[ivanvernon]

I think you're the only one owning both the FA 120 mm f/4 and the DFA 90 mm f/2.8. Why not set up an interior scene at 1:4 magnification or thereabouts and an exterior scene at infinity with both lenses set @ f/8, well supported on a tripod and carefully focused and show us the results ? A "Weekend Project" ... lol !

Happy Holidays, Ivan ! Stay safe.

Regards

Thanks for your comments Richard. I am sure I am not the only Pentax fancier who owns all three of these great Pentax lenses. However, I agree that I am well placed to conduct some kind of comparison (except in the areas of skill and knowledge). I am unsure whether I should obtain a copy stand or simply adapt one of my tripods to similar purpose. I would appreciate any input you might wish to provide regarding subject matter for the test, as well as any other testing conditions that ought to prevail. I also have two other macros, the medium format Mamiya 80mm f 4.0 and the Mamiya 120mm f 4.0. However, these two lens cannot be fitted onto Pentax medium format cameras, only onto the K-mounts. I have not been able to locate any adapter, necessarily with corrective glass, that would allow them to be used with Pentax medium format cameras. I use them on the K-1 and find that the Mamiya 120mm is a stunningly good macro and general lens as well.

I have several other excellent macros with K-mounts: the Zeiss Planar 100mm f 2.0 macro 1:2, the Tokina AT-X 90mm f 2.5 macro 1:2, and the Kiron (Kino Precision) 105mm f 2.8 macro 1:1, the Pentax-D FA 50mm f 2.8 macro 1:1 AF, and the Phoenix 100mm f 3.5 macro 1:2 AF. It would be interesting to do a second test for these lenses as well.

I would appreciate your input as well as that of any other Forum members who might be interested.

[RICHARD L.]

Just my 2 cents :

1) A close-up of flowers in a vase at short distance like 2 to 4 feet away lit by a Northern window, tripod, critical focus using live view or autofocus (90 mm and 120 mm are both autofocus after all) and mid-aperture (like f/8)
2) A far-away picture of your surrounding fields with critical focus on a foreground object (like a fence), camera tripod-mounted and mid-range aperture. Adjust to a "VIBRANT" color palette using the circular controller on the back of the 645Z. Just these 4 pictures could give us a lot of info. Focus has to be dead-on.

Thanks a lot and HAVE FUN DOING THIS, you hear.

Regards

P.S. Other Forum friends could suggest other picture projects too.

[ivanvernon]

Just my 2 cents :

1) A close-up of flowers in a vase at short distance like 2 to 4 feet away lit by a Northern window, tripod, critical focus using live view or autofocus (90 mm and 120 mm are both autofocus after all) and mid-aperture (like f/8)
2) A far-away picture of your surrounding fields with critical focus on a foreground object (like a fence), camera tripod-mounted and mid-range aperture. Adjust to a "VIBRANT" color palette using the circular controller on the back of the 645Z. Just these 4 pictures could give us a lot of info. Focus has to be dead-on.

Thanks a lot and HAVE FUN DOING THIS, you hear.

Regards

P.S. Other Forum friends could suggest other picture projects too.

Thank you. I will begin working on it.

[barondla]

Thanks for your comments Richard. I am sure I am not the only Pentax fancier who owns all three of these great Pentax lenses. However, I agree that I am well placed to conduct some kind of comparison (except in the areas of skill and knowledge). I am unsure whether I should obtain a copy stand or simply adapt one of my tripods to similar purpose. I would appreciate any input you might wish to provide regarding subject matter for the test, as well as any other testing conditions that ought to prevail. I also have two other macros, the medium format Mamiya 80mm f 4.0 and the Mamiya 120mm f 4.0. However, these two lens cannot be fitted onto Pentax medium format cameras, only onto the K-mounts. I have not been able to locate any adapter, necessarily with corrective glass, that would allow them to be used with Pentax medium format cameras. I use them on the K-1 and find that the Mamiya 120mm is a stunningly good macro and general lens as well.

I have several other excellent macros with K-mounts: the Zeiss Planar 100mm f 2.0 macro 1:2, the Tokina AT-X 90mm f 2.5 macro 1:2, and the Kiron (Kino Precision) 105mm f 2.8 macro 1:1, the Pentax-D FA 50mm f 2.8 macro 1:1 AF, and the Phoenix 100mm f 3.5 macro 1:2 AF. It would be interesting to do a second test for these lenses as well.

