67 lenses on 645z

2351HD · 01-18-2015, 05:12 AM

Hi,

Is anybody using the 90-180mm 67 lens on the D or Z and can comment on its performance?

I am contemplating selling my 90mm DFA Macro and 150FA and replacing them with the 80-180.

Also, does Pentax do a genuine 67-645 adapter?

Thanks, Scott

robthebloke · 01-18-2015, 05:44 AM

There is a genuine 67 to 645 adapter (srsmicrosystems sell them), although they aren't cheap. There are some 3rd party adapters, but only on the second hand market afaik.

I can't comment on the 67 zooms, but I've tried 67 primes on the 645 (film). Generally I find the image quality from the 645 lenses to be sharper, with a slightly nicer bokeh, and a hell of a lot smaller!

Personally I'd keep the 90 &150, unless you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom

desertscape · 01-18-2015, 01:29 PM

Both zooms for the 67 were fairly recent in the design continuum and so are very well corrected.The 55-100 edges out the 90-180 in sharpness but they are close (but that is on film). Both zooms are heavy.

jonmarsh · 01-18-2015, 07:53 PM

The 67 55-100 is my favorite general purpose lens on the 645D and z. Very sharp, remarkably so wide open. It is heavy, and large- and manual focus. But easy to use and get very good results- I use it more than primes in that range, especially in harsh weather environments. I actually have 2... setup with different filters.

Recommended, especially at the prices you can get these days, and using Live View.

ndevlin · 01-20-2015, 05:45 AM - **1 Like**

Gotta be honest. For the price you can get an FA 45-85, I can see no reason to use the 67 lenses. Tried them recently, and they aren't anything special on the 645z (except the 105 wide-open - that's special). Use them if they make you happy, but it's a $8,000+ camera. Buy the $500 lens that autofocuses and is half the weight....

Just my 2c.

- N.

GarethC7 · 01-20-2015, 07:06 AM

Given the prices of the lenses compared to the prices of the adapters then if you're going with manual focus lenses there are plenty in the 645 line up that compare. As Nick said the 105 wide open is great and is a great focal length. I bought the 165/2.8 as well and recall thinking how ridiculous it was buying these two lenses and then paying more than I care to remember on adapters. That said, after spending $9k Canadian on the camera it is a treat to pay such a pittance for lenses given that I prefer manual focus lenses so only have the 55 as I thought I should have one AF lens

Unless it's a burning desire and you have every other 645 lens that you could desire then I wouldn't bother.

2351HD · 01-20-2015, 03:06 PM

Well I would rather not use a 67 90-180 but I am after a good short tele zoom for landscape.

I have an 80/160 but don't really like it.

I have the new 90mm DFA Macro and a FA 150 and they are both great, but a zoom would be much more flexible.

Might just hold onto them till the new zoom on the roadmap comes.

Scott

ndevlin · 01-21-2015, 08:03 AM

All of the FA 80-160s I've used have been very good, weakening only at 160mm. There's clearly sample variation, so you might have to go through a couple. Just buy the mintyest one you can find on ebay from japan.

672 · 01-22-2015, 01:26 AM

Wow. Selling the 90mm DFA. I never thought i would see that here. I get the ease of zooms argument, but the 90mm is "sort of" the benchmark lens for the D and the Z.

I have tried all the pentax zooms available for this system and I have kept the 28-45mm DFA, the P67 55-100mm, and the 645 FA 80-160mm. In the mountains , I generally leave the tight zoom at camp and haul the P67 200mm instead.

2351HD · 01-22-2015, 11:56 AM

Well it is wonderful, clearly.

Mostly useless as a macro lens handheld even with OS. Great for landscape though, very sharp.

I guess one could look at it as the 645z has so many pixels that you can just use the 90 up until you need a 150 anyway and just crop, it would give more DOF cropped than a 120 would natively, which is a bonus.

I only got the 90 originally as I had an insurance claim payout and it was all that was available via the dealer that the insurance company was using, and all that the distributor had at the time. I am still finding it hard to decide to sell it as its so nice.

