[ivanvernon]

The P67 90-180mm f 5.6 is another good choice, some say just a wee bit less sharp than the P67 55-100mm f 4.5. It will be of limited interest, of course, to those whose priorities are light weight and a small profile. Sorry for the mundane subject matter, but with the virus restrictions I do not go far from home!

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[itshimitis]

The FA45 - 85 is a great allrounder. Sharp, not excessively heavy and a 77mm filter size. The FA 80 -160 is also a very good lens and shares the 77mm filter size and the hood has a dial for the use of circular polarisers. If you don't need ultra wide, these two will serve you very well.

[RICHARD L.]

these two will serve you very well.

Also very true and these two zooms (FA 45-85 mm and FA 80-160 mm) sell for peanuts on eBay despite being remarquably good lenses.

FA 45-85 mm f/4.5

FA 80-160 mm f/4.5

[SFTphotography]

[B]Also very true and these two zooms (FA 45-85 mm and FA 80-160 mm) sell for peanuts on eBay despite being remarquably good lenses.

I've just got these and aye they're cheap - and glad to hear they are good. I've also gone and got the 200 F4. Long lenses are ideal for landscapes.

[w2ck]

Hi,

I went and shot all seven of the North Carolina lighthouses this summer using the 645 FA 45-85/4.5 and the 645 FA 80-160/4.5 on six of them. For the seventh, I used 645 FA 200/4. That last really fell in between the 200/4 and 645 A* 300/4 so I went with the 200 and cropped it a little. All these on the 645D, which worked out wonderfully.

And, all were $300 each or less.

Edit1: Dug up from my old thread:

645 FA 45-85/4.5: $190.25
645 FA 80-160/4.5: $291.06
645 A* 300/4: $200.00
645 1.4x Converter A: $46.84
645 2x Converter A: $43.69
645 FA 200/4: $133.88

Edit2: The only item in the list that isn't all that good is the 2x TC on the 300/4 and I used it three times during all these coastal trips. Because a soft 2x TC is better than cropping with the 1.4x TC.

Edit3: Oh. And, I forgot. I also bought the 645 A 120mm macro lens for $149. Plus I have a 67 135 macro which I had picked up first and also a 67 Soft Focus. I haven't used the 67 135 since I got the 645 120.

Edit4: The old thread which has the lighthouse shots (plus what I have been doing with it all) within:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-medium-format/405008-old-shooter-new-645d.html


Stan

[hausen]

I just got one of the peanuts 45-85/4.5. wa2kqy, I got it at 320. Your price is unbelievable! Despite some unexpected soft diffusion at the smallest aperture, it's all good! All shot at base iso 100. I find it has a higher latitude than the native one on 645d. You may be certainly used to the modern look of CMOS. The color at shadow or shoulder of highlights. At base iso, the camera handles it well.

[Bonner04]

FujiFilm GA645wi Pro
Fuji 45mm f/4.0,Fujichrome Velvia 100
f/9.5 1/250 ISO 100

Attached Images

 

[barondla]

Pentax 645Z with 645 FA 400 F5.6. To capture the lone corn plant with nothing but soy beans took some doing. Raised camera higher into the air to crop a tree line out at the top of frame. Ended up with the precarious setup of the Gitzo Telestudex legs spread as little as possible and the center column extended to max. This put the camera almost 8 feet high. Still not high enough, I set the Gitzo up in a pickup bed. This boosted the camera to about 11ft off the ground. I used a folding ladder in the truck bed to be able to look thru the optical viewfinder.

Thanks for looking,
barondla

[Aaron28]

finally got to run a fresh roll of kodak ektar100 through the new to pentax 6x7......smc takumar 10/f2.4......even cropped love the dof of medium format....love it

[Aaron28]

nothing special....wanted to go through various shutter speeds to test out new to me 6x7.....smc tak 105/f2.4.....kodak ektar100......epson v600

[RICHARD L.]

[Aaron28]

kodak ektar100.....pentax 6x7...smc takumar 105/f2.4

[RICHARD L.]

Upper picture with the P67 90 mm f/2.8, 1/400 sec @ f/8, lower image with the P67 165 mm f/2.8, 1/200 sec @ f/16. I think these apertures are their optimum diaphragm openings. As with other P67 lenses, nice colors and contrast, no flare, ghosts or veiling. The 90 mm used to overexpose all the time on the 67 II and gave me slides with low contrast and washed-up colors, particularly compared to the 75 mm f/2.8 AL, so I started hating it, put it aside and purchased a P67 105 mm f/2.4. Here, I can compensate at the time of exposure and afterwards in PP, so no more problems. The 165 mm always showed bright colors and great sharpness, almost equal to the P67 200 mm f/4. Both provide a bright easy-to-focus viewfinder image. The 90 mm is equivalent to a 72 mm and the 165 mm to a 135 mm in FF.

[ivanvernon]

Upper picture with the P67 90 mm f/2.8, 1/400 sec @ f/8, lower image with the P67 165 mm f/2.8, 1/200 sec @ f/16. I think these apertures are their optimum diaphragm openings. As with other P67 lenses, nice colors and contrast, no flare, ghosts or veiling. The 90 mm used to overexpose all the time on the 67 II and gave me slides with low contrast and washed-up colors, particularly compared to the 75 mm f/2.8 AL, so I started hating it, put it aside and purchased a P67 105 mm f/2.4. Here, I can compensate at the time of exposure and afterwards in PP, so no more problems. The 165 mm always showed bright colors and great sharpness, almost equal to the P67 200 mm f/4. Both provide a bright easy-to-focus viewfinder image. The 90 mm is equivalent to a 72 mm and the 165 mm to a 135 mm in FF.

Both very nice, but I especially like the second one with the 165mm.

[RICHARD L.]

A lens cannot get much closer to perfection than this. The P67 55 mm f/4 was shot at 1/800 sec and f/5.6 and the 165 mm f/2.8 at 1/2500 sec and f/5.6. Outstanding detail all over, perfect colors and contrast. Two GREAT LENSES ! The 165 mm particularly impresses me with its far-away performance.

P.S.High-resolution originals are much more impressive on my Mac than what appears here (sigh) !