[zobeleye]

Hi Guys,
anybody using the K1 with older or newer 645 lenses ?
am I right in assuming that this disables the AF ?
is there a way to use the SR that's in the 28-45 ?
Or can I use the SR that's in the K1 ?
Which adapters are there ?

Another thing I am wondering about is, if the shift/tilt that the K1 offers can really be used as a tilt to increase DOF in landscape shots ?
there's this thing in the original announcement, but none of testers has mentioned this option...

lots of questions, I know but then, we never stop learning

cheers
Stephan

[tmoses]

I use medium format Russian lenses, Pentacon mount, with pentacon-pk adapter. Adapters usually ordered on Ebay from Ukraine, but you can get them on Amazon now (from the Ukraine). $30-40 range
The lenses of course are manual focus.
Shake Reduction works
The 1.7X AF teleconverter works, if you put foil strip over the contacts between adapter and 1.7x

You can get russian tilt-shifts...

[Adam]

Hi Guys,
anybody using the K1 with older or newer 645 lenses ?
am I right in assuming that this disables the AF ?
is there a way to use the SR that's in the 28-45 ?
Or can I use the SR that's in the K1 ?
Which adapters are there ?

Another thing I am wondering about is, if the shift/tilt that the K1 offers can really be used as a tilt to increase DOF in landscape shots ?
there's this thing in the original announcement, but none of testers has mentioned this option...

lots of questions, I know but then, we never stop learning

cheers
Stephan

You can use the in-body SR as the lens wouldn't be powered when adapted. In terms of functionality, it's the same as a K-mount M lens, plus the physical adapter of course.

[Rico]

zobeleye

It is only possible to use 645 and 6X7 lenses in manual mode on k-mount using a k-mount to 645/6X7 adapters which are two separate adapters. In the recent past you could get the 645 adapter new. Now you can get the 6X7 adapter new but at a heavy price.

The adapters only allow you to attach the lenses with infinity focus. No contacts or autofocus etc. Aperture ring a must. In body SR functions normally according to focal length etc.

[zobeleye]

I had russian 45 T/S once, super sharp in the middle, useless on the sides and field curvature like mad, so that road is closed for me.
Nobody tried tilting the sensor yet ?

[Bob L]

I had russian 45 T/S once, super sharp in the middle, useless on the sides and field curvature like mad, so that road is closed for me.
Nobody tried tilting the sensor yet ?

Don't tilt-shift lenses have field curvature by design?

[johnha]

Unless you already have a selection of P645 or P6x7 lenses, I can't see the point. The film era lenses don't generally resolve more detail than M series 35mm lenses (they didn't have to with much larger formats). 645 & 6x7 lenses are much bigger & heavier than 35mm ones and very few are 'cheap' enough to warrant this extra weight/bulk. You can get adapters for everything to P6x7, fine having a small & dainty body but hampered with 6x7 lens where only a tiny portion of the glass is actually used.

On adapters, there are a lot of crappy non-brand ones available, there's no way I'd use anything but a genuine Pentax one on a $$$$ K-1 body (I won't even use a non-Pentax K to M42 adapter on an old K mount body).

John.

[zobeleye]

Unless you already have a selection of P645 or P6x7 lenses, I can't see the point. The film era lenses don't generally resolve more detail than M series 35mm lenses (they didn't have to with much larger formats). 645 & 6x7 lenses are much bigger & heavier than 35mm ones and very few are 'cheap' enough to warrant this extra weight/bulk. You can get adapters for everything to P6x7, fine having a small & dainty body but hampered with 6x7 lens where only a tiny portion of the glass is actually used.

On adapters, there are a lot of crappy non-brand ones available, there's no way I'd use anything but a genuine Pentax one on a $$$$ K-1 body (I won't even use a non-Pentax K to M42 adapter on an old K mount body).

John.

My goals were

1. to have a spare body, that uses the same batteries
2. expand the wide end, since the Z only goes to ~24 FFE.
3. have a stabilized long end, since the 200 and the 300 for non tripod landscape use have to be stopped down to f11 and that gets me to at least 1/500 handheld and ISO 1600 in full sunshine, which, for me, doesn't hold the details for which I am using MF.

Stephan

[ivanvernon]

I am using P6 CZJ, Pentax 67, and Pentax 645 lenses on the K-1 and also using P6 CZJ and Pentax 67 lenses on Pentax 645D as well. For the most part, it is a senseless but interesting exercise. However, out of six P67 lenses and three P6 lenses, there are a few standouts that I find worth using.

For CZJ, the 180mm Sonnar and the Arsat 30mm are interesting and high quality options on either the 645D or the K-1. The CZJ P6 lenses' focussing ring turns in opposite direction from Pentax lenses, which takes a little getting used to.

Of the Pentax 67 lenses, I particularly like the 55mm, which makes a wonderful closeup lens for flower photography on the K-1, even though it is so large it looks like you have a syrup bucket hanging off the camera, and the 67 105 f 2.4 is a great all-around lens for many things including portraiture. With P67 lenses, there is a toggle switch that lets you focus wide open and then stop down to desired aperture.