Going to wait I think, get the most out of it and the 150 until the new zooms arrive.

jonmarsh · 01-24-2015, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by ndevlin

Gotta be honest. For the price you can get an FA 45-85, I can see no reason to use the 67 lenses. Tried them recently, and they aren't anything special on the 645z (except the 105 wide-open - that's special). Use them if they make you happy, but it's a $8,000+ camera. Buy the $500 lens that autofocuses and is half the weight....

Just my 2c.

- N.

Understood, but I do have that 645 45-85mm also, and if lighter weight is important, I can see the usefulness of your recommendation. I just find the working range of the 55-100mm 67 lens and it's rendering to be something I prefer. I only tried that lens after trying out the 67 late 55mm lens, and liking it rather much in comparison to the DFA55mm lens, which I have, but only use if I really must have auto focus. Some of that opinion is based on the 645D, because stopping down the DFA55mm to where it's as sharp across the image as the 67 is nearly wide open is a problem for hand held shooting with the D, assuming you want to keep to low ISO ranges. Now, the 645z is the camera we all wish the D could have been, and I'm enjoying the flexibility of ISO range and exposure time vs aperture. I did some things for friends earlier last year that I sure wish I'd had the 645z then...

bull drinkwater · 02-23-2015, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by 2351HD

Hi,

Is anybody using the 90-180mm 67 lens on the D or Z and can comment on its performance?

I am contemplating selling my 90mm DFA Macro and 150FA and replacing them with the 80-180.

Also, does Pentax do a genuine 67-645 adapter?

Thanks, Scott

67 lenses are good when you luck up on a adapter. the 67 lenses get heavy and are manual focus only. as long as 645 lenses are available used, stick with them.

jonmarsh · 02-23-2015, 08:01 AM

I would NOT recommend selling the 90mm DFA Macro to get any zoom. That lens is probably the best performing lens you can currently buy for the 645 system.

Keep in mind that SMC 67 90-180mm is a somewhat slow lens (F5.6 wide open); I can't speak to the image quality, though it has been rated an A-/B+ lens for the 67 types. Generally, the A- and A lenses are quite good- I have most of them, including the late model 55mm f4, the 75mm f2.8 AL, the 55-100mm zoom, and the 200mm f4. I have long lusted after the 67 M* 400mm f4, but the recent lucky acquisition of an absolutely mint 645 A 600mm f4 has squashed that bug for now...

I have a 645 80-180; it suffers in definition and contrast compared to the 120 macro, and I don't use it. That isn't to say it might not be useful in circumstances in which you need an AF lens in that throw range, but I would much sooner use the 120mm macro and the 200mm FA to cover that, with the 67 75mm f2.8 on the wide end, unless environmental conditions dictate that lens changing is impractical.

I have and use the 645 45-85mm FA for similar reasons, if I need auto focus and fast handling, and have to shoot handheld. Otherwise, I use the 67 55-100mm on a tripod with live view and magnification for focus assist. That's not practical for all subjects, but even in camera review reveals the superiority of the 67 55-100mm over the 645 45-85mm, if image definition is your concern. OTOH, if you're shooting in low light at 3200 ISO, the difference, while visible with pixel peeping, probably isn't worth quibbling about.

It's hardly surprising, after all- with the 67 type lenses you're using the more central part of the lens coverage, and all other things being roughly equal, that's usually going to have better definition and fewer aberrations.

Of course, your usage needs and preferences may vary, but if image quality/definition for large size prints is a priority, I'd suggest giving these points some thought.

Lacunapratum · 02-24-2015, 02:11 PM

Hi 2351HD,

I do relate to your sentiment. I have been hesitant about buying the 90mm macro, and after I got it didn't use it very often. Until more recently, when I had to shoot about 100 objects approximately 5in in diameter handheld in a fairly short amount of time. Glad I kept the 90mm

. The 150mm is a different sort of beast. I always thought it was sharp and any lack thereof was a result of my technique. I would usually use it for portraits at F2.8 or F4, and my subjects would appreciate... Indeed, it has a beautiful bokeh and nice drawing qualities. It's really a portrait lens. When I did some tests, it wasn't sharp at F2.8 at all and only got better at F8/11. The 120mm macro A can be had for something around $300 and may be a worthwhile addition as it is a fairly sharp lens across the entire range. Also the 165mm 67 F4 leaf shutter lens is quite sharp, but somewhat heavy. I wish Ricoh/Pentax would invest in something like a 150mm/2.8 Apo macro, how about that? Or an improved 200mm/4 macro? Just dreaming. All we are getting are some zoom updates.

