| Author: | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2019 Posts: 25
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 5, 2021 | Recommended
| Rating: N/A |
|
645Z
 [/url]
| | | | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: October, 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,294
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 19, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Performs MUCH BETTER than expected. Very SHARP, contrasty, lovely colors. | | Cons: | Requires a small aperture and the use of a tripod to get the best sharpness. | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: 645Z
| |
 50 mm @ f/32
 33 mm @ f/16
 f/11  f/16  f/22  f/32
 55 mm @ f/11
 33 mm @ f/11
 55 mm @ f/13
 33 mm @ f/13
 33 mm @ f/11
 45 mm @ f/11
 33 mm @ f/16
I purchased this used "like-new" 645 zoom on eBay from Japan. Perfect cosmetic and mechanical condition, no haze, no fungus. The lens is quite large and heavy, with an 82 mm filter diameter. To obtain the best sharpness, the use of a tripod is suggested. I put the lens through its paces making the above pictures of the Sainte-Anne River : I mounted the 645Z + FA 33-55 mm AL zoom on a heavy 028 Manfrotto tripod and took a series of pictures at 33 mm, 45 mm and 55 mm focal lengths, each time using apertures of f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 and f/32. Apertures of f/8 and f/32 didn't seem as sharp compared to the others and f/16 proved to be the optimum aperture, with f/11 and f/22 lagging slightly behind but highly usable. The lens also is sharpest at its shortest setting of 33 mm. Corners are very sharp at 33 mm FL and f/16 with no signs of softness due to field curvature. The other picture of the Sainte Anne River above was taken @ 45 mm FL and f/11, showing excellent uniform sharpness. I added an interior picture of Cap-de-la-Madeleine Basilica taken @ 33 mm FL and f/11 with an exposure time of 10 seconds, two pictures of the Jacques Cartier River taken handheld @ 55 mm and 33 mm FL and f/13 and two pictures of my neighbor's Norway Maple in its springtime splendor @ 55 mm and 33 mm FL and f/11, all pleasantly sharp. I added 4 vertical images of the Batiscan River taken at f/11, f/16, f/22 and f/32 and 33 mm FL. All are very sharp and almost undistinguishable from one another, apertures of f/11, f/16 and f/22 showing irreproachable rendition. Finally the 2 uppermost pictures were taken handheld at 33 mm FL @ f/16 and 50 mm FL @ f/32.
I took a chance and I was wary when I purchased the lens as there exists almost no technical reviews about this 645 FA zoom and the few comments appearing below were not very "enthusiastic", to say the least.
Conclusion : Really not so bad when used carefully as a landscape tool. I think I'll keep it ...
 33 mm @ f/16
 50 mm @ f/13
 55 mm @ f/11
 45 mm @ f/13
 35 mm @ f/11
 33 mm @ f/22
  both 33 mm @ f/22
 55 mm @f/11
 33 mm @ f/16
 55 mm @ f/11
 33 mm @ f/11
Now I'm totally confident in its ability to produce first-rate pictures. | | | | | Forum Member Registered: December, 2018 Location: Melbourne Posts: 84
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 14, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $399.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light, 33-55mm is a great landscape focal length for me | | Cons: | Soft edges ever after f/8 | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 8
| |
So, after not finding many reviews of this lens, more so not to many positive reviews of this lens, I decided to pull the pin and buy one anyway. I already have the Pentax 645 FA 35mm f/3.5 and love this lens. But I've always found myself going between this and my 45-85mm and even 55mm 2.8 for landscape work.
So I figured getting the 33-55 kills of the issues of lugging around an extra lens. Plus its ever so slightly wider by 2mm than the 35mm (barely but noticeable).
Its NOT as sharp as the 35mm even up to f/11, the center of the 35mm beats the 33-55 all the way from wide open and up to f/11 (even tried the 33-55mm at f/14 and still the 35mm is better.
The corners on the 33-55mm are quite soft but slightly improve around f/8 through to f/11 (haven't tested past this, as I believe one shouldn't have to push past f/11 to find the sweet spot of such a lens)
I'll keep both lenses, as I feel they both have their own uses, I think the 33-55mm can be used in situations where center sharpness is semi important and soft corners can be hidden or covered up as in darker situations light night shooting.
For travel, I think i'll still tick with my 35mm, as it is the better lens without doubt
Would I recommend this lens? Yeah, it still does the job, but you need to be careful with what your shooting and the importance of sharpness given the situation...
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: July, 2017 Posts: 51
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 2, 2017 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | light weight, good focal length range | | Cons: | crappy cheap construction | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 6
| |
Having owned only a single sample, I experienced results similar to the previous reviewer, however I am using a 645z.
My copy becomes sharpest at f8, with wide open being only slightly less.
The construction feels unacceptably light and cheap given it's price, but then I started photography when everything was metal  . I have a Nikon lens that was $125 brand new that has much higher construction quality. These lenses don't seem as common, or as reasonably priced, on the used market as some of the others. I think you'd have to be out of your mind to pay $2695 US at B & H for a new one.
I don't concern myself much about distortion as it is so easily correctable in post. Neither do I worry much about the spherical plane of focus as it tends not to mater for my subjects.
Apologies for the images, I don't seem able to upload something of sufficient resolution to provide an adequate demonstration. Perhaps you will be able to tell something by comparing the crop to the full frame image.
  | | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 4,369
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 20, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | "All" wide angle focal lenghts in one lens. Low weight for an MF lens | | Cons: | Optical quality not for all round use | |
This is basically a lens designed for landscape use. The plane of focus is spherical and you need to stop the lens down to F:11 for good performance across the frame. It distorts quite a lot and is sharpest at its widest setting.
Contrast is slightly lower than for the 45-85 lens or the 45/2.8, but resolution seem pretty high.
Most images in my gallery is shot with this lens.
NOTE: I've have only used this lens with the film 645.
 | | |
