On 1/13/2011 11:44 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
Boris,
The A645 45/2.8 is a dud. It's the only 645 lens I haven't bothered keeping.
The other two are stellar on film, and I expect they are on the D as well.
Jostein
Yes, I remember that you were not too fond about one of your lenses. But
if I am not mistaken you had another one or two wide lenses, whereas
numbers 35 and 55 spring to my mind.
2011/1/13 Boris Liberman<[email protected]>:
On 1/13/2011 7:57 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
OK, let me seize my chance to show my ignorance. Compared to a K-5 or
equivalent, the 645D is bigger, heavier, slower, and doesn't have as
many interesting lenses. Its only advantage is a mega-huge sensor
with correspondingly many pixels. So my conclusion was that this
kind of thing is really only useful for those who want to do
large-format printing, magazine pages and up.
Is there any other reason to use one, aside from it being beautiful
and seductive and all that? -Tim
Tim, with my briefest encounter with 645 film camera and assortment of
lenses back in 2004 I should say that 75/2.8, 45/2.8 and 120 mm macro (I
think these were the ones I used) are all quite interesting lenses.
Especially if you look at the resulting pictures.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