I have also been looking for a sharp medium format telephoto lens in that range, and I found the 150mm/4 Schneider Tele-Xenar with adapter as a viable alternative. This is one of the batch of Schneider lenses that was built for the Heinrich Manderman Exakta 66. It sells at somewhat high prices even used, but it is beautifully sharp and has very nice drawing qualities. One of the nicest medium format lenses out there. Among the more exotic alternatives is the 150mm/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar that was originally made for the Agiflite and which is extremely sharp, and the 150mm/2.8 Schneider Tele-Xenar, which was also sold in a compact version, and which is almost as sharp as the Zeiss. It would be nice if Pentax had an alternative on a similar level, as these more exotic versions are all manual focus.

If I was you, I'd keep the 90mm for those occasional opportunities when you may just need it, and the 150mm, as it really works quite nice for portraits. I have pointed out some sharper alternatives in that range. I haven't yet closed my mind to Pentax' zoom options, but I'd rather see a super-sharp prime, ideally with fast aperture or a leaf shutter lens. .

Sperdynamite · 02-25-2015, 06:05 PM

Has anybody tried the 75/2.8 AL? I know there is the FA and A version but the AL is really special. Super close focusing and truley special on the 67s. I imagine it would be DOPE on the 645z for portraits. I am holding onto mine with my 67II kit just in case I somehow become successful enough to buy a Z. :-)

01-18-2015, 05:12 AM	#1
2351HD Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 750	67 lenses on 645z Hi, Is anybody using the 90-180mm 67 lens on the D or Z and can comment on its performance? I am contemplating selling my 90mm DFA Macro and 150FA and replacing them with the 80-180. Also, does Pentax do a genuine 67-645 adapter? Thanks, Scott

01-21-2015, 08:03 AM	#8
ndevlin Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 132	All of the FA 80-160s I've used have been very good, weakening only at 160mm. There's clearly sample variation, so you might have to go through a couple. Just buy the mintyest one you can find on ebay from japan. Last edited by ndevlin; 01-25-2015 at 06:48 AM.

02-24-2015, 02:11 PM	#14
Lacunapratum Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 164	Hi 2351HD, I do relate to your sentiment. I have been hesitant about buying the 90mm macro, and after I got it didn't use it very often. Until more recently, when I had to shoot about 100 objects approximately 5in in diameter handheld in a fairly short amount of time. Glad I kept the 90mm . The 150mm is a different sort of beast. I always thought it was sharp and any lack thereof was a result of my technique. I would usually use it for portraits at F2.8 or F4, and my subjects would appreciate... Indeed, it has a beautiful bokeh and nice drawing qualities. It's really a portrait lens. When I did some tests, it wasn't sharp at F2.8 at all and only got better at F8/11. The 120mm macro A can be had for something around $300 and may be a worthwhile addition as it is a fairly sharp lens across the entire range. Also the 165mm 67 F4 leaf shutter lens is quite sharp, but somewhat heavy. I wish Ricoh/Pentax would invest in something like a 150mm/2.8 Apo macro, how about that? Or an improved 200mm/4 macro? Just dreaming. All we are getting are some zoom updates. I have also been looking for a sharp medium format telephoto lens in that range, and I found the 150mm/4 Schneider Tele-Xenar with adapter as a viable alternative. This is one of the batch of Schneider lenses that was built for the Heinrich Manderman Exakta 66. It sells at somewhat high prices even used, but it is beautifully sharp and has very nice drawing qualities. One of the nicest medium format lenses out there. Among the more exotic alternatives is the 150mm/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar that was originally made for the Agiflite and which is extremely sharp, and the 150mm/2.8 Schneider Tele-Xenar, which was also sold in a compact version, and which is almost as sharp as the Zeiss. It would be nice if Pentax had an alternative on a similar level, as these more exotic versions are all manual focus. If I was you, I'd keep the 90mm for those occasional opportunities when you may just need it, and the 150mm, as it really works quite nice for portraits. I have pointed out some sharper alternatives in that range. I haven't yet closed my mind to Pentax' zoom options, but I'd rather see a super-sharp prime, ideally with fast aperture or a leaf shutter lens. . Last edited by Lacunapratum; 02-24-2015 at 06:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 67 lens on 645Z metering issue	thomaskplee	Pentax Medium Format	6	12-31-2014 11:54 PM
67-645 adapter and 645Z	BBC5	Pentax Medium Format	11	12-23-2014 08:02 PM
Pentax (Europe) to finance @ 0% - 645Z with £5,000 on lenses	interested_observer	Pentax Medium Format	8	12-01-2014 03:03 AM
Pentax SMC 67 35mm F4.5 Fish-eye Lens on 645D, 645Z	uintaangler	Pentax Medium Format	2	08-06-2014 10:47 AM
SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 45mm F4 on the 645Z or 645D?	uintaangler	Pentax Medium Format	6	07-24-2014 07:08 PM