Of the P645 lenses, I love the 645 120mm macro on the K-1. This is the true standout, but all the 645 lenses benefit on the K-1 from SF, pixil shift, and other K-1 camera features that are not available on the 645D. I do not own the 645Z.

The cheap after market adapters work great for all these lenses, and have not given me any trouble. Some of these lenses are pretty heavy, so you need to be concerned about the extra weight and making sure you do not put undue pressure on the K-1 mount. A few of the cheap adapters have black paint which is slick and quite reflective, and you may need to repaint the inside with black matte paint. Any P67 or P645 leaf shutter lenses will work only on their native camera mounts.

Question: Has anyone used the Mamiya 80mm f 1.9 on the K-1? If so, I will be very interested to learn of your experience.

[zobeleye]

thing I forgot to mention is,
does the sensor tilting feature work for increasing DOF i.e. TS-like movement to tilt the plane of focus ???

[rdenney]

Tilting the sensor should allow you to tilt the focus plane. That does not increase depth of field, it just tilts the plane around which depth of field extends. Tilting the sensor is like tilting the rear standard on a view camera--it has the same effect as tilting the lens, except that it stays within the lens's image circle. But tilting the sensor also changes the perspective projection--tilting the lens does not. I'm speaking in theory based on long experience with view cameras--I've never handled a camera with a tilting sensor, and until this moment didn't realize such a thing existed.

I have use various medium-format lenses on small-format cameras. I don't own a small-format Pentax, but I have experimented with the 45mm Hartblei shift lens on a Canon using a tilting adapter to get both types of movement. It's fine unless you want a big print, but it's enormously fiddly. Same with teh 55mm Arsat PCS lens, which is a much better optic. I absolutely intend to use that lens on my 645z when it arrives.

I have already made regular use of the Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar on my 645 film cameras as a portrait lens. When the Zed comes, I will compare that lens to the 67 165/2.8 to see which is better. The 165 is certainly lighter, not that says much--the Sonnar has enough glass to put you in a separate line at the TSA security checkpoint.

But there are only a few lenses that will work well on small format, and be worth the trouble. And then they are only worth the trouble for using the small camera as a backup, or as a lens that is rarely used for some special reason. The normal lenses in the larger formats are often very sharp designs and work quite well as short telephotos on a small camera--this includes the 75/2.8 for the 645 and the 105/2.4 for the 67. (Or any of the 80mm Ukrainian or GDR lenses in the P6 mount. The CZJ 80/2.8 Biometar is a decent lens.) The long lenses in the Pentacon mount are not worth the trouble (except for the Sonnar), because they are an ancient design--a triplet with a magnifier. The Sonnar design is really a normal lens, but in a longer focal length, and adapted for a smaller format. The original Sonnar was a fast normal on the Zeiss Contax of 80 years ago, for example, but could not accommodate a mirror box so was adapted for use in longer focal lengths. The Pentax 645 lenses that might be worth the trouble include the 120 macro lens, and, for occasional use, the 300/4 or 400/5.6 ED(IF) lenses. Those are not terrible wide open, and nobody would want to carry two 400's, one for each format.

The main target for adapted second-world lenses is the 645, not the K1, it seems to me. The 645 lineup doesn't have anything like the 180/2.8 Sonnar for the Pentacon 66 or the 165/2.8 Takumar for the 67. The 645 lineup also doesn't have anything like the superb Arsat 30mm fisheye. And the 55mm PCS shift lens is a no-brainer for adapting to the 645, though applications for a lens like that are not exactly common.

I'm happy that I can adapt 67 lenses to the 645 and retain aperture automation (except for metering, I suppose). On a 645NII, the meter will track the aperture setting on the lens without stopping down, but the camera cannot set the aperture. So you can only use aperture-priority modes in automatic exposure after manually choosing the aperture you want on the lens. I'm assuming the 645z will work the same. But none of that will transfer to a small-format camera with the adapters I've seen.

Rick "with a long history of such adaptations" Denney

[ivanvernon]

Tilting the sensor should allow you to tilt the focus plane. That does not increase depth of field, it just tilts the plane around which depth of field extends. Tilting the sensor is like tilting the rear standard on a view camera--it has the same effect as tilting the lens, except that it stays within the lens's image circle. But tilting the sensor also changes the perspective projection--tilting the lens does not. I'm speaking in theory based on long experience with view cameras--I've never handled a camera with a tilting sensor, and until this moment didn't realize such a thing existed.

I have use various medium-format lenses on small-format cameras. I don't own a small-format Pentax, but I have experimented with the 45mm Hartblei shift lens on a Canon using a tilting adapter to get both types of movement. It's fine unless you want a big print, but it's enormously fiddly. Same with teh 55mm Arsat PCS lens, which is a much better optic. I absolutely intend to use that lens on my 645z when it arrives.

I have already made regular use of the Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar on my 645 film cameras as a portrait lens. When the Zed comes, I will compare that lens to the 67 165/2.8 to see which is better. The 165 is certainly lighter, not that says much--the Sonnar has enough glass to put you in a separate line at the TSA security checkpoint.

