Pentax 645 primes?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

B?wser - 25 Nov 2003 16:19 GMT

I've got a Pentax 645N II and three zooms, but I'd like to add a prime or
three when I'd like to travel light. I'm looking at the 45 2.8, 75 2.8, and
150 2.8. Any experience with these lenses? Any other suggestions? I'm open
to either MF or AF versions, used or new.

Reply to this Message

Bill Hilton - 25 Nov 2003 17:51 GMT

>From: "Böwser" stuck@in.ma

>I've got a Pentax 645N II and three zooms, but I'd like to add a prime or
>three when I'd like to travel light. I'm looking at the 45 2.8, 75 2.8, and
>150 2.8. Any experience with these lenses? Any other suggestions? I'm open
>to either MF or AF versions, used or new.

I don't have the 150 but I do have the 35, 45, 55, 75, 120 macro, 200 and 300
EDIF in the older non-AF versions. I'm not a big fan of the 35 mm but the
others are all very sharp and contrasty and I would recommend any of them that
fits your budget and focal length requirements. In particular the 55 and 200
are sweet for what I shoot.

Bill

Reply to this Message

B?wser - 25 Nov 2003 23:40 GMT

Thanks for the reply. The three I have in mind are the 45, 75 (maybe the
leaf-shutter version), and the 150. It would make a nice three lens kit that
pretty light, too. I know you have the MF versions, but do you have any
experience with the AF versions? I wonder why Pentax dropped the MF version
of the 45 2.8?

> >From: "B?wser" stuck@in.ma
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Bill

Reply to this Message

chmc - 26 Nov 2003 00:17 GMT

> Thanks for the reply. The three I have in mind are the 45, 75 (maybe the
> leaf-shutter version), and the 150. It would make a nice three lens kit that
> pretty light, too. I know you have the MF versions, but do you have any
> experience with the AF versions? I wonder why Pentax dropped the MF version
> of the 45 2.8?

I have the 45 and the 75, and they are both sweet lenses. Mine are not
autofocus though. The 120 macro is my favorite lens.

Reply to this Message

Bill Hilton - 26 Nov 2003 02:00 GMT

>From: "Böwser" not@this.time

>Thanks for the reply. The three I have in mind are the 45, 75 (maybe the
>leaf-shutter version), and the 150. It would make a nice three lens kit that
>pretty light, too.

Yes, these would make a good kit, though I'd rather have the 200 than the 150,
I think (since I've never used the 150 this is just a guess :)

>I know you have the MF versions, but do you have any
>experience with the AF versions?

No experience with AF, sorry, I only have the older MF body ... I don't think
I'll upgrade until they have a digital solution, plus we're shooting more 6x7
these days too.

Bill

Reply to this Message

Bob Monaghan - 26 Nov 2003 01:09 GMT

you have to look at how you will use the lens, what subjects you intend to
photo, and then decide what you need. These are classic wide angle,
normal, and portrait telephoto lenses. If your zooms cover all your
current needs, but you do a lot of cityscapes and travel shots (hence,
traveling light), then the wide angle would seem to be the obvious choice.
If you want more people shots, the portrait telephoto length makes sense.
If you want a general usage lens, maybe with macro using tubes, the normal
lens might be a good choice. But without knowing more about what you
intend to shoot, and what your needs are, we really can't help you decide
;-)

regards bobm

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/available.html for weights of lenses etc.

Signature

***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Reply to this Message