[barondla]

(this list excludes adapted 67 lenses)

No, it doesn't. Any lens that fits 645 natively or by adapter counts

Thanks,

barondla

[Sandy Hancock]

There's little my DFA645 25/4.0 can do that my DFA15-30 can't do on the K-1. And the latter can do much more.
Apart from AF, I reckon my K 28/2.8 and A 28/2.0 can probably match my DFA645 35/3.5
DFA645 55/2.8 vs FA 43/1.9? Not much in it. Except silent AF and weather sealing.
My FA645 75/2.8 is no match for the DFA* 50/1.4, or even the DA* 55/1.4 for that matter.
My DFA* 85/1.4 trounces all my 645 portrait lenses. By a mile.

That said, none of the FF lenses will work on the amazing 645Z, so it's all moot.

I wasn't ready for this answer, but I reckon my FA645 120/4.0 macro and FA*645 300/4.0 might be the ones which have no FF rival. They are truly magnificent.

And my Schneider-Kreuznach Cinelux-Ultra 125/2.0 is pretty special. But also *very* niche.

[Jonathan Mac]

I have three lenses for my original 645 - 75mm, 55mm and 150mm. I bought the 150mm mainly for portraits but I've probably not shot more than half a roll on it.

The 75mm is my favourite but the 55mm is also excellent.

[RICHARD L.]

I gave some more thought to this topic and, all things considered (I am an NPR listener), I could manage without any 645 lenses, except for the 645 FA 33-55 mm f/4.5. I have thirteen 67 lenses from 45 mm f/4 to 500 mm f/5.6 plus the 2 zooms and all these big lenses could cover 90 % of my needs. MAJOR LEAGUES OPTICS !

67 M 45 mm f/4

67 M 100 mm f/4

67 M 75 mm f/2.8

67 M 90-180 mm f/5.6

67 M 500 mm f/5.6

67 M 200 mm f/4

67 M 55-100 mm f/4.5



67 M* 300 mm f/4

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 12-30-2020 at 04:15 AM.

[w2ck]

Hi,

Nice! Does this mean I need to open a Home for Orphan P645 lenses?

Actually, this brings up a question: Am I better off going for a 645 35mm or the 33-55mm zoom? Speaking of the quality of the image produced. My own lens kit ends at 45mm at this point, so time for me to extend that a bit.

Stan

[RICHARD L.]

Hello Stan and Happy New Year to you,

I think you can't go wrong with a good copy of the 645 FA 33-55 mm f/4.5. I posted a review in the "Lens Reviews" section including 25 images taken with this 645 zoom. It is my widest lens and shows tremendous IQ between f/11 and f/22. As you know, I take my time when shooting, I almost always use a tripod and I focus carefully. The 33-55 mm should perform wonderfully in these conditions. I paid my copy 400 US$ on eBay from Japan last Spring and, although prices have jumped up a little, you can find a pristine copy for between 500 and 600 US$. Personally I wouldn't let it go for the World. Maybe the new DFA 28-45 zoom is a bit better but I can't in my right mind afford a 4000 US$ lens.

Regards

[w2ck]

Hi,

Pretty convincing shots there. Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to eBay I go!

Stan

[oneill]

Hi,

I only have two native 645 lenses because i think they are the "best-of-bunch". The FA35 and the A/FA120. But like Ed Hurst I pack around another ten 67 lenses, and there are some fabulous ones! but the FA35 and A120 still float close to the top even in that company.

Murray

[RICHARD L.]

Yesterday I went picture hunting with only my 67 M 75 mm f/2.8 AL lens.



I came back with this image. The 75 mm is an awesome lens in itself but, Gawd did I miss my little 645 FA 33-55 mm f/4.5 ...

[w2ck]

Hi,

Dang it all! I am feeling a bit left out here. I only have two 67 lenses. One I don't use, the 135 macro, after I got the A 120. The other is the soft focus, so rather a specialized use lens.



Stan

[PhilRich]

Hi,

Nice! Does this mean I need to open a Home for Orphan P645 lenses?

Actually, this brings up a question: Am I better off going for a 645 35mm or the 33-55mm zoom? Speaking of the quality of the image produced. My own lens kit ends at 45mm at this point, so time for me to extend that a bit.

Stan

I'm using the 645 DFA 35. It is very good (I don't have the 67 33-55). I had the 645 A 35 which produced nearly the same quality, however since I use the 645Z hand held for all sorts of situations, people shots, traveling, taking pictures out the window of a tour bus, etc., I find the autofocus indispensable. In my case, I'd like to have the 67 33-55, however it costs $500 minimum which is not a priority right now.

Phil

[w2ck]

Hi,

The 33-55 I have been looking at is the 645 FA one, so auto focus.

I haven't looked for a 67 version for that. I didn't even know there was such.

Stan

[RICHARD L.]

It's an error. In the 67 format, Pentax produced only 2 zooms, a 55-100 mm f/4.5 and a 90-180 mm f/5.6. I own both and they are tremendous optics. The 33-55 mm is a 645 FA autofocus model.



67 M 90-180 mm f/5.6 @ 180 mm FL and f/8



67 M 55-100 mm f/4.5 @ 55 mm FL and f/11

[w2ck]

Hi,

I am getting the feeling here I should change the 645 FA 45-85 and 80-160 for the 67 55-100 and 90-180....

That way, the 645 33-55 won't have so much overlap with the intermediate zoom.

Stan

[RICHARD L.]

These 67 zooms are heavy and may be quite expensive plus you need the '67 to 645' adapter. Have a glimpse at the "Lens Reviews" section, "67 zooms".

Regards