Torn between Pentax 645d and IQ + RM3di

[GrahamWelland]

I don't think that the issue is that the Pentax MF glass isn't good, just that most of the existing non-digital optimized glass isn't up to the demands of a 40mp digital sensor. With film things were much more forgiving.

 

[D&A]

I don't think that the issue is that the Pentax MF glass isn't good, just that most of the existing non-digital optimized glass isn't up to the demands of a 40mp digital sensor. With film things were much more forgiving.

Hi Graham,

Well yes and no. No doubt some of the lenses do show their weakness on the digital body but some don't, relative to the only 645 lens that Pentax specifically designed for use on the 645D body...the new WR 55mm. (other than the just released 25mm). Although I haven't yet posted my comprehensive testing of almost all of the FA af 645 lenses, as my previous post indicated, most of the previously released FA af lenses did as well or better than the new digital specific WR 55mm. That's not to say they are as good as say Zeiss 645 lenses, but just that many of these previously released Pentax FA af 645 lenses held the own again what Pentax released aa a digital specific lens. I'd even go out on a limb and say many of the Pentax lenses would do well when compared to some of the Mamiya or Phase lenses...though of course it would have to be on a case by case basis. I think where some of the Pentax lenses are getting a bad rap is the sample to sample variation, which in many cass I found considerable.

Dave (D&A)

 

[GrahamWelland]

Dave

I'd certainly agree that the lens challenge isn't unique to Pentax and absolutely applies to Mamiya/Phase One/Hasselblad too. That said, I suspect that in many cases the "problem" is over emphasized due to pixel peeping vs actual prints. I know that I've certainly got some really nice prints from Mamiya glass that struggles in the corners etc when pixel peeped - the recipients of the prints just don't see or care which is exactly how it should be.

 

[kuau]

Graham and Dave are both 100% ccorrect.

Pentax 645 glass vs mamiya /phase glass is a wash, sample to sample variation.
Besides the newly designed Phase glass, i was told by a dealer that the only difference between older
mamiya glass and phase glass is that phase is testing the lenses in house before they are sent out to the dealers. i.e. the new phase 35mm lens, i was told there was no design change, just better qc and rebranded of course as compared to the phase 45 which i beleice is a new design.

will pentax ever put back into manufacture there Fa lens line and do what phase is doing, i was told by pentax usa probably not. there lens road map confirms this and alll we can hope for if we are lucky is one new lens a year. i think the next lens is a mid range zoom for 2012

in tne mean time my lense dealer is Ebay lol
steven

 

[D&A]

Graham and Dave are both 100% [\QUOTE]

Pentax 645 glass vs mamiya /phase glass is a wash, sample to sample variation.
Besides the newly designed Phase glass, i was told by a dealer that the only difference between older
mamiya glass and phase glass is that phase is testing the lenses in house before they are sent out to the dealers. i.e. the new phase 35mm lens, i was told there was no design change, just better qc and rebranded of course as compared to the phase 45 which i beleice is a new design.

will pentax ever put back into manufacture there Fa lens line and do what phase is doing, i was told by pentax usa probably not. there lens road map confirms this and alll we can hope for if we are lucky is one new lens a year. i think the next lens is a mid range zoom for 2012 [END QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------_

I agree! I think much of the issue with Pentax FA glass is that the QC for the lenses (for each individual sample) was sufficient for the film bodies they were designed for but not for the stricter requirements on a digital body. Part of it I found was simply carefully fine tuning the 645D AF fine tuning to compensate for front/back focusing, which in some samples were considerable. Other times it was issues with the individual sample itself where optical performance was weak due to some other optical anomaly, that might have been insignificant when used on a film body (and therefore passed QC) but not adequate for use on a digital body.

Let me also just mention that my comments in my previous post "above"' were in relationship to pixel peeping, in that my assessment of Pentax FA af lenses on the 645D were performed at 100% (actual pixels) and that many of the already existing Pentax FA lenses (good samples) did quite well across the entire frame. Graham's post above though is well taken regarding pixel peeping vs. actual prints made.

