645D lens quality vs Limited & best vintage SMC-A
Posted 01/06/2025 - 17:53 - Helpful Comment
Link
When we talk about quality it depends. It's possible to get amazing quality out of a 12MP MX-1, and if the destination use is the web that might be enough. Having said that, there is better quality to be had from the bigger cameras, but each step up is, for web, subtle. For big prints that's another matter, and the bigger cameras do make a difference.
645 lenses are OK, but to be honest I've been disappointed with some, such as the 80-160mm zoom. The wide angles may not be the best for digital as they are not telecentric designs and the edges suffer. Maybe my technique was not up to it when I had a 645, but I could get better results from 35mm format.
Now, give me a Pentax 67 and we're really talking quality. The one Pentax camera I would have loved to own but never had. Not digital but the lenses can be used via adapters.
645 lenses are OK, but to be honest I've been disappointed with some, such as the 80-160mm zoom. The wide angles may not be the best for digital as they are not telecentric designs and the edges suffer. Maybe my technique was not up to it when I had a 645, but I could get better results from 35mm format.
Now, give me a Pentax 67 and we're really talking quality. The one Pentax camera I would have loved to own but never had. Not digital but the lenses can be used via adapters.
Best regards, John
Posted 02/06/2025 - 08:27 - Helpful Comment
Link
Agree with John about the 80-160mm, never owned it but was talked out of it by several togs back when I bought my 645. I don't use my 645-35mm for landscape shots but it does work very well for up close/tight spaces i.e. static motorcycle & aircraft displays.
I do have the 645 to K adapter and all results with it have been good but it's not a use often item.
Best regards
I do have the 645 to K adapter and all results with it have been good but it's not a use often item.
Best regards
"To sell something you don't need, you first need to buy something you don't need"
Posted 02/06/2025 - 09:46
Link
Thank you for the insightful replies both, it's appreciated
In terms of build quality alone, not considering optical performance, how does the 645 35mm compare to SMC-A full frame lenses?
My primary lens for comparison would be the 50mm f/1.2.
Chat-GPT gives me the following verdict:
"If you're looking for mechanical elegance and craftsmanship, the 50mm f/1.2 is the winner — it's a jewel of 1980s optical design.
If you need something durable and functional for demanding use, the 645 35mm f/2.8 edges ahead with its solid, no-nonsense construction suited to medium format expectations."
"50mm, exceptionally smooth, long travel ideal for precise MF versus 35mm, still smooth, but slightly stiffer and more utilitarian"
Thanks again,
Kasper
In terms of build quality alone, not considering optical performance, how does the 645 35mm compare to SMC-A full frame lenses?
My primary lens for comparison would be the 50mm f/1.2.
Chat-GPT gives me the following verdict:
"If you're looking for mechanical elegance and craftsmanship, the 50mm f/1.2 is the winner — it's a jewel of 1980s optical design.
If you need something durable and functional for demanding use, the 645 35mm f/2.8 edges ahead with its solid, no-nonsense construction suited to medium format expectations."
"50mm, exceptionally smooth, long travel ideal for precise MF versus 35mm, still smooth, but slightly stiffer and more utilitarian"
Thanks again,
Kasper
-- Kasper Bergholt
Posted 02/06/2025 - 11:31 - Helpful Comment
Link
Metal feels heavier, more substantial and is often interpreted as higher quality, but it's more the right materials for the right job that matters. A metal lens dropped onto concrete won't be happy. A plastic one might bounce. The right sort of plastics are fine in the right place and any manufacturer will have varying successes and failures within the range. I wouldn't try to compare "chalk with cheese" as there are no absolute rights and wrongs.
Best regards, John
Posted 03/06/2025 - 11:51 - Helpful Comment
Link
The 645 A series lenses are plastic, the same as the A series lenses for 135 format, but they're bigger and thicker so they feel better. The 645 FA series are also plastic but much more flimsy, at least the 75/2.8 I owned was. Since I only had an original 645 camera, with no AF, I sold it and bought the A version instead, which is much better built.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Posted 03/06/2025 - 15:04
Link
Jonathan-Mac wrote:
The 645 A series lenses are plastic, the same as the A series lenses for 135 format, but they're bigger and thicker so they feel better. The 645 FA series are also plastic but much more flimsy, at least the 75/2.8 I owned was. Since I only had an original 645 camera, with no AF, I sold it and bought the A version instead, which is much better built.
Thank you - exactly this information I was after!
The 645 A series lenses are plastic, the same as the A series lenses for 135 format, but they're bigger and thicker so they feel better. The 645 FA series are also plastic but much more flimsy, at least the 75/2.8 I owned was. Since I only had an original 645 camera, with no AF, I sold it and bought the A version instead, which is much better built.
-- Kasper Bergholt
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
85 posts
2 years
Copenhagen,
Denmark
After seeing what the K10D is capable of, I’m considering picking up a 645D sometime soon (I vaguely remember that Helena Christensen shooting with a Pentax 645 film camera was what got me into Pentax in the first place about 20 years ago).
I’ve noticed that the 645 SMC-A 75mm and 645 SMC-A 45mm f/2.8 lenses are going for reasonable prices on MPB and eBay (especially for lenses made in Japan).
That brings me to my question: how are these lenses generally regarded in terms of optical quality—say, compared to something like the SMC-A 50mm f/1.2 or the Limited 77mm f/1.8? Or one of the Carl Zeiss ZK lenses?
Also, I’ve come across conflicting info about the build quality of the 645 lenses—some sources say they’re all-metal, while others mention plastic components. Any inputs on that would be appreciated.
In addition, what is a fair estimate of shutter life-time in used, but well-treated 645D?
Thanks in advance,
Kasper