[rdenney]

My wife and I are planning a trip to Alaska, and I was planning to take my Canon digital stuff and my 67 kit. Normally, I would take the 35 fisheye, 45, 55, 105, 135, and 200, and save the long lens choices for the Canon. If there was an architectural subject, I might also bring along the 75PCS (and there will be architectural subjects on this trip, as it turns out). But I would leave the 300 at home. All that will fit in a full-size carryon (an old-but-large LowePro Photo Trekker Classic), with part of the Canon kit stuffed into my briefcase. The tripod and Arca Monoball goes in the checked bag with the clothes.

But my wife has announced that I have a 645z coming for my birthday, and the future availability of the Zed changes everything. I have a 645 N and NII and can put together a lens kit, but possibly with gaps I would regret.

I’ll be leaving the briefcase at home on this trip, and will stuff the essentials into my rolling carryon. I’m planning to use a ThinkTank Streetwalker Pro as my “personal item”, with the overflow in my rolling bag.

The Zed will be my only camera for this trip, unless I have space in the checked bag and throw in a Travelwide and a box of 4x5 Quickloads from the freezer. So, I need 645 lenses for everything from mountain ranges to distant fauna.

I am therefore pondering the 30mm Arsat fisheye (a real beast), 35mm FA, 55mm Arsat PCS (a superb optic despite its provenance), 45-85mm FA zoom, 120mm macro, P67 165mm f/2.8, 1.4 converter, and 400mm FA ED(IF). The ThinkTank will hold the body (I’m testing that theory with my NII as a standin) with attached 400, the 35, 45-85, and 120, plus the AF540FGZ.



The fisheye is a must. I usually have wider lenses than 63% of the diagonal, and I just can’t seem to do without one in the bag:


(Juneau, Arsat 30)


(Bigelow Point, near Nantucket, P67 plus 35mm fisheye)

And I need a macro and a portrait lens.

But I’m trying to think of how to fill that gap between 165 and 400, and the 1.4 converter is all I’ve come up with. I have a 300/4 (not ED) for the 67, but it’s just too big and the image quality of that lens on the smaller format isn’t worth the weight and bulk.

What about a 300/4 ED(IF) in the A mount? I think I can afford a pre-FA example with what little is left of my budget. What about the 150-300 zoom, instead of the 165?

Rick “sorry for all the backstory” Denney

---

Last edited by rdenney; 03-03-2018 at 08:21 PM.

[CreationBear]

I gotta say, I like how you roll... A couple of thoughts: as much as I love my 67 165/2.8, I might look into leveraging your 67 200/4 if you have the late model, especially if you could use a 1.4 TC on it. Both it and the 120 macro would work as portrait options--I'm not sure you'd even miss the extra stop in the Zed's OVF, which is likely not to be as bright as you're used to in your film cameras, anyway.

[texandrews]

I see you're in NOVA. I'm up in Baltimore, and work at the Hirshhorn in DC.

I can't tell from your post if these are the lenses you own already, or if you are about to add to them...I see from the bag you have some, just unclear here what besides the 400. If you wish, we could meet in DC soon and I'll bring my Z kit. You bring a card, and then you can shoot some stuff and get a better sense if that helps. I've got a 35A, a 45 shift, the 55 DFA, the 2 75's, the 120 A, the 135 LS, the 150 FA, the 200 FA, and the 300, A*, plus the 45-85 and the 80-160. I can bring along any of these if you are considering getting something you don't have.

BTW, what a wonderful wife.

[rdenney]

I see you're in NOVA. I'm up in Baltimore, and work at the Hirshhorn in DC.

I can't tell from your post if these are the lenses you own already, or if you are about to add to them...I see from the bag you have some, just unclear here what besides the 400. If you wish, we could meet in DC soon and I'll bring my Z kit. You bring a card, and then you can shoot some stuff and get a better sense if that helps. I've got a 35A, a 45 shift, the 55 DFA, the 2 75's, the 120 A, the 135 LS, the 150 FA, the 200 FA, and the 300, A*, plus the 45-85 and the 80-160. I can bring along any of these if you are considering getting something you don't have.

