[VellMerlot]

Hello all. I just bought a light, compact 645D and I'm having doubts about which lens will be better for my taste.

First of all: it MUST be an A lens: I bought a FA 150 2.8 and left it on the shelf because I hate how its focus barrel feel (I'm a manual focuser).

On second term, I'm some sort of a "close focus" guy. The pictures I like most to take (although I shoot at almost everything) are close detail with sweet creamie bokeh.

Up to now I have in my bag a 75 2.8 and a 150 3.5, both nice enough, but a bit too long (in terms of min. focus distance).

I'm waiting for some entension rings to reach home, but somehow I'm still wondering if I would be better with the 120 macro, although I'm worried about its bokeh, and for it to be hard to focus at medium distances (I rarely care about infinite focus).

So, 75 or 150 with extension rings or 120 macro?


Any thoughts?

[LaHo]

So, 75 or 150 with extension rings or 120 macro?
Any thoughts?

smc Pentax-A 645 120mm F4.0 macro on Pentax 645N:




smc Pentax-A 645 150mm F:3.5 and Ext. Tube #2 on Pentax 645N:




The 150mm without extension tube:


I would say that the smc Pentax-A 645 150mm F3.5 (with extension tube) holds up pretty well ...

... but I surrendered and bought the smc Pentax-A 645 120mm macro anyway :-)

[VellMerlot]

Both combinations seem pretty fine (I will not consider the "non-extended" 150, as is not the kind of pictures I like the most to take. I will wait a bit until I receive my tubes, I guess... anyways, there's no cheap 120 macro on sight :P

I'm eager to test those tubes on my 75...

Thanks, mate.

[LaHo]

One thing to consider: the first picture with 150mm and extension tube #2 was taken about as close as this combo could get -- with the 120mm macro you can of course get much closer (1:1 on film).

[VellMerlot]

One thing to consider: the first picture with 150mm and extension tube #2 was taken about as close as this combo could get -- with the 120mm macro you can of course get much closer (1:1 on film).

It's not about the magnification, it's about to be comfortable while shooting. But I'll consider it, thanks

[texandrews]

Hello all. I just bought a light, compact 645D and I'm having doubts about which lens will be better for my taste.

Ummm....light, compact....I'm stumbling on that a bit, but whatever.

On second term, I'm some sort of a "close focus" guy. The pictures I like most to take (although I shoot at almost everything) are close detail with sweet creamie bokeh.

Up to now I have in my bag a 75 2.8 and a 150 3.5, both nice enough, but a bit too long (in terms of min. focus distance).

I'm waiting for some entension rings to reach home, but somehow I'm still wondering if I would be better with the 120 macro, although I'm worried about its bokeh, and for it to be hard to focus at medium distances (I rarely care about infinite focus).

So, 75 or 150 with extension rings or 120 macro?

Well, I think the 120 is a must have lens for Pentax 645 users. I also think the 135 LS is under-rated, but it has a nearly 50" minimum focus distance.

Personally, I think the 55 DFA is another must have lens. Forget about its newness, it's the one to get. It's 50cm/20" minimum focus. The 35 is also a must have lens, and the A version is excellent with a 30cm/11 " min. focus.

[Bob L]

An adapted 67 100/4 Macro also renders very nicely with its 45cm MFD.

[VellMerlot]

Ummm....light, compact....I'm stumbling on that a bit, but whatever.

Well, I think the 120 is a must have lens for Pentax 645 users. I also think the 135 LS is under-rated, but it has a nearly 50" minimum focus distance.

Personally, I think the 55 DFA is another must have lens. Forget about its newness, it's the one to get. It's 50cm/20" minimum focus. The 35 is also a must have lens, and the A version is excellent with a 30cm/11 " min. focus.

As I came from an *istDS with a Kiron 28 f2, the 645D feels light and compact

No, being serious, I will wait 'til I get my hands in some extension rings to play with my 150 and my 75. The 120 macro may be a future buy when I'll recover from the last couple of them :P

The 55 seems the proper focal as the closest to my dear Kiron 28 in APS-C, but although the SDM DFA is far better (I suppose) because its glass, I cannot face the FA focus barrel, I need to feel all that sturdiness only the classics give you. But I'll keep my eye for any chance to put my hands over an A 120 macro, thanks

An adapted 67 100/4 Macro also renders very nicely with its 45cm MFD.

Maybe, but if I must use an adapter, maybe I can stick with the A and extension rings. I'll take a look at the 100's reviews, but. Thanks.

