[kparseg]

Hello folks, I hope everything is going well. I'm currently using Leica S camera and 95% of my photographs are portraits. I do it for fun and not for living. I've taken landscape and macro photographs only a few times, so I did not want to invest a lot of money into Leica's wide angle or macro lenses. But recently I've started thinking that I can get some great Pentax MF lenses at a much more affordable price, so why not? Now the question is, if I consider either 67 or 645 lenses, which wide angle and macro lens is considered the best in terms of rendering and IQ?

In your opinion, what combination would be the best?

645: Pentax-FA 645 35mm F3.5 AL + Pentax-A 645 120mm F4 Macro

OR

67: Pentax 67 55mm F4 + Pentax 67 100mm F4 Macro

If you have any suggestions, please let me know! Since I can get either 67 or 645 adapter, I have to choose both lenses to be either 67 or 645 format.

Thanks!

[Eyewanders]

Hello folks, I hope everything is going well. I'm currently using Leica S camera and 95% of my photographs are portraits. I do it for fun and not for living. I've taken landscape and macro photographs only a few times, so I did not want to invest a lot of money into Leica's wide angle or macro lenses. But recently I've started thinking that I can get some great Pentax MF lenses at a much more affordable price, so why not? Now the question is, if I consider either 67 or 645 lenses, which wide angle and macro lens is considered the best in terms of rendering and IQ?

In your opinion, what combination would be the best?

645: Pentax-FA 645 35mm F3.5 AL + Pentax-A 645 120mm F4 Macro

OR

67: Pentax 67 55mm F4 + Pentax 67 100mm F4 Macro

If you have any suggestions, please let me know! Since I can get either 67 or 645 adapter, I have to choose both lenses to be either 67 or 645 format.

Thanks!

Quite a piece of kit you shoot with. You've already chosen the 'best rated' glass at those lengths for their repsective formats. That said I've not experience with those you mention. In terms of wide angle in the 67 line, the 45mm f/4 is one of my favorites in any format.

I'm sure you'll get a variety of opinions here, all of them subjectively correct. 67 glass is larger/bulkier but designed, obviously, for a larger frame.
In any case, it makes no sense to choose any of the 645 varieties that include AF since it will be useless to you and add to the cost considerably.

[desertscape]

All 4 lenses that you mentioned are proven, so it is probably a matter of which focal lengths best suit your shooting style. I no longer use a macro lens for my macro work (67) as I find the 165LS (f/32) and 90-180 zoom (f/45) to be better. I like the added distance to subject on these, plus they have small stops just like the macro lenses. Tubes are necessary of course. The 100 macro on your S Leica will probably give you a good working distance vs it being on a 67. It's a personal preference thing.

Is the 55mm wide enough for your work? Isn't a 55mm on an S, a normal lens?

[kparseg]

Quite a piece of kit you shoot with. You've already chosen the 'best rated' glass at those lengths for their repsective formats. That said I've not experience with those you mention. In terms of wide angle in the 67 line, the 45mm f/4 is one of my favorites in any format.

I'm sure you'll get a variety of opinions here, all of them subjectively correct. 67 glass is larger/bulkier but designed, obviously, for a larger frame.
In any case, it makes no sense to choose any of the 645 varieties that include AF since it will be useless to you and add to the cost considerably.

I forgot to compare the size and weight of the lenses! Thank you for your comments

---------- Post added 06-12-16 at 03:41 PM ----------

All 4 lenses that you mentioned are proven, so it is probably a matter of which focal lengths best suit your shooting style. I no longer use a macro lens for my macro work (67) as I find the 165LS (f/32) and 90-180 zoom (f/45) to be better. I like the added distance to subject on these, plus they have small stops just like the macro lenses. Tubes are necessary of course. The 100 macro on your S Leica will probably give you a good working distance vs it being on a 67. It's a personal preference thing.

Is the 55mm wide enough for your work? Isn't a 55mm on an S, a normal lens?

I think 55mm will be okay, but a wider lens would probably be better for landscapes. I guess I was choosing 55mm just based on the reputation.
Leica S does not have 55mm, but 45mm f2.8 which is amazing but I won't pay $8k for a lens that will be used only a few times a year...Thanks!

[Eyewanders]

I forgot to compare the size and weight of the lenses! Thank you for your comments

---------- Post added 06-12-16 at 03:41 PM ----------



I think 55mm will be okay, but a wider lens would probably be better for landscapes. I guess I was choosing 55mm just based on the reputation.
Leica S does not have 55mm, but 45mm f2.8 which is amazing but I won't pay $8k for a lens that will be used only a few times a year...Thanks!

The Leica S will be more similar to a 645 format, but in either case the difference between 45mm and 55mm is pretty significant.
This may be of interest to you...
Antique and Classic Cameras

as well as the thread it was last posted to.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-medium-format/123752-6x7-45mm-vs-55mm-2.html

[CDW]

The manual focus versions of the Pentax 645 35mm can be about as good as it gets in that focal length. Several years ago in a comparison test against the Zeiss/Hasselblad, it was the clear winner between F8 -F11. I find it still quite good even at F3.5. The difference in cost between the Pentax 35mm vs the Leica equivalent focal length would allow you to buy a Pentax 645Z as a back up. :-)

[kparseg]

The difference in cost between the Pentax 35mm vs the Leica equivalent focal length would allow you to buy a Pentax 645Z as a back up. :-)

Waiting for a full frame 645z (hopefully soon)!