Digital Medium Format Thread

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
19,013
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a lens that both disappoints and pleases me. At the larger apertures it's quite soft (when compared to other 645 offerings) and the bokeh is messy. At f/11-16 it's as sharp as a prime and not a hint of fringing.
I see that on the forums some dude posted them at different F stops

Itll only be used stopped down for big scenic vistas. What I saw was good consistency across the frame edge to centre - not something that was true of the 24-70

I might consider a 55 2.8 but that really will have to wait. Mpb is getting a 50mm art, 24 70, d810 and 20 1.8 as I'm now totally covered for that field of view with the 645 and 28-45 and 45-85

This really will be my main camera that'll do 80% of my work maybe more. I'll keep 1 d810 attached to the 70-200 for tele landscapes and everything else will done on the medium format system
 
Last edited:

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,639
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I might consider a 55 2.8 but that really will have to wait. .....
If physical size, extra weight and manual focus aren't an issue, Steve, then you really should be looking at the Pentax 67 55/4. It's optically superior in both sharpness and contrast and about half the price. Note that there were three 55mm lenses for the 67/6x7 system and it's important to get the '67' version and not the earlier (and inferior) '6x7' offerings.
I have the 645-55/2.8 (bundled with the body) but rarely use it as the 67-55/4 is a top draw lens
 
Last edited:

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,639
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
Any 645z users got good or bad things to say about the 80-160 F4.5 and the 150-300.
The 80-160 is fine. I've got the FA now but had the A before getting the Z and they're the same optical formula.

The 150-300 was noticeably inferior and I got rid of it. It's a very long lens (physically) not to have a tripod ring and I have the 150, 200 and 300/4 to cover those bases. I also offloaded my 300/5.6 due to its lack of tripod ring.....definately not too stable when the tripod is fixed under the camera body. The Arca plates on my Z are the square ones and maybe a longer one running along the lens axis might have been better with the 150-300 and 300/5,6
 
Last edited:

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
19,013
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
The 80-160 is fine. I've got the FA now but had the A before getting the Z and they're the same optical formula.

The 150-300 was noticeably inferior and I got rid of it. It's a very long lens (physically) not to have a tripod ring and I have the 150, 200 and 300/4 to cover those bases. I also offloaded my 300/5.6 due to its lack of tripod ring.....definately not too stable when the tripod is fixed under the camera body. The Arca plates on my Z are the square ones and maybe a longer one running along the lens axis might have been better with the 150-300 and 300/5,6
What's your views on the 200 f4 and say 300 f4. Example - stopped down to F8 and F11 and how do they measure up to a 70-200 2.8 L.

How much does the 80-160 soften at it's longer frame - and how is it in the corners stopped down?
 

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,639
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
What's your views on the 200 f4 and say 300 f4. Example - stopped down to F8 and F11 and how do they measure up to a 70-200 2.8 L.

How much does the 80-160 soften at it's longer frame - and how is it in the corners stopped down?
300/4 first....
I actually had 5 different 300/4's a year or so back and put them on the Z up against my Canon 300/4 IS on the 5DSR....all wide open. The 645-FA was the equal of Canon's offering and only lost out due to its less pleasing bokeh. My 645 300/4 shots don't have anything in the corners to judge by (aircraft mainly) but, unlike the 28-45, it's coverage extends 7.5mm beyond the Z's sensor.....likewise the 200/4. In short, i don't think you'll see corner softening on any lenses that fit 645 film bodies.
The results of the tests are here

I've never been a fan of zooms and always reach for a prime although I will concede that the last decade or so has seen the gap narrowed considerably. I had the 80-160 A to use as a tilt-shift on my Canon bodies and changed it for the FA when I got the Z.. My recent shots on the Z were all hand-held and panned (a vintage car rally) so the corners are motion blurred.
I'll try to test the 200, 300 and 80-160 for your usage in the next day or so and get some TIFF's for you to loook at.

Bob
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
19,013
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
300/4 first....
I actually had 5 different 300/4's a year or so back and put them on the Z up against my Canon 300/4 IS on the 5DSR....all wide open. The 645-FA was the equal of Canon's offering and only lost out due to its less pleasing bokeh. My 645 300/4 shots don't have anything in the corners to judge by (aircraft mainly) but, unlike the 28-45, it's coverage extends 7.5mm beyond the Z's sensor.....likewise the 200/4. In short, i don't think you'll see corner softening on any lenses that fit 645 film bodies.
The results of the tests are here

I've never been a fan of zooms and always reach for a prime although I will concede that the last decade or so has seen the gap narrowed considerably. I had the 80-160 A to use as a tilt-shift on my Canon bodies and changed it for the FA when I got the Z.. My recent shots on the Z were all hand-held and panned (a vintage car rally) so the corners are motion blurred.
I'll try to test the 200, 300 and 80-160 for your usage in the next day or so and get some TIFF's for you to loook at.

Bob
That would be great. Just some stopped down so I can judge the frame edges abd centres before I hit up ebay. I reckon an 80 - 160 could be very useful for me and they're not at all dear used.

See that link. The pentax smashes it. Bokeh is of no concern to me as it'll be stopped down to give depth, I solely shoot landscapes but unlike quite a lot of landscapers I do reach for longer stuff.

I do find a zoom more flexible but I can work with primes. 200 and 300 could work for me
 
Last edited:

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
19,013
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
200 F4 added for under £200 delivered from Japan - thanks eBay. Wex has them new at £800 and this example looks mint for 25% of the cost. Love a used bargain.

Next and honest final lens is the 80-160 or maybe a 300 F4 in time. Edit - eBay offer on the 80-160.0 :D

As @Canon Bob says - the lens is designed for a wider image circle than the crop MF 44x33 that the 645z is so edge sharpness will be fine.

My experience of testing this system around the house and thoughts. Amazing body - expensive - more so than an FF mirror less and SLR but not unimaginably so but the plethora of used gear makes the system remarkably affordable. 200mm gives a nice FOV on this sensor which will work for a massive chunk of the landscapes I shoot abroad.
 
Last edited:

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
19,013
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
And with pixel shift technology will deliver those high MP images you crave 400MP - time to sell the Pentax??
No...barely had it and I do prefer the SLR format. Pentax, if they use their brains, will redevelop the 645z around this sensor...

I do admire this though - and if Pentax abandon the format - and mirrorless is all you can get - Fuji will be getting my money. I'll never buy a 35mm system again. Ever.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,530
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
It won't take much though - take the AF from the K1 FF SLR - this sensor and voila...job jobbed. I'll run the 645z for a few years then revisit. My main thing is getting out there with it :D
Have you any images shot with the Pentax as yet Steve...? Would love to view them.

Cheers;
Peter
 
Messages
1,674
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
More Zurich in the snow, this time to test a Syrp genie mini II robot for panoramas in preparation for milky way season. This is 9 images stitched and 25k pixels wide, so huge print size possible. The robot works very well, only niggle is that the arm is a bit too small to adjust to remove all parallax so a possible issue in case of any close foreground.

Panorama 4 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/131308896@N02/
 
Top