But there are only a few lenses that will work well on small format, and be worth the trouble. And then they are only worth the trouble for using the small camera as a backup, or as a lens that is rarely used for some special reason. The normal lenses in the larger formats are often very sharp designs and work quite well as short telephotos on a small camera--this includes the 75/2.8 for the 645 and the 105/2.4 for the 67. (Or any of the 80mm Ukrainian or GDR lenses in the P6 mount. The CZJ 80/2.8 Biometar is a decent lens.) The long lenses in the Pentacon mount are not worth the trouble (except for the Sonnar), because they are an ancient design--a triplet with a magnifier. The Sonnar design is really a normal lens, but in a longer focal length, and adapted for a smaller format. The original Sonnar was a fast normal on the Zeiss Contax of 80 years ago, for example, but could not accommodate a mirror box so was adapted for use in longer focal lengths. The Pentax 645 lenses that might be worth the trouble include the 120 macro lens, and, for occasional use, the 300/4 or 400/5.6 ED(IF) lenses. Those are not terrible wide open, and nobody would want to carry two 400's, one for each format.

The main target for adapted second-world lenses is the 645, not the K1, it seems to me. The 645 lineup doesn't have anything like the 180/2.8 Sonnar for the Pentacon 66 or the 165/2.8 Takumar for the 67. The 645 lineup also doesn't have anything like the superb Arsat 30mm fisheye. And the 55mm PCS shift lens is a no-brainer for adapting to the 645, though applications for a lens like that are not exactly common.

I'm happy that I can adapt 67 lenses to the 645 and retain aperture automation (except for metering, I suppose). On a 645NII, the meter will track the aperture setting on the lens without stopping down, but the camera cannot set the aperture. So you can only use aperture-priority modes in automatic exposure after manually choosing the aperture you want on the lens. I'm assuming the 645z will work the same. But none of that will transfer to a small-format camera with the adapters I've seen.

Rick "with a long history of such adaptations" Denney

Thank you for these observations.

[zobeleye]

Hi Rick,
thanks for the lecture...
just my 50% :
I have owned the Hartblei and used it on the 645Z and good riddance.
I have worked with 4x5, 6x7 and 8x10 view camera for years and good riddance, too.
Knowing that tilt does not increase the DOF per se, but tilts the POF and therefore can extend the perceived DOF from foreground to background, I'd still like for somebody to answer my question, if the movement of the sensor in the K1 can achieve that effect and to which degree, like for instance with a 45(-85)mm, since that is the widest FL lens with an aperturering, that I still own. As I understand it 28-45 and new 35 are out of the race for this.

cheers
Stephan

[rdenney]

Hi Rick,
thanks for the lecture...
just my 50% :
I have owned the Hartblei and used it on the 645Z and good riddance.
I have worked with 4x5, 6x7 and 8x10 view camera for years and good riddance, too.
Knowing that tilt does not increase the DOF per se, but tilts the POF and therefore can extend the perceived DOF from foreground to background, I'd still like for somebody to answer my question, if the movement of the sensor in the K1 can achieve that effect and to which degree, like for instance with a 45(-85)mm, since that is the widest FL lens with an aperturering, that I still own. As I understand it 28-45 and new 35 are out of the race for this.

cheers
Stephan

Sorry, didn't mean to lecture. Hard to guess other people's experience.

Those Hartblei 45mm lenses are really just Arsat 45mm lenses in a nicer Hartblei barrel and with nicer Hartblei coatings. But your observations are spot on: Sharpish in the center, but field curvature makes it hard to get sharpness in the corners at any aperture. It works out if there is foreground to work with. And on a small sensor, the worst of the corner problems would never be visible. But it also means greater enlargement ratios, which is not what that lens can easily tolerate. I have made good photos with mine on 6x6, but I would never want to crop and enlarge too much. The 67 45mm lens is really vastly better.

The Arsat 55/4.5 PCS lens is another matter altogether. I don't know to what extent the enlargements from a small sensor would be tolerable, but it's completely competent lens. The wide image circle means more reflection off the adapter, though. I used flocking material adhered to the inside of the adapter to control that problem. You mentioned that, too.

Have you considered the previous FA 35? Not terribly expensive. It suffers from field curvature, too, but not in the middle where you'll be using it. When it's sharp, though, it's sharp. I can't imagine, however, that it would be better than a cheap native small-format 35mm prime lens on K1.

I'm hoping others will have experimented more, too, to get better answers than what I'm providing. It sounds as though you and I have been mostly down the same road.

Rick "who still hosts the Kiev Report, not that much is happening there these days" Denney

[zobeleye]

Rick,
hope you were not offended, but there are so many "lecturers" at work in some forums, I sometimes can't keep myself from shooting back.
Anyway, 100% with you on the old 35mm, had that and replaced it with the newer one, exactly because it has less curvature ( and better contrast )
And had not considered before to go down that FF Pentax road. And I won't until somebody comes up with a good reason for that. Still waiting to get more info on that topic, but maybe the 645 forum is not the most ideal place to ask...
Will look into the options on the wide end in FF Pentax lenses and report back.
besides, what are good adapters for 645 to K ?
cheers