01-18-2015, 05:44 AM	#2
robthebloke Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 844	There is a genuine 67 to 645 adapter (srsmicrosystems sell them), although they aren't cheap. There are some 3rd party adapters, but only on the second hand market afaik. I can't comment on the 67 zooms, but I've tried 67 primes on the 645 (film). Generally I find the image quality from the 645 lenses to be sharper, with a slightly nicer bokeh, and a hell of a lot smaller! Personally I'd keep the 90 &150, unless you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom

01-18-2015, 01:29 PM	#3
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Both zooms for the 67 were fairly recent in the design continuum and so are very well corrected.The 55-100 edges out the 90-180 in sharpness but they are close (but that is on film). Both zooms are heavy.

01-18-2015, 07:53 PM	#4
jonmarsh Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 40	The 67 55-100 is my favorite general purpose lens on the 645D and z. Very sharp, remarkably so wide open. It is heavy, and large- and manual focus. But easy to use and get very good results- I use it more than primes in that range, especially in harsh weather environments. I actually have 2... setup with different filters. Recommended, especially at the prices you can get these days, and using Live View.

01-20-2015, 05:45 AM - 1 Like	#5
ndevlin Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 132	Gotta be honest. For the price you can get an FA 45-85, I can see no reason to use the 67 lenses. Tried them recently, and they aren't anything special on the 645z (except the 105 wide-open - that's special). Use them if they make you happy, but it's a $8,000+ camera. Buy the $500 lens that autofocuses and is half the weight.... Just my 2c. - N.

01-20-2015, 07:06 AM	#6
GarethC7 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 139	Given the prices of the lenses compared to the prices of the adapters then if you're going with manual focus lenses there are plenty in the 645 line up that compare. As Nick said the 105 wide open is great and is a great focal length. I bought the 165/2.8 as well and recall thinking how ridiculous it was buying these two lenses and then paying more than I care to remember on adapters. That said, after spending $9k Canadian on the camera it is a treat to pay such a pittance for lenses given that I prefer manual focus lenses so only have the 55 as I thought I should have one AF lens Unless it's a burning desire and you have every other 645 lens that you could desire then I wouldn't bother.

01-20-2015, 03:06 PM	#7
2351HD Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 750 Original Poster	Well I would rather not use a 67 90-180 but I am after a good short tele zoom for landscape. I have an 80/160 but don't really like it. I have the new 90mm DFA Macro and a FA 150 and they are both great, but a zoom would be much more flexible. Might just hold onto them till the new zoom on the roadmap comes. Scott

01-22-2015, 01:26 AM	#9
672 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: santa monica Photos: Gallery Posts: 486	Wow. Selling the 90mm DFA. I never thought i would see that here. I get the ease of zooms argument, but the 90mm is "sort of" the benchmark lens for the D and the Z. I have tried all the pentax zooms available for this system and I have kept the 28-45mm DFA, the P67 55-100mm, and the 645 FA 80-160mm. In the mountains , I generally leave the tight zoom at camp and haul the P67 200mm instead.