Like their 35mm system, Pentax discontinued almost all their film era designed 35mm FA lenses when they were well into their 35mm DSLR era, so I too agree with Steven that's it's unlikely that Pentax will re-release any of their 645 FA lenses...although that had as much to do with the companies economic situation as anything else. I suspect that this is also part of the reason for Pentax going slowly with new 645 lens releases, as they went with some trepidation into finially deciding to "green light" the production of the 645D body and want to make sure there will be an adequate market for new lenses.

Dave (D&A)

 

[tsjanik]

Seems like many here assume Pentax glass is of much lower quality than rest of the MF lenses. I know Lloyd Chambers (diglloyd.com) was not too impressed with some of the lenses but are there any more tests confirming his findings?

It seems many of the old lenses MF show weakness on a MFDB; Lloyd was not very impressed with the Hasselblad lenses he tested either. He tested a large number of Pentax lenses on the 645D, and I have followed his results closely, some are excellent on the 645D, e.g. 120mm macro and the 400mm ED. All of lenses he tested, other than the new 55mm, were used (in fact I lent him two of the lenses he tested); many were the older “A”, manual focus versions - 30-year-old lens designs. Some of the sample variation Dave refers to may have its origin in the previous use of each lens along with any from manufacture. Who knows what history of a used lens is? Some of the lenses he tested may have been 25-years-old and none was very young.
As Steven has mentioned, a weakness of this system is the difficulty of getting new lenses. Steven, do you know for sure that they are no longer manufactured? When Hoya announced the end of film 67/645 bodies they stated that 645 lens production would continue. I know Pentax USA has indicated no intention to import lenses for sale in the US, but that’s not quite the same thing. Many of the old FA lenses appear on the current lens road map.
Dave, any timeline for your review of the FA lenses? It will be interesting to compare your results to Lloyd’s and my own for that matter.

Tom

 

[jonoslack]

Weather sealing is a BS gimmick sorry. Get a rain jacket for 30 dollars. Count how many landscape Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar shooters are out in the world shooting amazing landscapes. None of them have weather sealing but all of them find a work around to get the job done.

Hi Guy
Just a note on this - I've trashed 3 cameras in the last 5 years due to water damage - none of them was weathersealed. In none of the cases would one have considered using a rain jacket (it wasn't raining).

The first one was a rogue wave
the Second one was dropped for a few seconds into an inch or so of water, and the third was a similar situation and a ditch, and a dog.

In each case a weather sealed camera would have been fine, in none of the three cases was the camera covered in water for more than a few seconds.

Of course, it's nice to have weathersealed lenses as well, but not so important - it only takes a couple of drops of water hitting the edge on a non-sealed LCD, and the whole camera / body is gone.

You live in Arizona - I live in the Uk.

Believe me - weathersealing is worthwhile!

all the best

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Living in Arizona has nothing to do with it. Shot a hundred year storm a couple months ago with ziplock bags. Seriously I have been around a good chunk of the world shooting for many years . I never ever needed weather sealing. Not to say it is not useful but would not even consider buying a cam for that reason. Nice feature but there are work arounds . Now dropping it is operator error. I buy insurance for that. Lol

 

[stephengilbert]

They have recently introduced water to Arizona.

 

[D&A]

Tom,

The issue I now realize with some who might have tested some of the Pentax 645 lenses on the 645D body, is generally they had or were given one sample to test. If it happened to be a sample that fell in the "excellent" zone with regards to performance on the 645D, it generally would be pronounced good. If it happened to be one of those samples that tested poorly, then that lens would have been pronouced "not good". In other words if I had tested only the first sample of each FA lens I got a hold of, I would have said the system has too many holes and weeknesses to be viable and a good many lenses are poor performers on teh 645D. Instead, after I was able to test multiple samples of each focal length on the 645D, my feelings about the system and FA lenses changed considerably. It had nothing to do with how old the lens were and generally how they were handled, as I knew the history of many of them. Remember when I communicated to you that I was ready to pronounce the FA 200 f4 lens a relatively weak entry and one not deemed appropriate for the 645D? Turned out that was the way it was with the first few samples of this particular lens, but at a later date, I got my hands on two more samples and it was night and day...they were both very good! Should a person have to go through this to come up with a group of excellent performing lenses? Of course not and that is problematic...but if they are willing to do so, then there is a whole pentax FA 645 lens system out there that has the potential to perform well. I hope to post something in regards to my observations with these lenses soon.

Dave (D&A)