The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Pentax 645D

Ed Hurst

Well-known member
Hi Iaopai,

Welcome indeed. And a stonking first image! Looking forward to seeing more.

Warmest regards,

Ed
 

Jeffg53

Member
Back when I had a 645NII, I used an adapter to attach V series Zeiss glass to it. My recollection is that they worked very well. I was wondering whether anyone has tried the same on the 645D. I'm contemplating a 645D purchase and would like to broaden my lense choices, if possible.
 

Ed Hurst

Well-known member
Hi Jeff,

Sorry that I cannot answer your question directly as I don't own any V series lenses. However, what I can tell you is that my experience of using film era glass on the 645D (both 645 A and FA lenses and various generations of 67 lenses) is very positive. It is definitely not the case that a great lens on film will necessarily be great on digital - the different demands of the medium certainly show up flaws in some lenses than were fine on film. But there is a pretty good chance that your best lenses will still be at least very good.

In the end, the latest lenses designed for digital are generally better - especially when it comes to such digital-specific parameters as CA and light fall-off caused by light beams striking sensor microlenses at non-perdendicular angles - but you may well be pleasantly surprised by how many of your good V series lenses perform.

Here's an idea. I see you live in Sydney. If you are interested, send me a PM and we can meet somewhere - you with your V series lenses and an SD card of your own, and me with the 645D and we can try the lenses out. Do you still have the adaptor? If not, I think I even have one somewhere (don't know why I bought it, since I don't have any V series lenses - I think I was thinking of getting some at one stage). There is no substitute for trying these things out for yourself!

Ed
 

Jeffg53

Member
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the offer. It's very generous of you. I don't have any V lenses either having sold them off when I went to the H. I'm still left wondering about the quality of the Pentax lenses, and thought that the Zeiss might be a better choice. They are cheap these days.

What I would love to get would be a raw file to play with. Any chance you could send me one?
 

Ed Hurst

Well-known member
More than happy to do that. Of course the files are too large to email - do you have an FTP server, a Dropbox account or similar I can use?

Couple of other things:
1. If judiciously selected, you will find some of the Pentax lenses very good and more than worthy of use on the 645D; I would be surprised if the V glass beats the best of the Pentax glass; others have posted on here test results and experiences that I think back that view up;
2. Mr. Benson, who started this thread, now has a 645D and, I think, some Zeiss glass; maybe he can give you some views on the combo!

Ed
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Back when I had a 645NII, I used an adapter to attach V series Zeiss glass to it. My recollection is that they worked very well. I was wondering whether anyone has tried the same on the 645D. I'm contemplating a 645D purchase and would like to broaden my lense choices, if possible.
Hi Jeff. Sorry I missed your post to this thread until now. As Ed mentioned, I do have quite a few Hasselblad Zeiss V lenses and a Fotodiox Pro Hasselblad to Pentax 645 adapter, but I haven't actually used them on my 645D yet. I got my 645D last May, so I have no good excuses for not having tried them yet. I'll try to do that in the next couple of weeks and post some photos and my first impressions here.

Are there any particular lenses you might like me to test? I've got just about every lens between 40mm and 500mm, mostly the CFE or CFi versions.

Gary
 

laopai

New member
Back when I had a 645NII, I used an adapter to attach V series Zeiss glass to it. My recollection is that they worked very well. I was wondering whether anyone has tried the same on the 645D. I'm contemplating a 645D purchase and would like to broaden my lense choices, if possible.
Hi Jeff. Sorry I missed your post to this thread until now. As Ed mentioned, I do have quite a few Hasselblad Zeiss V lenses and a Fotodiox Pro Hasselblad to Pentax 645 adapter, but I haven't actually used them on my 645D yet. I got my 645D last May, so I have no good excuses for not having tried them yet. I'll try to do that in the next couple of weeks and post some photos and my first impressions here.

Are there any particular lenses you might like me to test? I've got just about every lens between 40mm and 500mm, mostly the CFE or CFi versions.

Gary
I did borrow a Zeiss 110/2 for Hass and compare it to Pentax 120mm Micro on a model shooting. The only thing I can say is: the FA 120mm Micro is a better lens despite it's slower.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Hi Iaopai,

Both of those lenses are supposed to be exceptionally good. What was it about the Pentax 120 macro which impressed you more than the Hasselblad Zeiss FE 110/2 on the 645D?

If you could post a couple of comparison shots here, I'm sure we would all enjoy seeing them.

Gary
 

laopai

New member
Hi Iaopai,

Both of those lenses are supposed to be exceptionally good. What was it about the Pentax 120 macro which impressed you more than the Hasselblad Zeiss FE 110/2 on the 645D?

If you could post a couple of comparison shots here, I'm sure we would all enjoy seeing them.

Gary
Hi Gary,

f5.6 and up, the two lenses did not make any meaningful difference. However, at f4, Pentax 120mm micro was noticeably sharper. Of course Zeiss had two more stops wider. It could be a bad copy though.

It was two years ago, and the data files are stored at home. I am travelling right now so it will be 3 or 4 weeks before I can access the files.
 

Udo

Member
Back when I had a 645NII, I used an adapter to attach V series Zeiss glass to it. My recollection is that they worked very well. I was wondering whether anyone has tried the same on the 645D. I'm contemplating a 645D purchase and would like to broaden my lense choices, if possible.

