Originally posted by Bob L My assessment will be based on slightly different parameters in that the Z only needs 55mm of the image circle compared to around 75mm for your film body. The P6 lenses cast a circle of 90mm (similar to the P67 lenses) so you may see some manifestations of softer corners that are still well outside the area that I can capture.
The CZJ P6 lenses are certainly heavier than the A-645's (generally speaking) .....the 180/2.8 is worth three 645 A-200/4's and is perhaps closer to the P67 165/2.8
I'm away at the moment (intending to pit the 645Z against the 5DS R) but, when I get home, I'll take some time to get some comparison shots done so that you can maybe judge the differences yourself. I rate rendering/bokeh higher on the scale than ultimate sharpness but I appreciate that the majority have drifted the other way.
Bob
I am with you on bokeh and rendering. I like sharpness in theory, but I have never bought a lens specifically because it was sharp. I saw a video comparing an old Soviet Lomo lens with a modern nikon. Nikon was way sharper, but produced very medical - looking images that were no match for beautiful pastel colours of the Lomo. Lomo wasn't very sharp in the corners though... I am thinking of using the 645 for landscapes, so I wonder if sharpness might be more important. I usually have an idea of an image I want to create and then I pick the lens that will do it. So in my mind lens A is not better than lens B, but rather lens A is better for that, and lens B is better for this.
I really appreciate your offer, and am very interested in seeing some pictures...