[mjm6]

Hi folks,

I am looking at adapting a few telephoto lenses to the Fuji 33x44 sensor and Pentax 645 lenses seem to be ideal for this application.

I've seen some comments in a few places that some people think the 300mm 67 lens is superior to the 645 300mm lens, and since the 67 version has a tripod collar, I figure I should consider choosing the 67 version to test out. I've always believed that (generally) it is easier to build a high performing lens to a smaller format than to a larger format, but maybe that isn't the case with these Pentax 67 and 645 lenses. Maybe they are both equal, or possibly, the 67 version is a little better in some way. I am wondering if anyone has done a comparison of the two 300mm lenses (the * lenses for both) on a digital sensor and can speak to the superiority of one vs. the other? I guess in the 645, there is the A* version and the FA* version. If I'm only shooting in MF, I'd probably prefer the feel of the older A* version. In the 67, there is only one.

Similarly, for the 400mm, there is an f5.6 ED version for the 645, and an f4 ED version in the 67. Now, there is a huge difference in weight there, so these aren't nearly as easily compares as the two 300's. But if there has been any comparison of them, I'd appreciate some comments.

Thanks,


---Michael

[desertscape]

All of the EDIF lenses from Pentax for their medium format cameras are excellent. I own the 67 300 ED and have no complaints. A sharp lens and never see any chromatic aberrations, even wide open. Avoid the older 6x7 300mm that used conventional glass.

The 400 EDIF is somewhat legendary in performance but the older 400 Takumar does surprising well, in that it is very sharp and shows very little change in color focus by lens zone (spherochromatism). It is an outer bay lens though and to use it, one must have an adapter that accepts these lenses.

Your decision could easily be based more on the cost and size difference between the 645 and 67 ED lenses than the minimal differences in performance.

[mjm6]

OK, thanks...

I'm going to look at the 400 first, and consider the two and see what it takes to use one or the other.

---Michael

[Ed Hurst]

I have got both the 67 300mm EDIF and the 67 400mm EDIF and both are superlative lenses when used on the 645Z (I have also had brilliant experience using the 300mm EDIF on the 645D and a Nikon D800E). No issue whatever with their performance on a smaller than 6x7 sensor.

In terms of comparisons with the 645 alternatives, it is close, but IMO the 67 EDIF lenses edge it.

By the way, I would say that the 67 300 EDIF is slightly better than the 67 400 EDIF, but not by enough to use the former when the longer FL is needed.

[mjm6]

I have got both the 67 300mm EDIF and the 67 400mm EDIF and both are superlative lenses when used on the 645Z (I have also had brilliant experience using the 300mm EDIF on the 645D and a Nikon D800E). No issue whatever with their performance on a smaller than 6x7 sensor.

In terms of comparisons with the 645 alternatives, it is close, but IMO the 67 EDIF lenses edge it.

By the way, I would say that the 67 300 EDIF is slightly better than the 67 400 EDIF, but not by enough to use the former when the longer FL is needed.

Thanks Ed...

I've thought about a few of the 35mm lenses in the 300mm focal length as well, like the Canon 300 f4 L and the Nikon that you mention. I know the Canon 300 f2.8 will cover the 33x44 sensor, so I suspect most 300's will cover as long as there isn't a substantial baffle in the lens to cut the IC down.

Those lenses come in at about the same price as the Pentax 645 300 ED, so they are good options as well as long as they don't suffer in the corners.

I also have a Mamiya 645 300mm f5.6 here that was too cheap to ignore trying out. It's really small and since I have a Mamiya adapter for the GFX anyway for a few other lenses, I felt it was worth trying.


---Michael

[672]

I kept the 400edif f4 (67) lens AND the lighter 400mm f5.6 lens (645). I resold the 300edif f4 (645) and the 800mm f6.7 (67) after testing. The 400mm EDIF (67) works great with a 1.4 extender when needed. The 400mm f5.6 (645) is super lightweight and has a more pleasing telephoto effect than the 300mm range on a a 44x33 chip, for me.

I adapted a canon FD 600mm fit the 645D and Z , but the glass is pretty old and suffers from purple fringing on digital. Better look from stacking two 1.4 extenders on the 400mm (67).

[Singemonkey]

I can confirm that the 400edif is as superb as people say. But just bear in mind that it's one beast of a lens. You won't be hand-holding it, let's just say. If you do get one I'd love to see images with it taken on the big fujifilm sensor.

[Ed Hurst]

Under very favourable conditions, it is just possible to handhold, but it's not to be advised!

Here is an example of a shot (645Z with 6x7 400mm EDIF lens handheld):
[IMG][/IMG]

[Singemonkey]

That's stunning. Do you have a link to more with this combo maybe?

[mjm6]

I have a Canon fd 500 f4.5 here that I’ve been using with the Sony but I was thinking that it wouldn’t cover...

I’ll hold off on buying until I can test the 500 on the GFX. I was planning to sell it and move to something different.

[jbondo]

Another nod to the 400edif f4 (67). Outstanding, though hefty. Can only handhold for about 10 minutes at a time.

[mikeSF]

Under very favourable conditions, it is just possible to handhold, but it's not to be advised!

Here is an example of a shot (645Z with 6x7 400mm EDIF lens handheld):
[/url][/IMG]

Ed, you just won the thread. Bravo mate!!

[Ed Hurst]

Thanks, Mike! Appreciate the feedback (praise indeed, coming from you!). But I was only trying to show that it's possible to hand hold the lens...

---------- Post added 11-12-18 at 06:48 PM ----------

That's stunning. Do you have a link to more with this combo maybe?

Thanks! Here is another, but it's not handheld...

[IMG][/IMG]

---------- Post added 11-12-18 at 06:49 PM ----------

And one more:

[IMG][/IMG]

[Singemonkey]

Spectacular. Checked them out on flickr and the detail is amazing.

[Ed Hurst]

Spectacular. Checked them out on flickr and the detail is amazing.

Thanks - and remember, these are still compressed. I haven't uploaded the full resolution versions to Flickr... They are even more mind-blowing in detail.