Hi Jeff,

After receiving my new Pentax 645D a few days ago I started to test all lenses from my shelf which could be used on this camera. These are a few original older SMC-A 645 lenses and a couple of Zeiss CF(x) and CB lenses destined for Hasselblad V system cameras. The latter are going to be attached via a Fotodiox (04HBP645P) adapter. The set of lenses is actually lacking two lenses on the wide end, i.e. SMC-FA 35 and a SMC-DA 25. This test just reflects lens depicting properties for my own purpose without considering features like AF or lens communication with the camera, speed of use etc. And this test is of course not a scientific one. Just thought to share this information here.

List of lenses under test:
1)SMC Pentax-DFA 645 55mm f2.8
2)SMC Pentax-A 645 120mm f4 Macro
3)SMC Pentax-A 645 200mm f4
4)Zeiss CFE40IF f4
5)Zeiss CFi50 f4
6)Zeiss CB80 f2.8
7)Zeiss CFi100 f3.5
8)Zeiss CFi150 f4

SMC Pentax-DFA 645 55mm f2.8
This lens starts out at f2.8 with good sharpness in the plane of focus, the corners and borders are a bit soft, there is a bit of haze and CA is evident in brightly lit scenes. The out of focus areas show a bit color fringing. When stopping down to f4 the picture sharpens up overall, the contrast increases, haze and CA are not yet gone. The next aperture (f5.6) improves all aspects, but the flaws still persist, although hardly noticeable. Stopping down to f8 cures all those flaws, i.e. color fringing, haze and CA are gone. Just the corners still have not reached the same level of sharpness as the center. The corner sharpness increases when further stopping down to f11, but from then on center sharpness decreases (most likely due to diffraction). So, diffraction shows its effect more and more at f16 and f22.

SMC Pentax-A 645 120mm f4 Makro
Wide open (f4) this lens already shows very good sharpness in plane of focus over the entire frame although paired with a bit of color fringing in out of focus areas and very little CA in brightly lit scenes. The situation is similar at f5.6 and improves when stopping down to f8. Sharpness (and crispness) reaches its maximum at f11, all flaws are gone. Picture seems to have the highest value of micro contrast. Further closing down the aperture (f16) softens the picture due to diffraction, but capture remains usable. F22 finally softens the result further.

SMC Pentax-A 645 200mm f4
This lens shows CA at all apertures, but is completely removable in post processing. Wide open (f4) the lens produces some haze and a bit of color fringing in out of focus areas. Contrast is a bit on the lower side, but increases when stopped down to f5.6. Here the haze is almost gone, still some minor traces of color fringing. At f8 all flaws are gone and maximum detail is being depicted at f11. The image produced with that aperture is very crisp. F16 still shows good details although diffraction already shows its effect. Picture is still very usable. F22 softens the picture further.

Zeiss CFE40IF f4
There is already very good sharpness in the center and the borders wide open, while the corners are a tiny bit softer. The traces of CA (corners only) in brightly lit scenes can easily be removed. No color fringing. Stopping down to f5.6 improves borders and corners. CA is gone. Max. detail and crispiest result is reached at f8. Results at f11 are almost indiscernible from f8. From f16 diffraction sets in.

Zeiss Cfi50 f4
Center sharpness is already very good wide open, corners in the plane of focus are softer, but overall impression is better than results from its nearest competitor (focal length wise and things like AF/MF not taken into consideration) the Pentax-DFA 55mm. There is a bit of color fringing in the out of focus areas and a bit of CA in brightly lit scenes. Stopped down to f5.6 corner sharpness improves, CA and color fringing decrease. Situation improves further at f8. CA and color fringing are completely gone. Overall resolution has reached its maximum. Corners improve very little at f11, but center sharpness decreases from here on, most likely due to diffraction. Picture softens further when stopping down to f16 (still usable with a bit more of deconvolution sharpening) and f22.

Zeiss CB80 f2.8
Wide open, this lens lacks contrast, center sharpness okay, borders and corners are soft. There is CA, which can be removed easily. Stopped down to f4 overall result improves, i.e. contrast and sharpness increase, while further closing down to f5.6 yields the biggest jump in sharpness and contrast. Corners are already sharp here. The next smaller aperture (f8) improves overall detail. The highest amount of detail and crispiest picture is reached with f11. From f16 diffraction takes its toll, while results achieved with f16 are still very usable.

Zeiss Cfi100 f3.5
This lens is already quite sharp at f3.5 in plane of focus with some LoCA. Results improve when stopping down to f4, i.e. less LoCA. The aberrations are gone at f5.6 while details further increase. Stopping further down to f8 overall impression is identical, while maximum detail is reached at f11. Diffraction shows its effects from f16 on. Results achieved at f16 and f22 are still very usable (with a bit more deconvolution sharpening).

Zeiss Cfi150 f4
Here I observed very similar behavior to the Cfi100, i.e. already good sharpness wide open paired with a bit of LoCA. Stopping down to f5.6 there is a bit of LoCA, contrast increases. LoCA is gone at f8 while details increase and still do until f11. Here max resolution is reached. Diffraction sets in slowly at f16, picture is still very usable. Stopping down to f22 the picture gets softer but the result is still usable.

Conclusion
Overall I am quite impressed with the results achieved by those Zeiss lenses. Manual focusing was no problem for me thanks to the 645D's brilliant viewfinder with visible and audible focusing aid. A clear drawback is the missing lens information in the capture's EXIF data, but this is no different from using e.g. a 503CWD.

Regards,
Udo
 
Top