BTW, what a wonderful wife.

I have all the lenses I mentioned, but a couple I’ve added recently and haven’t properly tested. I had even forgotten that I had the 165/2.8, but the 200/4 on the 67 isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

Thank you for the offer for a meet up—no need, though. My camera is sitting in layaway at Ace Photo in Ashburn and Moe would let me do the same with his 645z if I asked nicely.

What’s your impression of the 300A* ED? Those seem reasonably priced, and both more compact and lighter than my 67 300/4 or my CZJ Sonnar 300/4.

Rick “who bought a D500 and a 200-500 Nikkor for his wife—maintaining balance!” Denney

[texandrews]

I have all the lenses I mentioned, but a couple I’ve added recently and haven’t properly tested. I had even forgotten that I had the 165/2.8, but the 200/4 on the 67 isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

Thank you for the offer for a meet up—no need, though. My camera is sitting in layaway at Ace Photo in Ashburn and Moe would let me do the same with his 645z if I asked nicely.

What’s your impression of the 300A* ED? Those seem reasonably priced, and both more compact and lighter than my 67 300/4 or my CZJ Sonnar 300/4.

Rick “who bought a D500 and a 200-500 Nikkor for his wife—maintaining balance!” Denney

Ah, Ace! Yes, that's where I got mine in 2014---one of the first ones available. Moe's a good guy. You are lucky that's your local shop, not quite "local" for me. Glad you got it there. FYI, he has a secret drawer full of Pentax adapter/accessory stuff that can be hard to find.

My impression of the 300A* is that it's big! But then I'm not a tele guy, and I've not used it enough to really speak critically about it. Hope to do so this spring, though. I was able to get it at an excellent price, so I jumped on it. I did get a lens support for it, as it doesn't have a foot. Not something I would hang off the front of my Z if it was on a tripod.

[rdenney]

I've made a lot of purchases over the decades from all over the world, but I've always made the big purchases of new stuff from Moe. We bought our first digitals there--a Canon 10D for me and a Nikon D100 for her. Then, we upgraded there--a D300 for her and a 5D for me. We also bought our basic NII kit there, which included the 45-85, and used it as a wedding rig--pre-digital. That replaced Mamiya C-series cameras for commercial stuff, for me. I added a used N to have a spare body. I've bought at least two of my Manfrotto leg sets there, and also my "travel" Gitzo--a 3532. He isn't overflowing with large-format stuff, so I pieced that kit together from other sources. All our long lenses for Nikon and Canon came from Moe. A previous birthday present was a little Leica digicam. that my wife bought there, and when she goes to Moe for advice on a gift for the guy who has everything, he never steers her wrong.

The 67 stuff didn't come from him. I found my first 6x7 at a shop in Fairbanks, AK. My second came from a guy on the large-format forum, and the third likewise. All three went to Eric in Tennessee for an overhaul. I think I bought the fisheye, the 300, and the 75PCS at Glazer's in Seattle (another great shop), and the rest of it on ebay.

Let's see--my Speedotron studio lights also came from Moe, plus a number of studio items.

I take it seriously that we need to buy stuff from our local shops, if we want to have local shops. I am not religious about it and will pursue any unique buying opportunity, but if I spend a lot of time in a store with them showing me a camera or lens, then I feel like a jerk if I then buy it online. Moe has always given good enough deals to undermine that temptation in any case. He's been trying to sell me a 645z (and before that a 645D) since they first came out. I was just waiting for a milestone birthday, I guess.

Funny thing is that my wife was going to surprise me, but I ruined her surprise. I found a used 645z at Glazer's when I was in Seattle a few weeks ago. They had a good price on a pristine camera, and I bought it, along with the 400 that was also in the case. Then I called her on the phone to come clean, and she had to expose the secret. I made it back to Glazer's to return the camera five minutes before closing. (I kept the 400, of course).