I would appreciate your input as well as that of any other Forum members who might be interested.

Perhaps someone will build an adapter for Mamiya lenses on the Pentax 645. An adapter without glass could also be produced. It just wouldn't focus to infinity. Not a deal breaker for macro shooting. Not sure the manufacturer would sell many adapters aimed at such a small niche.

There's an adapter for Bronica lenses. I've never seen anyone post a picture from such a combo. Need to investigate their offerings.

Can't wait to see your macro shoot off comparison.

Thanks,
barondla

[Smolk]

Just goes to show that each person's experiences may differ somewhat, perhaps an indication both of sample variation and differing criteria when determining "goodness" ;-)

..
The 80-160 I find to be inferior (and quite different) to the ... 150 FA

I never owned this zoom, but I was never quite convinced by (my copy of) the FA 2.8/150mm.
I know that there have been some arguments about the readiness for FF 645 on Pentax' part, but I, having owned 13 lenses in the 645 system, doubt Pentax' line-up is ready. At least: when absolute sharpness is the main criterion.

[Ed Hurst]

I never owned this zoom, but I was never quite convinced by (my copy of) the FA 2.8/150mm.
I know that there have been some arguments about the readiness for FF 645 on Pentax' part, but I, having owned 13 lenses in the 645 system, doubt Pentax' line-up is ready. At least: when absolute sharpness is the main criterion.

I know what you mean... Some of the lenses, the 150mm f2.8 included, aren't up to modern standards of resolution and critical, biting sharpness. It's a good lens that delivers good results, and I think its rendering suits portraiture well. But it's not a king of resolution and crisp sharpness. There are some gaps in the range that certainly fall into that category. The DA 28-45 and the 90 DFA are brilliant, though the former isn't DFA of course. The 55 DFA is very good (though not quite in the same league). The 120mm is also very good, but not perfect. The 200 I think isn't superb (though like all these lenses, it can do good things in the right hands), leading me to the 67 alternative (which also isn't superb, but my copy is better than the 645 copies I have tried). When you get to 300 and 400, the 67 EDIF options are the gold standard. So, if Pentax wants to deliver FF645, they have lots of lenses that can do the job to some reasonable level, but lots of lengths where it's not up to the pinnacle of modern performance. The best options at present lie with mixing 645 and 67 lenses, and even then, you don't have a first class 150 or 200, or indeed anything from 26mm-89mm that is first class and covers FF 645. To my mind, the best solution is to produce a 100MP 33x44mm sensor (which allows full use of the DA lenses), then concentrate on really good renewed lens options from about 100-200...

Still, with effort and experience, really good results can already be achieved with what's available. I see Pentax as occupying the niche in the market where that is the approach. Better technical options exist for far more money. Of course, it's Fuji that has been narrowing the competitive positioning in Pentax's case, so it's high time something was done to respond.

[barondla]

Sea shell. About 2x lifesize. Pentax 645Z with A 120 macro, extension tube and Pentax AF160FC ring flash. It's amazing how much difference there is cycling thru the ringflash 1 tube, both tubes, contrast, and single tube position.




Cross posted from macro club.

Thanks for looking,
barondla

[ivanvernon]

Perhaps someone will build an adapter for Mamiya lenses on the Pentax 645. An adapter without glass could also be produced. It just wouldn't focus to infinity. Not a deal breaker for macro shooting. Not sure the manufacturer would sell many adapters aimed at such a small niche.

There's an adapter for Bronica lenses. I've never seen anyone post a picture from such a combo. Need to investigate their offerings.

Can't wait to see your macro shoot off comparison.

Thanks,
barondla

Thank you. It will be a week or so before I can get the macro test moving, but I will get to it. In ref to the Bronica, I have never seen any adapters for those lenses to Pentax medium format. Actually, in reading up on the Bronica I had doubts whether there were any truly outstanding Bronica lenses that would merit being adapted to Pentax. My impression has been that the best lenses worth adapting to Pentax 645 were the Pentax 67 and maybe a few CZJ lenses such as the 80mm and 120mm Biometars and the 180mm Sonnar, and perhaps some of the other Sonnars of varying focal lengths. Some of the Mamiyas are definitely worth adapting as there are several great performers.

