Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2016, 09:29 PM   #16
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 36
Original Poster
My bank account an hate me later, but I just ordered the new 35 from Adorama; can't wait to start shooting with it.

01-06-2016, 11:28 PM   #17
Veteran Member
revdocjim's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture
Posts: 374
I've only owned the A35 and use it on the 645N and really like it. I'm using it almost exclusively for landscape so it's almost always stopped down and performs quite well. Affordable too!

Here are a few sample shots on RVP50.








Last edited by revdocjim; 01-06-2016 at 11:34 PM.
01-10-2016, 12:37 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: pontiac mi.
Posts: 339
given the crop factor, 35mm and 45mm are not that wide. when I want really wide with the 645d, I go with the 35mm plus a .05 or a .30 screw on lens. IQ has been ok to good.
01-10-2016, 08:31 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 485
QuoteOriginally posted by bull drinkwater Quote
given the crop factor, 35mm and 45mm are not that wide. when I want really wide with the 645d, I go with the 35mm plus a .05 or a .30 screw on lens. IQ has been ok to good.
Hmmmm...which ones specifically do you use, and what have the results been like?

01-10-2016, 05:53 PM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: pontiac mi.
Posts: 339
QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
Hmmmm...which ones specifically do you use, and what have the results been like?




here are samples from the 35 and 45 mm lenses using the .05, .38, and .16.
of course for landscapes I often stitch 2-4 together.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX 645D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX 645D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX 645D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX 645D  Photo 
01-10-2016, 06:57 PM   #21
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 36
Original Poster
That looks like a pretty heavy drop in image quality to me. Far more than I would consider to be even remotely acceptable.
01-10-2016, 07:57 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 485
QuoteOriginally posted by bull drinkwater Quote
here are samples from the 35 and 45 mm lenses using the .05, .38, and .16.
of course for landscapes I often stitch 2-4 together.
Thank you for posting those, and your quick response. Much appreciated. But you misunderstood me: I meant, what were the specific models of the wide angle conversion lenses, the screw-ins. There are a number available, ranging from very inexpensive to ones over $1000.00. Although I rather agree with LA_Photographer above about the IQ of these specific examples.
01-15-2016, 03:55 PM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: pontiac mi.
Posts: 339
QuoteOriginally posted by LA_Photographer Quote
That looks like a pretty heavy drop in image quality to me. Far more than I would consider to be even remotely acceptable.


in all honesty, I have to agree with you on their IQ. it was my attempt to " skin the cat " lacking 10-15 mm fisheye.

---------- Post added 01-15-16 at 06:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
Thank you for posting those, and your quick response. Much appreciated. But you misunderstood me: I meant, what were the specific models of the wide angle conversion lenses, the screw-ins. There are a number available, ranging from very inexpensive to ones over $1000.00. Although I rather agree with LA_Photographer above about the IQ of these specific examples.


mine are " el cheapo's ", I tried one of the more expensive ones with even worse results. I too await imput from someone with better results. a 10 or 15 mm would be nice, but seeing the prices of the newly made 645 lenses, we'd be talking $6000.00 or better.


Last edited by bull drinkwater; 01-15-2016 at 04:02 PM.
01-17-2016, 08:44 PM - 2 Likes   #24
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,524
FWIW, here is the same shot taken with both the A35 vs the DFA 25 to show the difference in field of view between the two on a similar subject.


645D & A35 & DFA25
01-27-2016, 06:39 AM - 2 Likes   #25
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
The 33-55 isn't a stellar lens optically, but it weights only 500g and are many lenses in one. Here are a few shot on film:











01-27-2016, 01:36 PM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 152
QuoteOriginally posted by yurihuta Quote
I was curious, so I threw all the numbers in the very helpful Lens Review (and specifications) section together on one page.

A35, FA35, DFA35 (newest)
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital 76 ° / 64 °
645 Film 90 ° / 77 °

FA33-55
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital: 80-53 ° / 67-44 °
645 Film: 93-65 ° / 81-54 °

DA28-45
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital: 89-63 ° / 76-52 °

DFA25 (same as DA25, except DA does not cover 645 film)
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital: 95.5 ° / 82.6 °
645 Film 109 ° / 96.7 °
...and the new DFA 35mm is 610g vs 1530g for the 28-45mm zoom!
01-27-2016, 02:31 PM   #27
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 36
A DFA 35mm-sized 30mm would be sweet.
01-31-2016, 10:05 PM   #28
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Albums
Posts: 71
I had the FA 35. It was good, but not as good as 28-45. In fact, it didn't even catch up at F5.6. 28-45 is super sharp wide open, FA35 needs about F8 to get there.

I sold FA35, eventually got a used A 35 at a good price. I think it's a little better than FA 35 on my copy. But i've not done direct comparisons. The thing is, it's much more compact!
02-01-2016, 04:24 AM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,467
QuoteOriginally posted by Sarnian Quote
A DFA 35mm-sized 30mm would be sweet.
A DFA 35 sized 21mm would be sweeter!
02-01-2016, 02:11 PM   #30
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 36
QuoteOriginally posted by itshimitis Quote
A DFA 35 sized 21mm would be sweeter!
24mm equivalent, I mean.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, a35, bit, camera, fa33-55, fa35, image quality, iq, lenses, medium format, mm, results, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Little test: Helios 44-3 vs 44M-7 and ST 55/1.8 vs 44M-7 vs SMC-A 50/1.7 malenisjaj Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 05-02-2015 01:01 PM
DA 35mm/2.4 - A Plastic Wonder! -- DAL35 vs FA35 vs DA35m vs A35 (many photos!) frank Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 141 01-10-2013 10:26 AM
30 vs 43 vs 55 vs 77 Christmas Bokeh Shoot-out Special! TOUGEFC Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 51 12-16-2011 04:56 PM
K7+FA35 or DA*55 VS KX+DA 40 surfmanjoe Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 06-30-2010 01:28 PM
77ltd vs Cosina 55 1.2 vs Helios 58 vs Vivitar 28 CF vs DA 35 jsherman999 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 04-26-2009 12:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top