Contax 645 350mm on digibacks?

[narikin]

there's some telephoto work coming up and wondered if anyone had experience with the 350mm on Contax 645 with digital? I'd be working with on a Phase back.
too heavy? good wide open? AF slow?

cant find one to rent anywhere, so its going to be pricey to get it wrong  
(unless anyone has one for sale?)

t.i.a.

[pprdigital]

there's some telephoto work coming up and wondered if anyone had experience with the 350mm on Contax 645 with digital? I'd be working with on a Phase back.
too heavy? good wide open? AF slow?

cant find one to rent anywhere, so its going to be pricey to get it wrong 
(unless anyone has one for sale?)

t.i.a.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Narikin:

We have the 350mm in rental ($80 per day). It does not have a lens hood though. At some point that went away and never came back. I personally have never shot it digitally.

[a href=\"http://www.ppratlanta.com/rentals.php]http://www.ppratlanta.com/rentals.php[/url]



Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php

[larryg]

not exactly what you were asking.   When I moved from the Hasselblad 205FCC system to the Contax and digital back (then it was Kodak DCS Proback)
I used the Hasselblad 350mm lens with the adapter on the Contax.

On a tripod wth mirror up.  The images were quite good and sharp.  I don't know why you wouldn't get the same or better with Contax lens?

For me I was tired of carrying it around in my bag and couldn't afford to let it just sit at home.

[narikin]

thanks Steve, thats good to know, though I am in NYC...

shame about the hood. hope somebody paid plenty for that !

[mikeseb]

Narikin:

I own the camera, the lens, and a Kodak ProBack. (My 350 is also missing its lens hood--and it'd be a miracle ever to locate one.)

It is heavy and cumbersome, but an exceptionally sharp lens. You'll absolutely have to have it on a tripod or monopod. Autofocus is accurate, but as slow as most older medium format systems' autofocus mechanisms are. I have used it, however, to shoot baseball and equestrian events with excellent results. Image quality is stellar.

[Khun_K]

Narikin:

I own the camera, the lens, and a Kodak ProBack. (My 350 is also missing its lens hood--and it'd be a miracle ever to locate one.)

It is heavy and cumbersome, but an exceptionally sharp lens. You'll absolutely have to have it on a tripod or monopod. Autofocus is accurate, but as slow as most older medium format systems' autofocus mechanisms are. I have used it, however, to shoot baseball and equestrian events with excellent results. Image quality is stellar.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have it when it becomes available long time ago and use it every once awhile, with film backs and P25 before and now with P45+.  The lens is beautifully made and my is still in pristine condition, with hood, pouch and all that.  I think the AF is OK, perhaps with the P45+ back, the issue is more with the AF accuracy in larger aperture than the speed.  Quality is first class. The lens is quite big, when compare to the Hasselblad V or H lens of similar focal length, well balance so the weight is not too much an issue for me. The lens hood is perhaps the best made hood of any camera lens, well made, heavy gauge, store easily.