Wish Pentax would build an ultra wide 645 lens without SR.

**barondla** · 12-21-2020, 09:30 AM

The 28-45 isn't very appealing to me. It's heavy, big, mechanically complex, expensive, and a crop lens. Nor am I a fan of in lens stabilization. It will need servicing one day, and goes against the "glass is forever " theory. An ultra wide is the last lens I'd want, or need, SR in. Landscapers need an ultra wide for the tripod.

I consider the crop 28-45 a risky purchase. There's about a 50% chance the next Z will be FF. That would render this expensive lens less useful. I realize the 28-45 is a great optical design and performs superbly.

Thanks,
barondla

texandrews · 12-21-2020, 02:33 PM - **1 Like**

I too, wish that Pentax would revive the 25, or even make a 23. I don't feel like the 28-45 is really a risky purchase, though. I got mine a bit over a year ago from a forum member at a great price, so I'd say the risk is maybe in proportion to the price. You should try to find a 25...they're out there, just very scarce. I would check every day or so for months, and then I snagged one---again for a great price (story behind that...).

And I'm not sure that you are right about 50% chance of the next 645 being FF. While it's clear that Pentax is well positioned with its lenses to make the move to FF, which Fuji is not, I'd say the chance is less than 40%. As a professional user, it would be nice to have a FF Pentax 645, but I might be better served in reality in that work with another crop frame that has PS, composition adjust, SR, etc. So, I won't be one of the folks whingeing on about no FF 645. I'm just interested in the output, really.

**Ed Hurst** · 12-21-2020, 03:30 PM - **2 Likes**

I would absolutely love a 21mm f2.4 lens, without SR. Heck, I wouldn't even care if it were manual focus. Keep it as simple as possible and concentrate on making it super-wide, fast and of superb quality even wide open! I realise I am dreaming, but since we're writing a wish list...

dlhawes · 12-22-2020, 07:33 AM

Get yourself a Canon 5ds-r; it's a medium format camera in a full-frame dslr body. Great ultrawide lenses available e.g., Canon EF 11-24 f/4.0 L USM & Irix 11mm and 15mm.

**SteveinSLC** · 12-24-2020, 12:51 PM

The 5dsr is a nice camera and certainly would give you more lens choice. But for landscape photos with a lot of dynamic range and shadows, the 645z sensor crushes it. For that matter, the K-1, A7R4 or D850 would be better...the Sony sensors are just better on that front than the older Canon ones.

As far as an ultra wide lens for the 645z, I'm certainly not unhappy with my 28-45. It's a very good lens. Would I rather have had a slightly smaller 20-25 prime that was not IS, and was WR/AW? Yes, probably, I even would have been fine with MF, since that's mostly what I use for landscape anyway. I probably would have preferred to get one of the 25s, but they were just too rare and expensive for me to justify.
I'm not too concerned about the fact that the 28-45 is only for the smaller MF sensor. The 645Z is plenty of camera for my needs. If Pentax ever went to the larger size sensor(which I'm not sure is too likely) the camera would probably be too expensive for me to justify anyway.

bull drinkwater · 01-05-2021, 10:22 AM

when i bought my 645D, i hadn't read anything about it having a smaller area than the film version. the only problem i have is with wide angle shots, but i've learned to live with that.

SFTphotography · 01-07-2021, 04:06 AM - **1 Like**

The 28-45 gives a 22mm-36mm 35mm field of view equivalent. It is just about wide enough on it to work for the bulk of landscapes I would take.

Bear in mind the 4:3 aspect ratio (I find this more pleasing and I cropped a lot of my 35mm files this way) would mean a wider lens would never quite have the same width due to the aspect ratio.

Solutions. One stitch. Two - shoot with the older 25mm prime, or if you are wedded to MF buy a Fuji GFXs 50 just for the 23mm prime which seems a bizarrely expensive way.

I'd be wary about the Nikon D850 14-24 solution. That lens is stupidly soft and smeary in the sides in a way a 28-45 just is not. The Nikon 20mm 1.8 was a lot better. A workshop client had a 16-35 on a Canon and it was stupid blurry in the corners but sharp in the middle. Horrid thing.

Also if you do use grad filters you have to buy the hideously expensive filter holders/adaptors to go on it.

Just work with the 28-45 - it is amazing.

texandrews · 01-07-2021, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by SFTphotography

The 28-45 gives a 22mm-36mm 35mm field of view equivalent. It is just about wide enough on it to work for the bulk of landscapes I would take.

