If all things equal, in adapting to GFX platform, is 67 lens better than 645 lens for the purpose of artwork reproduction? I presume that (in terms of resolution and picture detail) 67 may be superior to 645 in the film world. But in adapting to GFX camera, both are to be conditioned/constrained by the same digital sensor so that there's no inherent advantage of one format to the other as far as the final result concerned, correct?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
67 vs 645 on GFX
- Thread starter bdmac
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,188
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 4,056
Since the image circles of the (Pentax?) 67 and 645 lenses both exceed the requirements for the GFX sensor, there is no inherent advantage of one over the other, or indeed, over a native GFX lens.
The choice should come down to the particular lens, not the native system. There are strong lenses in both Pentax MF lines. Another line to consider is the Mamiya RB/RZ 67 lenses.
SterlingBjorndahl
Senior Member
I don't think it makes sense to generalize about all P67 vs P645 lenses. There are several different lens designs within each line, that may or may not be appropriate for your solution.
If you're talking about flat artwork, e.g. a painting, and its size is less than e.g. 1m per side (i.e. not the size of a wall), and you want to avoid diffraction (e.g. f/11 or narrower), I'm not sure that any of the P67 or P645 lenses are optimal, due to question of how flat their field of focus is. They were not designed to be reproduction lenses. That said, for film reproduction, the SMC Pentax-A 645 120mm f/4 macro has a pretty flat field at macro distances and is quite sharp. It's less flat at farther distances so I don't know if it would be flat enough for room-sized artwork.
best wishes,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit
Ah, that's good to know, thanks!
So you think there may be no 67 or 645 lens suitable for flat artwork larger than 1m? Hmm, I am in fact looking for alternatives to native Fuji lenses for copying of flat artwork that's usually larger than 1m...
The many lenses for Pentax and Mamyia I have tried or tested all gave me mixed results for optical quality or convenience. The Mamiya A 120 f 4 for 645 is probably the best. But, there is a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 DG Macro ART, Canon EF mount, and it works fully automatic with the Fringer Pro adapter. It is now difficult to find new, but it didn't cost too much. The only draw back I have found when used on GFX is that the far end corners are a little softer. And I really mean far corners, maybe the last 3 cm of a 1m sample. At f11, this softness is practically gone and the lens is very flat and sharp side to side. There was however a warning, issued by Fringer, about early versions of that lens which had a compatibility issue.
Samples from it (full size) can be downloaded from HERE , if you wish to have a look.
Last edited:
Why are you looking for alternatives? Can you be more specific about what the Fuji GF lenses can't do for you, and how you determined that? That will help in identifying which, if any, alternatives might make sense for you.
Forgive me if I talk nonsense. But on a second thought, assuming the center is the flattest part of a lens and both 67 and 645 are larger than GFX in terms of size. Since the purpose is to copying flat artwork, so theoretically, wouldn't a 67 lens be more suitable for such task than a 645 lens, and the latter in turn be more suitable than even a native GFX lens, if everything else equal?
- Messages
- 4,188
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 4,056
It depends in the particular lens. You can’t sensibly draw general conclusions based solely on film format.
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
The SMC Pentax-A 645 120mm f/4 is excellent and inexpensive. You could quickly find out for yourself if it will be satisfactory.
There are other solutions that work well for copying flat subjects, but they require a bellows arrangement of some kind. The Pentax 120mm is far and away the simplest option for an adapted lens solution.
There are other solutions that work well for copying flat subjects, but they require a bellows arrangement of some kind. The Pentax 120mm is far and away the simplest option for an adapted lens solution.
Can anyone recommend a 6x7 lens adapting on GFX for reproduction of large flat artworks (3' to 6' each side average)? I see a lot of people swear by Pentax 67 105mm F/2.4 as a gold standard of 6x7 film format. But I'm not sure it's necessarily the case for digital format. It's kinda expensive too. What about Pentax 67 165mm F/2.8? Does any one have experience with this lens? Is it suitable for copying flat artwork? Insights on other 6x7 lens are also welcome. Thanks!