01-22-2015, 11:56 AM	#10
2351HD Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 750 Original Poster	Well it is wonderful, clearly. Mostly useless as a macro lens handheld even with OS. Great for landscape though, very sharp. I guess one could look at it as the 645z has so many pixels that you can just use the 90 up until you need a 150 anyway and just crop, it would give more DOF cropped than a 120 would natively, which is a bonus. I only got the 90 originally as I had an insurance claim payout and it was all that was available via the dealer that the insurance company was using, and all that the distributor had at the time. I am still finding it hard to decide to sell it as its so nice. Going to wait I think, get the most out of it and the 150 until the new zooms arrive.

01-24-2015, 11:40 AM	#11
jonmarsh Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 40	Originally posted by ndevlin Gotta be honest. For the price you can get an FA 45-85, I can see no reason to use the 67 lenses. Tried them recently, and they aren't anything special on the 645z (except the 105 wide-open - that's special). Use them if they make you happy, but it's a $8,000+ camera. Buy the $500 lens that autofocuses and is half the weight.... Just my 2c. - N. Understood, but I do have that 645 45-85mm also, and if lighter weight is important, I can see the usefulness of your recommendation. I just find the working range of the 55-100mm 67 lens and it's rendering to be something I prefer. I only tried that lens after trying out the 67 late 55mm lens, and liking it rather much in comparison to the DFA55mm lens, which I have, but only use if I really must have auto focus. Some of that opinion is based on the 645D, because stopping down the DFA55mm to where it's as sharp across the image as the 67 is nearly wide open is a problem for hand held shooting with the D, assuming you want to keep to low ISO ranges. Now, the 645z is the camera we all wish the D could have been, and I'm enjoying the flexibility of ISO range and exposure time vs aperture. I did some things for friends earlier last year that I sure wish I'd had the 645z then...

02-23-2015, 02:05 AM	#12
bull drinkwater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: pontiac mi. Posts: 392	Originally posted by 2351HD Hi, Is anybody using the 90-180mm 67 lens on the D or Z and can comment on its performance? I am contemplating selling my 90mm DFA Macro and 150FA and replacing them with the 80-180. Also, does Pentax do a genuine 67-645 adapter? Thanks, Scott 67 lenses are good when you luck up on a adapter. the 67 lenses get heavy and are manual focus only. as long as 645 lenses are available used, stick with them.

02-23-2015, 08:01 AM	#13
jonmarsh Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 40	I would NOT recommend selling the 90mm DFA Macro to get any zoom. That lens is probably the best performing lens you can currently buy for the 645 system. Keep in mind that SMC 67 90-180mm is a somewhat slow lens (F5.6 wide open); I can't speak to the image quality, though it has been rated an A-/B+ lens for the 67 types. Generally, the A- and A lenses are quite good- I have most of them, including the late model 55mm f4, the 75mm f2.8 AL, the 55-100mm zoom, and the 200mm f4. I have long lusted after the 67 M* 400mm f4, but the recent lucky acquisition of an absolutely mint 645 A 600mm f4 has squashed that bug for now... I have a 645 80-180; it suffers in definition and contrast compared to the 120 macro, and I don't use it. That isn't to say it might not be useful in circumstances in which you need an AF lens in that throw range, but I would much sooner use the 120mm macro and the 200mm FA to cover that, with the 67 75mm f2.8 on the wide end, unless environmental conditions dictate that lens changing is impractical. I have and use the 645 45-85mm FA for similar reasons, if I need auto focus and fast handling, and have to shoot handheld. Otherwise, I use the 67 55-100mm on a tripod with live view and magnification for focus assist. That's not practical for all subjects, but even in camera review reveals the superiority of the 67 55-100mm over the 645 45-85mm, if image definition is your concern. OTOH, if you're shooting in low light at 3200 ISO, the difference, while visible with pixel peeping, probably isn't worth quibbling about. It's hardly surprising, after all- with the 67 type lenses you're using the more central part of the lens coverage, and all other things being roughly equal, that's usually going to have better definition and fewer aberrations. Of course, your usage needs and preferences may vary, but if image quality/definition for large size prints is a priority, I'd suggest giving these points some thought.

02-25-2015, 06:05 PM	#15
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271	Has anybody tried the 75/2.8 AL? I know there is the FA and A version but the AL is really special. Super close focusing and truley special on the 67s. I imagine it would be DOPE on the 645z for portraits. I am holding onto mine with my 67II kit just in case I somehow become successful enough to buy a Z. :-)