Bear in mind the 4:3 aspect ratio (I find this more pleasing and I cropped a lot of my 35mm files this way) would mean a wider lens would never quite have the same width due to the aspect ratio.

Solutions. One stitch. Two - shoot with the older 25mm prime, or if you are wedded to MF buy a Fuji GFXs 50 just for the 23mm prime which seems a bizarrely expensive way.

I'd be wary about the Nikon D850 14-24 solution. That lens is stupidly soft and smeary in the sides in a way a 28-45 just is not. The Nikon 20mm 1.8 was a lot better. A workshop client had a 16-35 on a Canon and it was stupid blurry in the corners but sharp in the middle. Horrid thing.

Also if you do use grad filters you have to buy the hideously expensive filter holders/adaptors to go on it.

Just work with the 28-45 - it is amazing.

Interesting to hear! Especially about the Canon and Nikon options.

I'm (unbelievably!) lucky to have the 28-45 and the 25. I'd go with the 28-45 over the 25 when I can, because the stretching distortion is so much greater in the 25.

SFTphotography · 01-07-2021, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by texandrews

Interesting to hear! Especially about the Canon and Nikon options.

I'm (unbelievably!) lucky to have the 28-45 and the 25. I'd go with the 28-45 over the 25 when I can, because the stretching distortion is so much greater in the 25.

How does the 25 measure up - stopped down and in the corners sharpness wise compared to the zoom. I might try track a second hand one down if it's good enough as something giving a 19mm field equivalent field of view could have a place in my bag.

---------- Post added 01-07-21 at 09:29 AM ----------

Originally posted by SteveinSLC

. If Pentax ever went to the larger size sensor(which I'm not sure is too likely) the camera would probably be too expensive for me to justify anyway.

That will never happen. The full size MF sensor is for Phase and Hassleblad only - and it's price point is consumerate with these systems. A 645z II probably will come years down the line...in the form of the Sensor seen in the Fuji 100mp MF system. Throw in the AF system from the FF 36mp job and voila you have the camera and it will retail around £10000 - similar to the Fuji. Years later you'll get it for under £5000 new. It wouldn't cost pentax a huge amount to make and gives them a flagship camera.

---------- Post added 01-07-21 at 09:31 AM ----------

They might even get round to redesigning the 45-85 and 80-160 zooms with more modern optics to cope.

texandrews · 01-07-2021, 09:43 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by SFTphotography

How does the 25 measure up - stopped down and in the corners sharpness wise compared to the zoom. I might try track a second hand one down if it's good enough as something giving a 19mm field equivalent field of view could have a place in my bag.

I think its fine, as do others, but that is strongly colored by my general attitude about UWA's. I personally find the sharpness in the corners thing a bit odd when talking about UWA lenses---the stretching at the edges/corners is so pronounced on any of these lenses that being fussed about critical sharpness in those areas seems a curious concern.

SFTphotography · 01-07-2021, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by texandrews

I think its fine, as do others, but that is strongly colored by my general attitude about UWA's. I personally find the sharpness in the corners thing a bit odd when talking about UWA lenses---the stretching at the edges/corners is so pronounced on any of these lenses that being fussed about critical sharpness in those areas seems a curious concern.

Not when you have to sell the image full res to fussy designers. It matters. Centre to edge sharpness in landscapes/architectural is as important as front to back.

texandrews · 01-07-2021, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by SFTphotography

Not when you have to sell the image full res to fussy designers. It matters. Centre to edge sharpness in landscapes/architectural is as important as front to back.

I agree, in some ways, as I shoot for museums. But I'd also say that this has much to do with fussy designers. And I still say that the inherent distortion of the stretch is the biggest problem. If I absolutely needed critical sharpness across the entire plane, I'd be strongly considering stitching less wide FL captures. Generally what we do for extra critical work. Understood that this is sometimes not possible.

But if you are selling, then I highly recommend renting a 25 to see for yourself. It would be a business expense, after all.

12-21-2020, 09:30 AM	#1
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	Wish Pentax would build an ultra wide 645 lens without SR. The 28-45 isn't very appealing to me. It's heavy, big, mechanically complex, expensive, and a crop lens. Nor am I a fan of in lens stabilization. It will need servicing one day, and goes against the "glass is forever " theory. An ultra wide is the last lens I'd want, or need, SR in. Landscapers need an ultra wide for the tripod. I consider the crop 28-45 a risky purchase. There's about a 50% chance the next Z will be FF. That would render this expensive lens less useful. I realize the 28-45 is a great optical design and performs superbly. Thanks, barondla

12-21-2020, 02:33 PM - 1 Like	#2
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,394	I too, wish that Pentax would revive the 25, or even make a 23. I don't feel like the 28-45 is really a risky purchase, though. I got mine a bit over a year ago from a forum member at a great price, so I'd say the risk is maybe in proportion to the price. You should try to find a 25...they're out there, just very scarce. I would check every day or so for months, and then I snagged one---again for a great price (story behind that...). And I'm not sure that you are right about 50% chance of the next 645 being FF. While it's clear that Pentax is well positioned with its lenses to make the move to FF, which Fuji is not, I'd say the chance is less than 40%. As a professional user, it would be nice to have a FF Pentax 645, but I might be better served in reality in that work with another crop frame that has PS, composition adjust, SR, etc. So, I won't be one of the folks whingeing on about no FF 645. I'm just interested in the output, really. Last edited by texandrews; 12-21-2020 at 04:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Does Pentax SR result in more image noise than DSLRs without in-body SR?	Lew Dite	Pentax DSLR Discussion	49	05-21-2018 06:58 PM
New 645 Ultra Wide Zoom Lens	2351HD	Pentax Medium Format	7	07-01-2014 04:02 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Wide / Ultra Wide angle lens for my K-5	GWARmachine	Sold Items	3	03-23-2013 12:03 AM
Would some one build a Pentax A110 lens to Q adapter.	barondla	Pentax Q	38	12-17-2011 04:30 PM

12-21-2020, 03:30 PM - 2 Likes	#3
Ed Hurst Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,657	I would absolutely love a 21mm f2.4 lens, without SR. Heck, I wouldn't even care if it were manual focus. Keep it as simple as possible and concentrate on making it super-wide, fast and of superb quality even wide open! I realise I am dreaming, but since we're writing a wish list...

12-22-2020, 07:33 AM	#4
dlhawes Guest	Get yourself a Canon 5ds-r; it's a medium format camera in a full-frame dslr body. Great ultrawide lenses available e.g., Canon EF 11-24 f/4.0 L USM & Irix 11mm and 15mm.

12-24-2020, 12:51 PM	#5
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	The 5dsr is a nice camera and certainly would give you more lens choice. But for landscape photos with a lot of dynamic range and shadows, the 645z sensor crushes it. For that matter, the K-1, A7R4 or D850 would be better...the Sony sensors are just better on that front than the older Canon ones. As far as an ultra wide lens for the 645z, I'm certainly not unhappy with my 28-45. It's a very good lens. Would I rather have had a slightly smaller 20-25 prime that was not IS, and was WR/AW? Yes, probably, I even would have been fine with MF, since that's mostly what I use for landscape anyway. I probably would have preferred to get one of the 25s, but they were just too rare and expensive for me to justify. I'm not too concerned about the fact that the 28-45 is only for the smaller MF sensor. The 645Z is plenty of camera for my needs. If Pentax ever went to the larger size sensor(which I'm not sure is too likely) the camera would probably be too expensive for me to justify anyway.

01-05-2021, 10:22 AM	#6
bull drinkwater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: pontiac mi. Posts: 392	when i bought my 645D, i hadn't read anything about it having a smaller area than the film version. the only problem i have is with wide angle shots, but i've learned to live with that.

01-07-2021, 04:06 AM - 1 Like	#7
SFTphotography Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Location: Scotland Posts: 291	The 28-45 gives a 22mm-36mm 35mm field of view equivalent. It is just about wide enough on it to work for the bulk of landscapes I would take. Bear in mind the 4:3 aspect ratio (I find this more pleasing and I cropped a lot of my 35mm files this way) would mean a wider lens would never quite have the same width due to the aspect ratio. Solutions. One stitch. Two - shoot with the older 25mm prime, or if you are wedded to MF buy a Fuji GFXs 50 just for the 23mm prime which seems a bizarrely expensive way. I'd be wary about the Nikon D850 14-24 solution. That lens is stupidly soft and smeary in the sides in a way a 28-45 just is not. The Nikon 20mm 1.8 was a lot better. A workshop client had a 16-35 on a Canon and it was stupid blurry in the corners but sharp in the middle. Horrid thing. Also if you do use grad filters you have to buy the hideously expensive filter holders/adaptors to go on it. Just work with the 28-45 - it is amazing.

01-07-2021, 09:16 AM	#8
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,394	Originally posted by SFTphotography The 28-45 gives a 22mm-36mm 35mm field of view equivalent. It is just about wide enough on it to work for the bulk of landscapes I would take. Bear in mind the 4:3 aspect ratio (I find this more pleasing and I cropped a lot of my 35mm files this way) would mean a wider lens would never quite have the same width due to the aspect ratio. Solutions. One stitch. Two - shoot with the older 25mm prime, or if you are wedded to MF buy a Fuji GFXs 50 just for the 23mm prime which seems a bizarrely expensive way. I'd be wary about the Nikon D850 14-24 solution. That lens is stupidly soft and smeary in the sides in a way a 28-45 just is not. The Nikon 20mm 1.8 was a lot better. A workshop client had a 16-35 on a Canon and it was stupid blurry in the corners but sharp in the middle. Horrid thing. Also if you do use grad filters you have to buy the hideously expensive filter holders/adaptors to go on it. Just work with the 28-45 - it is amazing. Interesting to hear! Especially about the Canon and Nikon options. I'm (unbelievably!) lucky to have the 28-45 and the 25. I'd go with the 28-45 over the 25 when I can, because the stretching distortion is so much greater in the 25.

01-07-2021, 09:25 AM	#9
SFTphotography Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Location: Scotland Posts: 291	Originally posted by texandrews Interesting to hear! Especially about the Canon and Nikon options. I'm (unbelievably!) lucky to have the 28-45 and the 25. I'd go with the 28-45 over the 25 when I can, because the stretching distortion is so much greater in the 25. How does the 25 measure up - stopped down and in the corners sharpness wise compared to the zoom. I might try track a second hand one down if it's good enough as something giving a 19mm field equivalent field of view could have a place in my bag. ---------- Post added 01-07-21 at 09:29 AM ---------- Originally posted by SteveinSLC . If Pentax ever went to the larger size sensor(which I'm not sure is too likely) the camera would probably be too expensive for me to justify anyway. That will never happen. The full size MF sensor is for Phase and Hassleblad only - and it's price point is consumerate with these systems. A 645z II probably will come years down the line...in the form of the Sensor seen in the Fuji 100mp MF system. Throw in the AF system from the FF 36mp job and voila you have the camera and it will retail around £10000 - similar to the Fuji. Years later you'll get it for under £5000 new. It wouldn't cost pentax a huge amount to make and gives them a flagship camera. ---------- Post added 01-07-21 at 09:31 AM ---------- They might even get round to redesigning the 45-85 and 80-160 zooms with more modern optics to cope.

01-07-2021, 09:43 AM - 1 Like	#10
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,394	Originally posted by SFTphotography How does the 25 measure up - stopped down and in the corners sharpness wise compared to the zoom. I might try track a second hand one down if it's good enough as something giving a 19mm field equivalent field of view could have a place in my bag. I think its fine, as do others, but that is strongly colored by my general attitude about UWA's. I personally find the sharpness in the corners thing a bit odd when talking about UWA lenses---the stretching at the edges/corners is so pronounced on any of these lenses that being fussed about critical sharpness in those areas seems a curious concern.

01-07-2021, 09:58 AM	#11
SFTphotography Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Location: Scotland Posts: 291	Originally posted by texandrews I think its fine, as do others, but that is strongly colored by my general attitude about UWA's. I personally find the sharpness in the corners thing a bit odd when talking about UWA lenses---the stretching at the edges/corners is so pronounced on any of these lenses that being fussed about critical sharpness in those areas seems a curious concern. Not when you have to sell the image full res to fussy designers. It matters. Centre to edge sharpness in landscapes/architectural is as important as front to back.

01-07-2021, 12:18 PM	#12
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,394	Originally posted by SFTphotography Not when you have to sell the image full res to fussy designers. It matters. Centre to edge sharpness in landscapes/architectural is as important as front to back. I agree, in some ways, as I shoot for museums. But I'd also say that this has much to do with fussy designers. And I still say that the inherent distortion of the stretch is the biggest problem. If I absolutely needed critical sharpness across the entire plane, I'd be strongly considering stitching less wide FL captures. Generally what we do for extra critical work. Understood that this is sometimes not possible. But if you are selling, then I highly recommend renting a 25 to see for yourself. It would be a business expense, after all.