- Messages
- 4,188
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 4,056
Your intuition that the center of a 6x7 lens is “flatter” than a 645 lens is incorrect. You would be better off with a lens designed for flat-field reproduction like the Pentax 645 Macro, or, an appropriate lens you could use with a bellows.
Adding - Bronica made a 110mm macro lens for its 6x7 camera, and there are some good Mamiya RB and RZ 67 options, but the Mamiyas require a helicoid or bellows to focus.
Last edited:
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
For what you are thinking of doing, there are no advantages to using a 67 lens. You either need a lens with a very flat field designed for this kind of work (which needs a bellows), or you need the next best thing (which in this case is the SMC Pentax-A 645 120/4 macro lens).
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are not familiar with adapting 67 lenses, it is useful to know that the wider the image circle, the more sensible the lens is to stray light. That can translate in a loss of contrast and even in flare. A compendium or long lens shade is advised. Rob's suggestion of a Pentax 120mm macro is a relatively safe advice.
But if you want the best Pentax 67 lens for that use, it would probably the 100mm F4 macro, though an expensive lens and a late addition to the 67 range. Earlier P67 135mm macro lenses were OK for film, but are not up to the GFX sensor. If you have the need for more resolution, you could use that lens (or the 120 for 645) on a shift adapter and experiment with stitching two or three shots.
The cheapest GF lens however, the 35-70mm, is not bad at all for flat art at the long end as I recall.
I had this lens for a short time. It is designed more as a portrait lens I think. Never used it for repro, but for landscapes on a shift adapter and the curvature of field didn’t suit that use.
Last edited:
I regularly document paintings in an art studio, canvas sizes from say, 30x30cm to 200x250 cm.
Before switching to GFX (Fujifilm 50R), I used a Canon 6D together with the Canon 85mm 1.8.
When I got the 50R, I too was pondering whether to get a 67 or 645 lens for shooting paintings, and I concluded that 67 was overkill. The 645 lenses already cover more than the GFX sensor.
For studio work with the 50R, I got the Pentax-A 645 75mm f2.8 and the Pentax-A 645 120mm f4 macro, but I very rarely use the 120mm.
The reason is not about image quality, but about the handling.
The 120mm has a very short focus throw toward infinity which makes it much harder to dial in focus at a few meters distance compared to the 75mm.
So for practical use in the studio, say shooting a painting across the room, the 75mm is much easier to use. If I were to shoot slides or small drawings on a vertical stand then I probably would use the 120mm macro.
The 75mm is exceptionally sharp, has great micro contrast and minimal distortion.
--
.
Before switching to GFX (Fujifilm 50R), I used a Canon 6D together with the Canon 85mm 1.8.
When I got the 50R, I too was pondering whether to get a 67 or 645 lens for shooting paintings, and I concluded that 67 was overkill. The 645 lenses already cover more than the GFX sensor.
For studio work with the 50R, I got the Pentax-A 645 75mm f2.8 and the Pentax-A 645 120mm f4 macro, but I very rarely use the 120mm.
The reason is not about image quality, but about the handling.
The 120mm has a very short focus throw toward infinity which makes it much harder to dial in focus at a few meters distance compared to the 75mm.
So for practical use in the studio, say shooting a painting across the room, the 75mm is much easier to use. If I were to shoot slides or small drawings on a vertical stand then I probably would use the 120mm macro.
The 75mm is exceptionally sharp, has great micro contrast and minimal distortion.
--
.
Stan Disbrow
Veteran Member
Hi,
I used the P67 135 macro on the 40 MP 645D and found it rather not up to even that digital sensor. The P645 120 macro is far better and does quite well on the GFX-100.
Stan
I used the P67 135 macro on the 40 MP 645D and found it rather not up to even that digital sensor. The P645 120 macro is far better and does quite well on the GFX-100.
Stan
The difficulty with precise focussing due to the short focus throw was mentioned earlier. Would the older P645 Manual Focus 120mm macro lens be easier to focus than the AF version, or are they the same? And optically?
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
I think optically they are the same, or at least that's the consensus view over at PentaxForums. I found the focus throw on the A (manual) version to be very long.
Unless one would use it with the new Fringer P645 to GFX adapter, that would be a good reason to favour this choice.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum