[Kristian Wolfe]

So, per the many recommendations here, I've decided to start off with the FA 45-85mm f/4.5 as well as the FA 80-160mm f/4.5 just to start out with. I realized that with the manual primes (which I'd absolutely LOVE to use), I'd need to also install one of the split image or microprism screens, both of which which cost quite a lot. Nonetheless, I stil would eventually like to get the 55mm-A and the 75mm-A primes, both of which would be perfect for my type of photography.

Does anyone know if I can use a 3rd party split screen (Maxwell Screen), microprism, or something else? I'd love to purchase an original Pentax split screen, but the asking price is just way too high.

Also, any bag/carrying recommendations would be great!

[TDvN57]

So, per the many recommendations here, I've decided to start off with the FA 45-85mm f/4.5 as well as the FA 80-160mm f/4.5 just to start out with. I realized that with the manual primes (which I'd absolutely LOVE to use), I'd need to also install one of the split image or microprism screens, both of which which cost quite a lot. Nonetheless, I stil would eventually like to get the 55mm-A and the 75mm-A primes, both of which would be perfect for my type of photography.

Does anyone know if I can use a 3rd party split screen (Maxwell Screen), microprism, or something else? I'd love to purchase an original Pentax split screen, but the asking price is just way too high.

Also, any bag/carrying recommendations would be great!

You can try focusingscreen.com or eBay. I currently use one from the 645n or n2 not sure. You just have to 'shave' off the little nib from the older focusing screen to be able to fit into the 645z. The size is the same and it works seamlessly.

For a carry bag I have a whole room full of bags and the one I like the most is an old Lowepro TLZ2 bag. It can fit one lens on the camera and another lens in the front pocket.

The specs of the bag is still on B&H of you want to get an idea of the size/dimensions.

If I want the camera ready for a picture I have a shoulder strap that mounts on the camera tripod mount screw. I fix that to the portrait side of the camera which let the camera hang at my side without swinging around.

Other bags I've used successfully when I needed it to be inconspicuous, was a plastic shopping bag with the camera wrapped in a micro cloth towel and fabric shopping bag.

Hope that helps and congrats with your purchase.

[Eric Auer]

I use A primes without a split screen.

Pentax has used the green "dot" on lots of AF cameras including digital, works fine.

[RICHARD L.]

I stil would eventually like to get the 55mm-A and the 75mm-A primes

You should get a newer DFA 55 mm f/2.8 AL instead of the older A 55 mm f/2.8. The A lens is far from being bad but the new DFA is superior in resolution and color rendition, plus it has Auto-focus.

DFA 55 mm f/2.8 AL

A 55 mm f/2.8

[TDvN57]

I use A primes without a split screen.

Pentax has used the green "dot" on lots of AF cameras including digital, works fine.

True, the focus light projected onto the focusing screen indicating where the focus point is will work with manual and autofocus lenses.

I use any of three methods to get focus in manual mode: the focus light, the split screen or the general area of the focusing screen.

I find that a focusing screen made for manual focus is also easier to see if something is in focus.

The stock focusing screen is designed to allow for maximum light and clear visibility.

[rdenney]

You've already decided on the first two, and you've already discovered that asking for advice on a couple of lenses to buy will return a list of at least a dozen. So, forget all those other guys and listen to me. (That was a joke; you can laugh.)

I agree that the one great walk-around lens for the 645 film cameras is the 45-85. It was the first and only lens I used with my NII for many years, but I tended to use that camera for paid stuff (read: portraits and events) more than for my own landscape work. Even so, for the full 645 frame, 45mm is reasonably wide.

The only reason to get the 80-160 in my view is that they are really inexpensive, even in the autofocus version, and for me fall into the "why not?" category. It would not be my second lens (actually, for me, it was more like my 10th or 12th 645 lens).


If you find yourself bumping up against 45mm too often, your next lens should be the 35mm. 45 is reasonably wide on the film format and something between 24 and 28 on 35mm, but for me it was wide enough on film for group photos but not for landscapes. Yes, the A version of the 35 has a better reputation than the FA, and the DFA is better still. But do not underestimate the quality of the FA version. Just don't expect it to give you 3-foot-wide prints used at wide apertures. That lens is a dedicated landscape lens for me, and should be reserved for tripod use at f/11. You'll need at least f/11 to get adequate depth of field anyway. 35mm is gratifyingly wide on the full 645 format (sorta like a 21 on 35mm)--I doubt I'd get better images with wider lenses, which I love to use but find the rectilinear "distortion" usually goes too far. But if you find that 45 is wide enough for your needs, skip anything wider until later.