Rick "hoping the high-ISO capability of the 645z will make the longer lenses practical" Denney

[texandrews]

I would say that the high iso capability makes a lot of things practical. This is coming from someone who was very skeptical of high iso shooting. Remember also that it is amazing how much you can underexpose---really startling, a separate strategy. Makes chimping hard, though.
Don't fear those higher iso's. We have become pretty picky now in 2018---I see people complain about how noisy a photo is and I look at it and think, "what are you talking about?". Better to get the shot with some noise than not to get the shot. But I'm sure you know that.

Finally, a "hidden" benefit: weather sealing. Be sure to have at least one WR/AW lens with you.

[skierd]

I think that shop you bought your 67 from was probably Alaska camera on 2nd Ave. He’s still there, actually I’m hoping Rick can fix the battery catch on my K-30. Small world!

When and where are you heading to/in Alaska? How much time are you here for? I live in Fairbanks and spend a good part of my summer in Denali National Park for work.

No personal experience with any of the 645 lenses yet unfortunately but I’ve read the 150-300 isn’t as good at the primes at either end. The 300 is supposed to be really good however, and a 645 A 200 is almost too inexpensive to not take if you have the room and inclination to get one.

I honestly think what you have in your bag above is about perfect (35, 45-85, 120, 400, and 1.4x). It’s pretty close to what I’d want for my own 645 kit actually, should I ever make the jump. The vast majority of my (aps-c) shots are done at either 50mm or 135mm and wishing for a little more, so the 120, 400, and 1.4x cover a lot of that ground.

[rdenney]

For this trip, we'll be in Anchorage, Wrangell and St. Elias NP, and down on the Kenai. We'll be in Alaska for two weeks in July. We've been there four or five times, plus my work trips (I travel all the time and have done work in every state).

After doing taxes last night, my purchasing program needs to be winding down

The notion of a weather-resistant lens is resonating with me. It's Alaska in July--it could be glorious or it could rain for two weeks. My theme might be bleak old buildings in Kennicott and raindrops on leaves (ala Ansel Adams, who faced the same weather issue on his first visit to Alaska), and the fleet of lenses may end up being largely dead weight. The 55/2.8 is the only affordable weather-resistant lens, but it is right in the sweet spot of the 45-85. It is, of course, pretty small, which helps.

Rick "who can't afford the 28-45" Denney

[bull drinkwater]

you should be ok with what you have. don't worry about gaps. remember you have a 1.26 crop factor with theD or Z. the 35mm will not be that wide and will not give you the fisheye effect. you need to screw a .05 aux converter to the font of the 35mm.

[Sarnian]

Rick "who can't afford the 28-45" Denney

Hi Rick,

Keep an eye on eBay as I got an unboxed but mint condition 28-45mm from mpb.com for a mere $1699!!

[mattb123]

I had the 67 SMC 300/4 adapted to my 645D and recently got the 645 A* 300/4 with matched 1.4x TC to replace it and it's quite a bit smaller and lighter. With the TC they are about the same length and the A* is quite a bit slimmer than the 67 one.

IQ from the A* looks at least as good as the 67 lens, maybe a little better but the fine focus isn't quite as precise.

Congratulations! That's a fine gift indeed!

[rdenney]

Hi Rick,

Keep an eye on eBay as I got an unboxed but mint condition 28-45mm from mpb.com for a mere $1699!!

Ha! Still way out of budget, now that I'm at the tail end of this episode of GAS. But I did just snag a used 55/2.8 AW (and all the other letters of the alphabet) from Adorama--hopefully will be in decent condition. The more I think about it, the happier I'll be to be fearless in rain.

Rick "maybe next year" Denney

---------- Post added 03-05-18 at 03:30 PM ----------

you should be ok with what you have. don't worry about gaps. remember you have a 1.26 crop factor with theD or Z. the 35mm will not be that wide and will not give you the fisheye effect. you need to screw a .05 aux converter to the font of the 35mm.