[barondla]

Thank you. It will be a week or so before I can get the macro test moving, but I will get to it. In ref to the Bronica, I have never seen any adapters for those lenses to Pentax medium format. Actually, in reading up on the Bronica I had doubts whether there were any truly outstanding Bronica lenses that would merit being adapted to Pentax. My impression has been that the best lenses worth adapting to Pentax 645 were the Pentax 67 and maybe a few CZJ lenses such as the 80mm and 120mm Biometars and the 180mm Sonnar, and perhaps some of the other Sonnars of varying focal lengths. Some of the Mamiyas are definitely worth adapting as there are several great performers.

Original Bronica ( not the ones adaptable to Pentax 645) used Nikon manufactured lenses. Then they switched to either making them or having them made. Never shot a Bronica GS-1. Just wondered how their lenses were. Many years after the GS-1 debuted, Tamron bought the company. Makes me wonder if they made the previous GS-1 lenses. Don't know.

There are some relativele cheap lenses $200 lenses on the bay (and a few focal lengths are $1000 +). Here's the adapter: Bronica PG Mount Lenses to Pentax 645 Mount Cameras - Pro Lens Adapter ? Fotodiox, Inc. USA

Fotodiox might be pursuaded to manufucture a Mamiya to Pentax adapter with or without glass. Bet there would be more takers than the Bronica adapter.

Thanks,
barondla

[ivanvernon]

Original Bronica used Nikon manufactured lenses. Then they switched to either making them or having them made. Never shot a Bronica GS-1. Just wondered how their lenses were. Many years after the GS-1 debuted, Tamron bought the company. Makes me wonder if they made the previous GS-1 lenses. Don't know.

There are some relativele cheap lenses $200 lenses on the bay (and a few focal lengths are $1000 +). Here's the adapter: Bronica PG Mount Lenses to Pentax 645 Mount Cameras - Pro Lens Adapter ? Fotodiox, Inc. USA

Fotodiox might be pursuaded to manufucture a Mamiya to Pentax adapter with or without glass. Bet there would be more takers than the Bronica adapter.

Thanks,
barondla

Thanks for the interesting information.

[barondla]

Thanks for the interesting information.

Here's a 2018 blog about Bronica GS-1 and lenses. Her other camera is a Mamiya 7. Know those are great lenses. The pictures in this blog look promising. More 6x7: Reviewing the Bronica GS-1 ? Suzanne Koett

Thanks,
barondla

[RICHARD L.]

Image 1 @ f/5.6, Image 2 @ f/11 and Image 3 @ f/8. They forecast a 4 inch deluge today so I went to see the River early this morning despite gray skies. The ice is quite dirty as it is displaced up and down by the 6 foot tides and it picks up clay from the shoals below. I'll still have to try this lens in sunny conditions.

[SteveinSLC]

Well, I was going to try to post a pic of the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction taken with the 645z. But the 300 A*, while a fantastic lens, just doesn't have enough reach to pick out the details. So instead, here's the sunset from Monday, taken while I was waiting and dialing in the focus.

[Smolk]

I know what you mean... Some of the lenses, the 150mm f2.8 included, aren't up to modern standards of resolution and critical, biting sharpness. It's a good lens that delivers good results, and I think its rendering suits portraiture well. But it's not a king of resolution and crisp sharpness. There are some gaps in the range that certainly fall into that category. The DA 28-45 and the 90 DFA are brilliant, though the former isn't DFA of course. The 55 DFA is very good (though not quite in the same league). The 120mm is also very good, but not perfect. The 200 I think isn't superb (though like all these lenses, it can do good things in the right hands)

I once did a test with several lenses, including the 120mm, 135mm, 150 FA, and 200FA. It was pretty revealing not at the short distance but at infinity. One clear winner: the 135mm. By far. The 120 showed itself to be a macro lens, the 150/200 were disappointing.
Of course, the 135mm is softer wide open - for the portraits it was designed for. It is a versatile lens.

[RICHARD L.]

Funny you should say that. I use both the A 150 mm f/3.5 and the FA 200 mm f/4 and they perform quite satisfactorily on a 645Z, I believe. Both were purchased used on eBay from Japan and were in pristine condition. I use them on a tripod most of the time and at mid-apertures like f/8 or f/11. They are sharp, have good contrast and excellent resistance to flare. Only some "late 67" lenses have proven to be slightly superior in the contrast department, being equally sharp on the other hand.

A 150 mm f/3.5



FA 200 mm f/4