After that, then I would consider a longer lens. There are two choices of note here. The first is the 120mm macro lens, which is simply superb. But don't discount the 200/4 FA lens, which is still not too long even for portraits on the full 645 frame (something like a 105 on 35mm). F/4 is fast enough at 200mm to use as a hand-held portrait lens, and for portraits the lens softens up just enough to favor the subject. But by f/8 or f/11--which you'll need anyway to get sufficient depth of field for most landscape subjects--it's critically sharp in my testing and experience. But the main advantage to the 200 is that it is tiny. It's a lens I'll throw into my daypack for a day-long hike without further consideration, even if I don't anticipate needing it. The 80-160 is a beast by comparison (though still not that beastly compared to, say, the 28-45 for the 645z). Get the autofocus version--the optics are newer and you don't pay enough of a price penalty not to.


But the advantage to the 120 is macro. it's a little short for a landscape telephoto--about like a 70 in the 35mm format. But the A version focuses at macro down to 1:1 without any additional doo-dads, and that is a big deal. And it is critically sharp when stopped down to an aperture that will provide sufficient depth of field. Like the 200, it's faster than the 80-160 and will do double-duty as a portrait lens, but if you are into gentle, smooth out-of-focus backgrounds with wide-aperture portraits, you'll need to be careful about what's in the background when you use the macro.

I'd rather have both the 120 and the 200 than the 80-160. All three are in the really affordable category.

Save your money for a good tripod, which will bring you far more improvement than the difference in any of the lens choices from Pentax. None of the 645 lenses are bad enough to really need improving when used properly, but all of them suck if the camera moves while the shutter is open, and it always will if you don't use a tripod. I spent more on my tripod (bought used) than probably what the camera and any two of the lenses you are considering might cost. I own about 10 tripods, all intended for professional use, and my carbon-fiber Gitzo blows them all away for lightness, rigidity, and smooth operation for cameras in this size class, even using a 400mm lens. Add a good ball-head (I use an Arca B1) and you'll never need anything better. That's expensive but a truly worthy investment. But even an old Star-D tripod, which my local camera store sells used for way under $50 in usable condition, will improve your images more than the differences in any of the Pentax 645 lenses.


If you had just gotten a digital 645, I'd recommend the 55 DFA, which is the (superb) normal lens for the digital format, just so you'd have something weatherproof to go along with the weatherproof camera. But the film 645's are not weather-resistant, so that is not a consideration.

Rick "an NII with a 45-85 is self-contained excellence, but a 200 in your jacket pocket will add a lot of flexibility" Denney

[RICHARD L.]

forget all those other guys

I'm one of these "other guys" ... SIGH !

For real, the FA 120 mm Macro and the FA 200 mm f/4 are swell lenses. The 120 can be used successfully for landscapes and the 200 is a "yet undiscovered" treasure. Here are a few images :

FA 200 mm f/4

FA 120 mm f/4

FA 120 mm f/4

FA 200 mm f/4

Both are light, extremely sharp and very well made. I would never part with any of these two.

[Eric Auer]

You've already decided on the first two, and you've already discovered that asking for advice on a couple of lenses to buy will return a list of at least a dozen. So, forget all those other guys and listen to me. (That was a joke; you can laugh.)

I agree that the one great walk-around lens for the 645 film cameras is the 45-85. It was the first and only lens I used with my NII for many years, but I tended to use that camera for paid stuff (read: portraits and events) more than for my own landscape work. Even so, for the full 645 frame, 45mm is reasonably wide.

The only reason to get the 80-160 in my view is that they are really inexpensive, even in the autofocus version, and for me fall into the "why not?" category. It would not be my second lens (actually, for me, it was more like my 10th or 12th 645 lens).


If you find yourself bumping up against 45mm too often, your next lens should be the 35mm. 45 is reasonably wide on the film format and something between 24 and 28 on 35mm, but for me it was wide enough on film for group photos but not for landscapes. Yes, the A version of the 35 has a better reputation than the FA, and the DFA is better still. But do not underestimate the quality of the FA version. Just don't expect it to give you 3-foot-wide prints used at wide apertures. That lens is a dedicated landscape lens for me, and should be reserved for tripod use at f/11. You'll need at least f/11 to get adequate depth of field anyway. 35mm is gratifyingly wide on the full 645 format (sorta like a 21 on 35mm)--I doubt I'd get better images with wider lenses, which I love to use but find the rectilinear "distortion" usually goes too far. But if you find that 45 is wide enough for your needs, skip anything wider until later.