I work in so many formats that I tend to think of lenses in terms of their percentage of the format diameter. A 35 is 63% of the 645z's format diameter--not really that wide. I won't want the fisheye effect with that lens--I'll be bringing an Arsat fisheye, which is 30mm. It won't provide the 180-degree field of view across the corners for this format (or even for the 645 film format), but it will still pull in quite a bit more scene than the 35, and it will be plenty fishy. It will look better for subjects that don't need straight lines that can't pass through the center of the view. I've probably done more with fisheyes in medium format than with ultra-wides.

But there are a couple of options if I feel I must bring a rectilinear ultrawide. One is to simply throw in one of my film bodies with a couple of rolls of film. 35mm is only 46% of the 645 film diameter, which is pretty darn wide. Or, I can throw in my 65mm Travelwide and a box of 4x5 Quickloads--about the same field of view as the 35 on the 645 format. The NII would take up less space, heh.

I have said in another forum, I have cooled a bit on extreme wides as I've gotten older, but I would still like something in the 20's for the Zed, at least some day. Doesn't have to be this year--I bet there's plenty I can photograph without the ultrawide where I'm going.

Rick "who has often been quite happy with 45 on 6x6, even cropped to a rectangle" Denney

[rdenney]

Update:

I went ahead and picked up a 200/4, which was quite cheap in the FA version. Perhaps a bit too cheap—it has some fungus spots. I don’t think they are severe, but the lens is going to get a very strong dose of ultraviolet. I can test it’s sharpness, and if it can be coaxed into performing well, I’ll look for a better example in the fullness of time. It is vastly more compact than any of the alternatives I was considering.

Adorama sent me a 55mm AW lens, which they had downgraded because it shows usage marks. It was half the usual used price. The optics look great, but I can’t test it fully until the camera comes to me—it lacks an aperture ring and won’t autofocus on my film body. But everything feels right and I think I now have my rainy-weather lens.

And I received another P6-P645 adapter, and this one will go on the 55mm Arsat shift lens (if I decide to take it) or on the :0mm fisheye. I already have an adapter on the 180mm Sonnar but that will get moved. I prefer a “permanent” adapter for each adapted lens.

The 1.4 converter also arrived, looking pristine. And the pile of six rear lens caps, because those always seem to go walkabout.

I’m still eyeing a 300mm f/4 ED A*, despite that I doubt I have any reason to do so.

The carryon suitcase is promising to be heavy.

Rick “enjoying his first camera spending spree in a number of years” Denney

[texandrews]

Update:

I went ahead and picked up a 200/4, which was quite cheap in the FA version. Perhaps a bit too cheap—it has some fungus spots. I don’t think they are severe, but the lens is going to get a very strong dose of ultraviolet. I can test it’s sharpness, and if it can be coaxed into performing well, I’ll look for a better example in the fullness of time. It is vastly more compact than any of the alternatives I was considering.

Adorama sent me a 55mm AW lens, which they had downgraded because it shows usage marks. It was half the usual used price. The optics look great, but I can’t test it fully until the camera comes to me—it lacks an aperture ring and won’t autofocus on my film body. But everything feels right and I think I now have my rainy-weather lens.

And I received another P6-P645 adapter, and this one will go on the 55mm Arsat shift lens (if I decide to take it) or on the :0mm fisheye. I already have an adapter on the 180mm Sonnar but that will get moved. I prefer a “permanent” adapter for each adapted lens.

The 1.4 converter also arrived, looking pristine. And the pile of six rear lens caps, because those always seem to go walkabout.

I’m still eyeing a 300mm f/4 ED A*, despite that I doubt I have any reason to do so.

The carryon suitcase is promising to be heavy.

Rick “enjoying his first camera spending spree in a number of years” Denney

I think you may be enjoying yourself....I'm interested in that UV treatment for fungus. But all of your new stuff is going to be very useful, I think.

FWIW, I just went on my own spending spree for 2018: several lenses for my K1, handy ones, 2 used 1 new. But today I await the big prize: a DA 25 645 from Lens Authority (the seller for Lens Rentals). Very expensive, but the best price I've seen for this now rare lens, save for one other guy who basically got the deal of this new century. Anyway, I'm very close to fully kitted out. Now, attention turns to the computer and storage side of things. Finally must get a RAID, and the computer needs a big upgrade.