems we're split here. I guess it's true, you can't please all the people.

---------- Post added 01-20-15 at 07:22 AM ----------

I've had the 28-45 for a couple of weeks, love it. I've only shot hand held so far but have no problem with the weight. I was used to carrying a 1d MK4 and 70-200 as well as another DSLR and zoom. I have been very happy with the balance on the 645Z and most of all the great IQ.

Enjoy!

[bull drinkwater]

even though I dropped 10k for the 645d, I still save a buck when I can. for landscapes I either use my 45mm f2.8 and stitch 3 together, or the 35mm with a .05 converter lens.