After that, then I would consider a longer lens. There are two choices of note here. The first is the 120mm macro lens, which is simply superb. But don't discount the 200/4 FA lens, which is still not too long even for portraits on the full 645 frame (something like a 105 on 35mm). F/4 is fast enough at 200mm to use as a hand-held portrait lens, and for portraits the lens softens up just enough to favor the subject. But by f/8 or f/11--which you'll need anyway to get sufficient depth of field for most landscape subjects--it's critically sharp in my testing and experience. But the main advantage to the 200 is that it is tiny. It's a lens I'll throw into my daypack for a day-long hike without further consideration, even if I don't anticipate needing it. The 80-160 is a beast by comparison (though still not that beastly compared to, say, the 28-45 for the 645z). Get the autofocus version--the optics are newer and you don't pay enough of a price penalty not to.


But the advantage to the 120 is macro. it's a little short for a landscape telephoto--about like a 70 in the 35mm format. But the A version focuses at macro down to 1:1 without any additional doo-dads, and that is a big deal. And it is critically sharp when stopped down to an aperture that will provide sufficient depth of field. Like the 200, it's faster than the 80-160 and will do double-duty as a portrait lens, but if you are into gentle, smooth out-of-focus backgrounds with wide-aperture portraits, you'll need to be careful about what's in the background when you use the macro.

I'd rather have both the 120 and the 200 than the 80-160. All three are in the really affordable category.

Save your money for a good tripod, which will bring you far more improvement than the difference in any of the lens choices from Pentax. None of the 645 lenses are bad enough to really need improving when used properly, but all of them suck if the camera moves while the shutter is open, and it always will if you don't use a tripod. I spent more on my tripod (bought used) than probably what the camera and any two of the lenses you are considering might cost. I own about 10 tripods, all intended for professional use, and my carbon-fiber Gitzo blows them all away for lightness, rigidity, and smooth operation for cameras in this size class, even using a 400mm lens. Add a good ball-head (I use an Arca B1) and you'll never need anything better. That's expensive but a truly worthy investment. But even an old Star-D tripod, which my local camera store sells used for way under $50 in usable condition, will improve your images more than the differences in any of the Pentax 645 lenses.


If you had just gotten a digital 645, I'd recommend the 55 DFA, which is the (superb) normal lens for the digital format, just so you'd have something weatherproof to go along with the weatherproof camera. But the film 645's are not weather-resistant, so that is not a consideration.

Rick "an NII with a 45-85 is self-contained excellence, but a 200 in your jacket pocket will add a lot of flexibility" Denney

The 80160 is great for Urban photography.

[Kristian Wolfe]

Hello all,

I should have mentioned that I also have a Pentax 67II with the following lenses (all are the latest SMC versions): 45mm f/4, 55mm f/4, 105mm f/2.4, 200mm f/4, and both 55-100mm and 90-180mm zooms (both are super heavy, but sharp).

I currently have the FA 45-85mm f/4 and FA 80-60mm f/4.5 zooms for my Pentax 645NII. Due to their weight, these lenses aren’t really ideal for street photography. I need a lighter setup.

That all said, I wanted to get your opinions on what lenses I should get next. I have two options that I wanted to run by you guys:

Option 1: I was thinking of purchasing the (645) FA 75mm f/2.8, the (645) FA 55mm f/2.8 AL, and the (645) FA 120mm f/4 Macro since they’re all pretty small, and I can easily walk around with any of these lenses on the camera. (I’m thinking about eventually getting the Fuji GFX 100s (or, better yet, the currently hypothetical 100mp Pentax 645Z Mark II), and perhaps these lenses can be adapted and work well with these newer medium format digital cameras?)

Option 2: Get the Pentax 67-to-645 lens adapter and purchase the (67) 75mm f/4 and the (67) 165mm f/4 (leaf shutter) lenses, which would fill out my Pentax 67 lens lineup (letting me replace both of the heavy 67 zoom lenses) and can be adapted for use on my 645NII, along with all the other Pentax SMC 67 lenses I have.

All considered, option 1 would be nice because all those lenses are very good, very light, have autofocus, and allow for data imprinting. Option 2 would fill out my Pentax 67 lens lineup and can be used on my 645NII, however there would be no autofocus, probably no data imprinting, and would still be somewhat heavy. I use the Pentax 67II for more serious work and the 645NII for more spontaneous/casual work.