[johnha]

The 55 seems the proper focal as the closest to my dear Kiron 28 in APS-C, but although the SDM DFA is far better (I suppose) because its glass, I cannot face the FA focus barrel, I need to feel all that sturdiness only the classics give you. But I'll keep my eye for any chance to put my hands over an A 120 macro, thanks

I'd suggest the latest version of the 67 55mm f/4 with an adapter, it has a very smooth focus ring.

[VellMerlot]

I'd suggest the latest version of the 67 55mm f/4 with an adapter, it has a very smooth focus ring.

Whoah, that lens is quite a monster

[rdenney]

Keep looking for a manual-focus 120. I don’t recall what I paid for mine, but I doubt it was much over $100. It is everything Tex says—smooth and sharp at any distance. It will also focus 1:1 without tubes. It’s a cheap enough experiment even if you aren’t sure of the bokeh. Bokeh is real but subjective—only you can decide what works. But, in general, macro lenses are too well-corrected to have really smooth bokeh if the background is even moderately discernible. Any bokeh looks good if the background is sufficiently out of focus.

I would avoid a 55 if you can’t tolerate the feel of the DFA lens, unless you just must have that focal length. Use the money you’d spend on a film-era 55, or one adapted from the 67, to get that 120. The DFA 55 is in another league optically from older wide-angle lenses at that focal length.

Rick “recalling a price of $138 for the macro” Denney

[VellMerlot]

Keep looking for a manual-focus 120. I don’t recall what I paid for mine, but I doubt it was much over $100. It is everything Tex says—smooth and sharp at any distance. It will also focus 1:1 without tubes. It’s a cheap enough experiment even if you aren’t sure of the bokeh. Bokeh is real but subjective—only you can decide what works. But, in general, macro lenses are too well-corrected to have really smooth bokeh if the background is even moderately discernible. Any bokeh looks good if the background is sufficiently out of focus.

I would avoid a 55 if you can’t tolerate the feel of the DFA lens, unless you just must have that focal length. Use the money you’d spend on a film-era 55, or one adapted from the 67, to get that 120. The DFA 55 is in another league optically from older wide-angle lenses at that focal length.

Rick “recalling a price of $138 for the macro” Denney

I'm keeping an eye open for a cheap 120. There are some in Japan, but as my extension rings are about to reach their new home, I'll wait 'til I'll can shoot a bit with 'em.

Thanks

[VellMerlot]

Hi all.

At last I've been able to check the 150 with extension rings. Although the received rings were not in a good status (some cracking sounds, and the thiniest ring with a failing spring), I took some pictures with them.

As expected, my pictures have NOT improved, although were more in the line I like to shoot: close-focused. The downside (a very hard one) is the weird small focus distance this combination allows to use. Yes, now I can focus at 50cm more or less, but I can shoot from 50cm to 60cm, and it ruins any versatility the combination provides.

So, the next step is to think about the 120 macro, although the f4 scares me a bit.

On the other side, a full weekend with the beast (the compact beast, I mean), has raised on my inners some kind of need to shoot panoramas. I hate panoramas. They bore me to the bone, I can watch bokeh pictures until the end of the world, but just a single panorama tires me. It's some kind of curse the MF comes with?

I think I will try to still shooting with the 75 while waiting for a cheap 45 to appear on my price range.

Is really (it's a derail of my own thread, I know) the 35 worth consideration over the 45? I fear the 45 will be too wide, so the 35 will be as shooting in my own foot.

[Sandy Hancock]

The A 645 120/4.0 macro is a sensational lens. Have no fears.

35mm is about the same field of view as 28mm on full frame, so certainly not too wide in my opinion. I have the DFA 635 35/3.5, and to me it's not wide enough

[VellMerlot]

The A 645 120/4.0 macro is a sensational lens. Have no fears.

35mm is about the same field of view as 28mm on full frame, so certainly not too wide in opinion. I have the DFA 635 35/3.5, and to me it's not wide enough

Before my short trip to the dark side (I owned a D700 for about half a year), I've got used to shoot with my lovely *istDS with a Kiron 28 f2. Although I am (or was) a 85mm guy (in APS-C, so 135mm on FF and 150? in 645d), I really fell in love with that small lens, and became used to it very fast.

Using online calculators, it seems the 45 is the nearest lens to the 28 in APS-C, but I have some doubts when I read here or there about it's too soft wide open.

Everybody and their mother say the 35 is awesome, but it's also expensive and bulky and I'm not sure if it worths the extra coin and back pain to carry from the 75.

I'm on the verge of a change, it seems. From the "I'm sure I want the 75 and the 150", I moved to "I don't really know what I want". It sucks. But I love the feeling; I did not had it with the D700, just used it. The 645d is a lovely beast that makes me to change things, and not just "go out and click".

I'll keep you posted, even if it's just to make you waste your time a bit and get distracted from real life "important" things.

Thanks everybody.