[Jim P]

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.

I love the 645 to FF lens comparisons. I’ve been curious about this when I am looking at whether to get a K-1 lens or a 645 lens. I’ll have to solicit opinions here when I am ready to buy the next lens.

My two favorites are the FA645 120/4.0 macro and D FA 645 55/2.8.

[bull drinkwater]

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

why use 67 lenses when there are excellent 645 lenses?

[RICHARD L.]

Pentax 67 and 645 lenses are equally sharp for the most part at middle apertures. 67's have "deeper contrast" and produce more bluish (colder) but very true-to-life colors. They are heavier, manual-focus only but provide automatic exposure in Av mode with the Pentax adapter on the 645Z. Some awesome 67 lenses sell for peanuts on eBay (ex. late 55 mm f/4 and 500 mm f/5.6 for 300 US$ each or late 200 mm f/4 for 100 US$). Some others go for insane prices (ex. used late 105 mm f/2.4 for 800 US$++ or 75 mm f/2.8 AL for 2000 US$++).

Regards

[Abbazz]

A few days ago, I compared the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8, the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4 (last version) and the SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5 zoom at 55mm. I shot pictures of a distant cityscape at f/5.6, f/8 and f/11.

At f/5.6, the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4 is tack sharp over the whole frame: it is the clear winner in the center of the frame and is much sharper in the edges and corners than the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8. The SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5 sits between the other two in terms of resolution but has more lateral CA.

Even at F/8 and F/11, the ranking remains the same between the three lenses, with the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4 offering the best image quality, the SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5 coming second and the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 trailing the other two.

I don't mean the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 is a bad lens. In fact the differences in image quality are not so significant and the 645 lens is indeed lighter and more convenient to use, offering autofocus and weathersealing. But I seee the point in carrying the bulkier 67 lenses when in search of the ultimate image quality.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[RICHARD L.]

But I seee the point in carrying the bulkier 67 lenses when in search of the ultimate image quality.

Indeed, the 67 M 55 mm f/4 was the best lens ever made for Pentax medium-format photography. Only the newer 75 mm f/2.8 AL came close.

Regards

[iDon]

DFA 55 and FA 150 are my favorites.

The DFA 55 shines in any situation and never dissapoints me.

But if I'm honest, I have to admit that I use the FA 80-160 more often than the FA 150 for portrait work as it is more versatile with a nice zoom range for portraits

[texandrews]

A few days ago, I compared the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8, the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4 (last version) and the SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5 zoom at 55mm. I shot pictures of a distant cityscape at f/5.6, f/8 and f/11.

At f/5.6, the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4 is tack sharp over the whole frame: it is the clear winner in the center of the frame and is much sharper in the edges and corners than the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8. The SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5 sits between the other two in terms of resolution but has more lateral CA.

Even at F/8 and F/11, the ranking remains the same between the three lenses, with the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4 offering the best image quality, the SMC Pentax 67 55-100mm F/4.5 coming second and the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 trailing the other two.

I don't mean the SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 is a bad lens. In fact the differences in image quality are not so significant and the 645 lens is indeed lighter and more convenient to use, offering autofocus and weathersealing. But I seee the point in carrying the bulkier 67 lenses when in search of the ultimate image quality.

Cheers!

Abbazz

I didn't find that to be the case with my copies of these lenses---maybe I had a dud 67 55, but my 645 DFA 55 is much sharper. Got rid of the 67 55. The DFA 55 is my default lens on my Z now.

[Ed Hurst]

My experience is that it depends on the focus distance. In my case, the late 67 55mm f4 wins out for fine details on distant scenes, but the 645 DFA 55mm f2.8 wins on closer subjects. The 67 55-100 is very good at all distances but not quite as good in the distance as the 67 55 and not quite as good closer up as the 645 DFA 55. All are great though!

That said, in reply to Richard's comment above about the 55 f4 being the best lens ever on the 67 system, my view is that it's outstanding and close to deserving that title - but the 75mm f2.8AL and the (admittedly very different) 300mm f4 EDIF beat it, albeit narrowly.

[texandrews]

My experience is that it depends on the focus distance. In my case, the late 67 55mm f4 wins out for fine details on distant scenes, but the 645 DFA 55mm f2.8 wins on closer subjects. The 67 55-100 is very good at all distances but not quite as good in the distance as the 67 55 and not quite as good closer up as the 645 DFA 55. All are great though!

That said, in reply to Richard's comment above about the 55 f4 being the best lens ever on the 67 system, my view is that it's outstanding and close to deserving that title - but the 75mm f2.8AL and the (admittedly very different) 300mm f4 EDIF beat it, albeit narrowly.

Thank you Ed! That makes a lot of sense Ed. All of my work with the DFA 55 and the 67 55 is at closer to middle distances, so that might account for my experiences. And I guess I'll have to give my 75 more work. The lens that surprised me, besides the DFA 55, was the 135 LS.

[Ed Hurst]

Pleasure! I can't talk to the 135 LS. It's one of the few lenses I haven't ever tried ;-)

[RICHARD L.]

As Ronald Reagan said : "Well ... (long silence) ..." lol !

I particularly liked my 67 55 mm f/4 on my Pentax 67 (from 1991) and then on my 67 II (from 2002) for 20 years of endearing silver-based photography. I bought the 55 mm new in 1991 and the 75 mm only in 2002. Comparing both, I'd say the 55 mm was remarquable at all apertures while the 75 mm was excellent starting from f/5.6 only (f/2.8 was surprisingly disappointing).

As I said in a prior post : 55 mm f/4 on the 67 II, vertical orientation on the tripod, f/16, careful focusing, composition including a foreground anchor : excellent results on Ektar 25 and later on Ektar 100.

I hope this 55 mm WA lens performs as brilliantly on the 645Z as it did on the 67 II.

Regards


P.S. I admit the 75 mm f/2.8 AL and the M* 300 mm f/4 are tremendous optics in their own right. I have already tried them on the 645Z and I couldn't be more satisfied of their performance.

75 mm f/2.8 AL
M* 300 mm f/4