PENTAX lenses

[chang_ying]

Dear netters,

I have play around the 135 equipments for couple years, but usually find the picture quality(20x24 or 24x30) of enlargements becomes severely worse, especially for wide-angle shootings. Recently, I decide to change to PENTAX medium format. If the optical quality is all I concern about, then which PENTAX lenses are the best choice for me, 645 or 6x7 ? I do a lot of wide-angle landscape shots.

Thank for any comment.

[chun_in_martinez]

Go for the Pentax 67 for landscape. Lenses are good and cheap. Forget about the 645 for landscape if you want quality enlargements.

[tapas_maiti1]

Pentax 67 without a doubt, the image quality is stunning. I have used a Pentax 645 and found the print quality to be worse than top notch 35mm, this may, however, be due to film plane flatness which I found to be a problem on the 645 I used wheras the 67 has no problems due to its transport mechanism.

 

<p>

 

Tapas Maiti

[rob_black]

In response to the poster who criticized the film plane flatness of the 645, I would have to say he perhaps had a malfunctioning film insert for his 645. Or perhaps the film he was using exhibited strong curling. My two 645's as well as my 645N have all exhibited exceptional flatness.

In general, the larger the negative size (i.e., 6x7), the larger the chance for film flatness problems. On the 6x7 this would become more pronounced if you let the film sit in the camera for long periods of time, even a few hours.

 

<p>

 

Rob

[tim_jayawardhena]

has anyone compared the picture quality of a high-end 35mm and a Pentax645n?

[greg_lawhon]

Tim:

 

I made that comparison several years ago (although with the manual focus Pentax 645 rather than the new 645N). After seeing the results from the larger negative, I was unable to be satisfied with 35mm again. While I kept both 35mm and 645 systems for a while, before long I sold my 35mm gear (both Leica R and M) in favor of additional medium and large format equipment. The P645 is my small camera for everday shooting, snapshots of the kids, etc.

 

In my experience the best 35mm equipment just can't overcome the advantages of the larger piece of film.

[rafael reynaga]

I have compared my Nikon 80-200 f2.8D, 85 f1.8 lenses against my pentax 645, and I have to say that this two lenses and most of my other nikkors clearly are sharper than my Pentax 3 645 lenses (45mm 75mm LS and 150mm), note that I only refered to sharpness, the color rendition and contrast are still far better with the medium format, but since I photogpraph models most of the time I can see their hair and lips texture much better with the 8x10 prints from my Nikons than the 8x10 from my Pentax.

 

I think the sharper of my pentax lenses is the 45mm while the 150mm is the least sharp.

 

That is my opinion. :)

[michael_heal]

<p>Do you want the ultimate in optical quality, or do you want top quality enlargements? 35mm photographers typically expend a lot of energy discussing the subtle differences between different lenses. Some of this discussion arises because of marketing hype, but it is true that subtle differences can become visible when you enlarge a negative 20 times.</p>

<p>Lenses for the larger formats are a little harder to design, so everything else being equal, you can expect a lens for a 35mm camera to resolve a few more lines per inch. In practice, however, this advantage is completely overwhelmed by the advantages of a larger negative. 645 is much bigger than 35mm and 6x7 is bigger still.</p>

<p>If really want the ultimate in optics, you should consider Contax, Hasselblad, or Rollei. If, on the other hand, you want stunning 20x24 inch prints, you will find the Pentax 67 completely adequate. Indeed, the Pentax 67 is a popular choice for this application. The modern lenses from Pentax, and for that matter all the major MF manufacturers, are very good indeed. Your technique and the quality of your tripod are more important factors.</p>

<p>I should also mention that this logic can be taken one step further. Many landscape photographers use large format cameras, such as 4x5. Such a large negative makes it easier to produce top quality prints 20x24 and larger. These cameras also let you adjust perspective and the plane of focus. They are are much slower to operate, but are no more expensive. The tripod that you will need for a Pentax 67 will be completely adequate for a 4x5 system.</p>

<p>For whatever reason you seem to have settled on Pentax, but it is generally better to first consider which format you want, then to consider which manufacturer makes the camera best suited to your needs. In general, 645 cameras operate more like 35mm cameras, whereas 6x7 cameras are much heavier and are slower to operate. For quick shooting, especially handheld, 645 cameras are much easier to use. However, if ultimate image quality is more important than weight or speed of operation, 6x7 is an advantage. 6x6 is somewhere in between. If you take mostly landscapes, also look at the 6x7 cameras available from Mamiya before you make your final decision.</p>

[brian walsh]

You might wish to pose your questions to the members of the Pentax-Discuss Mailing List. You'll have to subscribe from this site:

 

http://www.pentax.com/discussion.html

 

Since the mailing list volume might reach one scores of messages a day, you might wish to receive the messages in "digest" form. (This packages the messages into groups of twenty or thirty, instead of mailbombing you with one hundred individual messages each day.) Most discussion involves 35mm gear, but knowledgeable members should be able to provide you with some solid information on lenses for the 645 and 67. If you want large prints from landscape shots, perhaps a Pentax 67 and a heavy tripod would suit you.