What do you guys think I should do?

If it helps at all, I’m almost exclusively a landscape film photographer, however I’m looking for a more spontaneous way of working (hence why I purchased the Pentax 645NII in the first place). You can see my work here to give you a better idea of what my photography is about: kristianwolfe.com

Many thanks to you all for all your help and suggestions!

[Pops]

I love the 35mm FA for landscapes. It has an 82mm filter thread so filters will be expensive unless you have the Lee 100 system (which is even more expensive). I use the Hoya ND filter set and a polariser.

[Kristian Wolfe]

I love the 35mm FA for landscapes. It has an 82mm filter thread so filters will be expensive unless you have the Lee 100 system (which is even more expensive). I use the Hoya ND filter set and a polariser.

I've been seriously thinking about the 35mm FA for landscapes. Its equivalent to a 22mm lens for full frame. That said, however, is that not a little too wide, approaching fisheye territory?

Also, I've been thinking about just sticking with my FA 45-85mm f/4 and FA 80-60mm f/4.5 zooms. They are solid lenses, but I'm just not sure how they compare in sharpness to the 55mm FA, 75mm FA, and 120mm FA Macro primes. Does anyone here have any info on this?

[Pops]

To answer the second part of your original post. The back pack that I use is the Lowepro ProTactic BP350 AW II. The camera itself is quickly accessible from the top compartment and the lenses can be accessed from the side compartments. I find the bag is absolutely ideal for going walkabouts with that camera system.

With regard to the 35mm FA, I forgot that you were using an NII. I use the lens for landscapes on a 645Z and get rid of any barrel distortion in photoshop. My bad.

[Abbazz]

That all said, I wanted to get your opinions on what lenses I should get next. I have two options that I wanted to run by you guys:

Option 1: I was thinking of purchasing the (645) FA 75mm f/2.8, the (645) FA 55mm f/2.8 AL, and the (645) FA 120mm f/4 Macro since they’re all pretty small, and I can easily walk around with any of these lenses on the camera. (I’m thinking about eventually getting the Fuji GFX 100s (or, better yet, the currently hypothetical 100mp Pentax 645Z Mark II), and perhaps these lenses can be adapted and work well with these newer medium format digital cameras?)

Option 2: Get the Pentax 67-to-645 lens adapter and purchase the (67) 75mm f/4 and the (67) 165mm f/4 (leaf shutter) lenses, which would fill out my Pentax 67 lens lineup (letting me replace both of the heavy 67 zoom lenses) and can be adapted for use on my 645NII, along with all the other Pentax SMC 67 lenses I have.

All considered, option 1 would be nice because all those lenses are very good, very light, have autofocus, and allow for data imprinting. Option 2 would fill out my Pentax 67 lens lineup and can be used on my 645NII, however there would be no autofocus, probably no data imprinting, and would still be somewhat heavy. I use the Pentax 67II for more serious work and the 645NII for more spontaneous/casual work.

What do you guys think I should do?

I would go for option 2 since those lenses would work on both cameras. The lack of autofocus should not be a problem for landscape photography (on the contrary, the broad and smooth focusing ring on the 6x7 lenses should be an advantage for precise focusing). You will not have the f-stop included in the imprinted data but I don't think this is too much of an issue for lansdcape photography either.

Let me also add that the 6x7 165mm f/4 Leaf Shutter is a stunning lens (see the reviews here on PentaxForums) and that it offers a more useful field of view to isolate details for landscape photography than a 120mm lens when used on a 6x4.5 camera.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Jonathan Mac]

The 75mm and 55mm A lenses have always been sharp enough for me, though I don't really use them for landscape. The A series lenses are better built than the FA (same as with the lenses for 135 format) and the huge 645 viewfinder should make it easy to focus even without a split prism.

I'm not sure that the newer 55/2.8 will cover the image circle of a film 645 camera and I'm pretty sure it's AF won't work since it has a built-in motor rather than using the screw-drive method.

[Pål Jensen]

All the Pentax 645 lenses are good for landscapes. It depends on what focal length you want and how much weight you want to carry. I used the 33-55 and the 75mm. The former is not a great lens technically, but it weights only 500g and the 75mm only 215g. And my most used aperture for landscape is F16 with the 645.

All images with Fuji Velvia 50.
Some samples with the 33-55






---------- Post added 05-04-22 at 04:59 PM ----------

The FA 75/2.8. Both taken at midnight; midnight sun.