45 mm Lens vs 55 for Landscapes

[kenneth_seidman]

I have an opportunity to buy a used 45 mm SMC lens from a friend (pro

photographer gone digital). I currently have a 55, 75, and longer

lenses which I use for both B/W and Color landscape only. I am

wondering if it makes sense to purchase the 45mm lens? I've read some

old posts on this site concerning 45 vs 55 but remain undecided.

 

- I'm happy with the 55 I have

- I've got all the 82 mm filters I'll ever need for the 45

- I will be hard pressed to fit the 45 into my camera bag unless I'm

really motivated.

- Previous posts mentioned some 45 lenses have chromatic aberration

problems

- ... not sure what I'm missing by not having a 45 EXCEPT that when I

used to shoot 35 mm I really liked the rare occassions I used my Nikon

20 mm lens

 

I'd be interested in anyone's opinion about 45 vs 55.

 

Thanks,

Ken

[thomas_janik]

Hi Ken:

 

I have both lenses, although mine is the older f3.5 55mm. I like both, I think the 55 is the better lens in absolute performance measurements, but on a practical level they are both very nice lenses and you would be hard pressed to see any difference in prints. Generally if I choose one to leave behind, it is the 55, perhaps due to its weight and size, but also sometimes 55 is just not wide enough for the shots I take. I'd try it, if you liked a 20mm I think you'll like the 45mm.

 

Tom

[dougmiles]

I'll agree with Thomas; the 45 makes sense if you like/want/need the widest rectilinear lens Pentax has offered for the 67 series. It's about like using a 21-22mm lens on 35 format, with an 89ﾰ angle of view, compared to the 78ﾰ angle of the 55mm and 61ﾰ for the 75mm. I like all three a lot. I got my 45mm used at a very good price as part of a strange package that included a 6x7 body, 45 & 300mm lenses, a doubler, and a backpack. If you can manage an attractive price with your pro friend, then you'll have a bargain on a fine lens. Let's see if I can attach a photo taken with my 45 the day I picked it up...<div></div>

[allan_jamieson2]

I have the 45mm, 55mm, 105mm and the 200mm lenses, of which I use the

55mm the most, followed by the 45mm, 105mm and then the 200mm. The

45mm is a superb lens, I can't fault the image quality at all, there are times

when the 55mm lens just isn't wide enough to do the job. To be honest I can

see very little (if any) difference in image quality between transparencies

taken with the 45mm lens versus the 55mm lens. If you can get the lens at a

good price go for it, you won't regret it.

 

If you're into the panoramic look, an image taken with the 45mm lens can look

stunning cropped; you can just get so much into the scene. A lot less

expensive than buying an Xpan camera too.

[steve_rasmussen]

It is possible to see some lateral chromatic with the 45mm but only when wide open, in situations where there is very high contrast. For landscape shooters, you will probably never see it. I've never seen it in 16 years with mine. The 45 is a very low distortion lens and even has a floating element for better spherical correction at various focus distances. It's a great lens and one I could not do without.

[sumo_kun]

I'd say if you like wide angle shots then go for it. Quality wise its a fine lens. My one has been used a lot more than I thought I would use it. I think both 45 and 55 lenses have a place in a kit bag. But if I was to leave one behind I would choose the 55. Sometimes you just need the extra coverage the 45 offers and I'd rather not miss a chance because I had the wrong lens. The 45 is really wide and it can produce dynamic compositions. I personally find the 55 a bit too normal for my tastes.

[kenneth_seidman]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I was encouraged enough to make my friend an offer based on current eBay pricing. Ironically he just informed me he no longer wants to sell his 45 mm lens! (Maybe he read all your posts and decided it was too good to sell).

Anyway, I may start looking around for another source for one,

Thanks again,

 

Ken