Pentax 645 lens optical quality / old vs. new

[keith_merrill]

I am looking at getting a longer lens for my P645nII and was

wondering if anybody has had experiences with the older A versions

and the newer FA versions. Aside for the ability to autofocus, I was

really concerned with optical quality, sharpness, bokeh, and ability

to render tones. I really don't use the autofocus on the camera all

that much but the lenses seem to have undergone an upgrade when they

made the new Fa series. I have been checking around and you can get

some really great deals on the older manual focusing lenses but is

the glass the same, or is it a completely revamp. I am specifically

looking at the 200mm, 300mm f4 versions, and the 120macro lens. Not

that I am going to get all of these at once but I am doing some

looking for a good longer lens. thankyou very much. Keith

[dave_bazzel1]

I don't think you need to worry at all about the sharpness, quality, etc. of the older manual A lenses. In fact that's all I have and use. I decided to buy all A lenses and shun the FA lenses last year when I bought them used as you are considering. The reason was even though I have confidence the FA lenses are of high quality if you handle several of bo the the FA's are lighter and don't give the sense of robust build as the solid and impressive A manual focus lenses. I don't need auto-focus anyway. The only FA lens I might see myself buying would be the 300mm as I might use the auto focus there and also for it's tripod mounting shoe. Autofocus macro??? Try that sometime and let me know how it goes.

[dermot_conlan4]

Buy with confidence, the MF300 F4 IF-ED is an outstanding lens

and a great bargain you can buy it for under 1K. Yes a tripod

collar would be great but the AF version will set you back over 2K.

The 120 marco is a no brainer manual focus all the way. I would

differ on the wide angle the 35mm AL-IF AF lens, has low

dispersion glass and stops down to f32. I feel it's a sharper lens

than the manual version which I had. The front diam is 82mm

but the lens hood supplied with cut out for you to rotate

polarizering filters, a huge improvement over the manual.

 

Most of the newer lenses are internal focus and foucs closer.

[p_l_jensen]

AF with the FA 120/4 macro works excellently at close to 1:1 magnification. Eg. like flash photography of insects sitting on vegetation moving in the wind. Expect close to 100% hit rate with predictive AF.

The FA 645 120/4 lens is improved over the MF version with ED glass. Reports says it is sharper.

[fast_primes]

If I had to choose a single long lens for my Pentax 645, it would be the 150F3.5 because it's very compact with built in, sliding lens hood. After that would be the 150F2.8AF lens, which is bigger and sharper than the old 150F3.5 and focuses closer to 4 feet rather than 5, but is surprisingly just as light. However, with the detachable lens hood it becomes an obtrusive package for street/travel use. Then would be the new 200F4.0 AF lens, known to be sharper than the old 200F4.0 and has a built in lens shade link the old 150 and 200 lenses. Last for me would be the 120 macro. Why last? Because Pentax makes some superb dual element ancromat close up lenses for the 150F2.8 in 67mm thread and Canon does for the old 150, and both old/new 200 at 58mm thread (500D). BTW, to underscore Dermont's favorable comment on the new 35F3.5 AF, the Pentax 645 35F3.5 AF lens just received a rave review in the May 2003 issue of Popular Photography, along with the new Pentax 645 80-160 AF zoom.

[andrew_schank]

I've used most of the manual focus 645 lenses, and all of them are good enough for critical work. The 150mm isn't as sharp at infinity as it is in the 5 meters or closer area, but it is still very good. The 55 f2.8 is exceptional, and I have been very happy with the 35mm superwide. They are the best value on the market for medium format slr lenses. Mechanical quality reminds me of the original Nikon F 35mm lenses. Smooth as silk and rock solid.

[roland_vink]

Regarding the 300/4 IFED and 120/4 macro lenses, the optics are the same in the manual focus and AF versions. The 45-85 zoom, 80-160 zoom, 45/2.8 and 75/2.8 are also unchanged.

The 150mm, 200mm and 35mm lenses have new optics in the AF version with IF to keep the focusing optics lighter and faster.

 

The manual versions can be used perfectly well on the AF 645 cameras. About the only thing missing, besides AF, is that the focal length does not print on the film. The main criterial here are whether you prefer the build and style of the manual or AF versions.

 

I have the manual focus 120/4 macro, which is a great lens, and an AF 300/5.6 on order. I choose it because it takes the same filters (67mm) as the 120/4 macro and 45/2.8 wide angle, I don't really need more speed, greater reach compared to the 200/4, and the lower cost compared to the 300/4. The three lenses will make a nice lightweight travel kit don't you agree?

[cliff_lesergent]

I have to respectfully disagree with several previous posters regarding the 35mm f3.5 lenses. I found the FA version to be significantly less sharp than the older version, particularly at the edges of the frame, at all apertures. I also found the FA version's angle of view is noticeably narrower than the older version - it's more like a 37mm or 38mm lens.

 

Maybe I got a bad one? Perhaps, but based on my experience, I would recommend the older version of this lens over the FA version.