Widest angle lense

[richard_clough]

Has anyone had experience with using a Pentax 67 35mm fisheye lens on a 645

camera? I know the lens would function, and I already have a 67 to 645 adapter,

but I'm not certain the results would be better than or even as good as using the

645's 35mm lens.

[steve_rasmussen]

The 35mm Fisheye is fairly sharp except for the marginal areas. Your 645 would truncate those soft edges and would make the lens usable. You still have the barrel distortion however and I believe the 35mm for the 645 is rectilinear. Given the filter problems with the 35 fish, I would go with the 645 35mm.

[michael_przewrocki1]

kowa has a 19mm. isnt it a fish? ask or check willem-jan markerinks site.

hassi made a 24mm(220?) to shoot interiors of tires. i was told that volpi-bothers of urdorf designed it. maybe i have seen it in a newer edition than wildis thjir edition of hasselblad system-book.

which lenses can be adapted on kiev 88. i am asking because i want to setup a 70mm(film)-system.

[dougmiles]

Steve is right; both the 35mm lenses for the P645 system are rectilinear, so the results with the P67's 35 fisheye would be visually quite different. "Better" if you want the fisheye look, not better if you don't. :-)

[mike_earussi1]

It has a lot of lateral color though so it is best for B&W.

[jean-louis llech]

I fear that a fisheye will remain a fisheye, whatever the format. With too much barrel distorsions.

[xato]

Someplace in the back of my mind is the idea that the 35mm fisheye was one of a couple of lens that would not adapt to the P645. That said the three wides: A 35, FA 35, and 33-55 are wonderfully sharp lens. If you want the fisheye, the Arsat 30mm is a pretty sharp lens as well and is not too costly.

[ilkka]

I have the P67 Fisheye but not a 645 body to try it on. But I do have a 16mm Fisheye for 24x36mm that I have mounted and tried on small sensor DSLR. The result would be fairly similar. It does crop out the edges, leaving a wide but not very wide view, and similar distortion as with the full frame fisheye. In my opinion, it is not worth the trouble. The point of using a Fisheye is to get the 180 degree corner to corner coverage. For less wide view, it is much better to use a rectilinear wideangle lens.

[thomas_janik]

Richard:

 

I own both the 67 and 645 versions of the 35mm and can't think of any reason to use the 67 version on the 645 unless I wanted distortion. The fisheye is a nice lens except at the edges, but the 645 35mm, especially the FA version, is in a class by itsef and is often used with shift adapters on DSLRs. Here's a review on the 645 35mm.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html

[yuri_huta]

Hi Richard,

 

I did use this "Pentax 67 35mm fisheye lens on a 645 camera" combination for a few rolls, but no experience with either of the 645 35mm lenses. For B&W film it was great because of the built in filters (red, yellow, orange, green - or some combination suitable for B&W film). I have since sold the lens, but I would have liked to keep it if I had the budget.

 

I had no negative issues using it on my 645n bodies.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=805211

 

Yuri