Have Contax 645, looking for wide lens. Add Pentax 67?

[Cineski]

I have a Contax 645 with 80/2 and 140/2.8.  I'm looking to add a wide angle and have been set on the 45 f/2.8 as it's mostly to be used as a wide angle for portraiture....aka I don't want TOO wide like the 35mm.  I started to wonder if I should get a Contax 45 for my setup or instead get a Pentax 67 (version I, not II) and a 45 or 55mm.  Seems like I'd come in at or under the same price of a Contax 45.  I should note, I am in love with Contax Zeiss glass.  I mean dang they're nice.  Would I be better off getting a Contax 45 and play the lens change game (will also be used for weddings) until I get a 2nd Contax body or get a Pentax 67 w/ 45mm so I'm running two complete bodies?  I like the idea of the largest negative size possible with wide angles but admit to being ignorant with the Pentax system and glass.  I've read the Pentax 45 is quite nice but will the newer versions work on the older mechanical bodies?  How is the Pentax 45 when shot wide open compared to the Contax 45?  Thanks in advance for your advice.

[tikal]

I would have thought 80mm was a little wide for portrature. that's obviously my opinion and I have no idea how you shoot, but you said you aren't looking for something too wide like 35mm. did you check the conversion of a 45mm MF lens to 35mm it is something like 26mm I think. Just a thought.

[evgeny]

I sell Contax 645 55mm lens on eBay, it could be yours.  

[ondebanks]

If you think the 35mm lens is too wide for the Contax 645, then don't get a Pentax 67 and 45mm lens - the field of view is the same (89.5 degrees approx).

The Pentax 67 55mm would one the one to go for - it's just slightly wider than the Contax 645 45mm (it's equivalent to a 43mm lens on a 645 body).
Also, the late Pentax 67 55mm f4 is rated one of the best Pentax 67 lenses.

As to the general issue of another lens for your Contax vs a whole additional 67 system: normally I would think that to complete your Contax system makes more sense, but you did say you will shoot weddings, so maybe having the backup of a second body (even if it is of a different type) is a factor to consider. I'll let the Pros tackle that.

Ray

[Cineski]

Interesting points of view.  The 80 on the Contax is perfect for full body and waist up shots and f/2 with the 80 on 645 is to die for.  I also prefer to be closer than further away to my subjects.  I have a 140 for head and shoulders that is also a great lens.  I need a wide for portraits where the environment plays a bigger roll in the image.  I rented a 45mm for the Contax and was amazed at how well the distortion was controlled on that lens.  Even standing close to my model they looked natural for such wide coverage.  In a perfect world I'd have a 45mm and another Contax body since I have so many backs but that's just way too much to spend right now and while I'd love a 45mm Contax I don't like the idea of switching lenses constantly or finding another split diopter focus screen for another Contax body.  I have a very organic shooting style and I switch up lenses a lot but usually on a 2nd body.  So a late 55mm for Pentax 67 would work better, eh?  It'd be nice to have a 45mm some day for landscapes on a 67, too.  Patience isn't a fun thing ;-)  How's the late 55mm wide open?

[EinstStein]

I don't know about Pentax, but Contax is a bad system. Warn you, you can get addicted. Once you get any part of  it, you'll want the whole system.

The worst part is you can even get a digital back for Contax. You know how expensive it is  -- a 16mp digital back runs about $2500 at my local store, and can be over $3500 on ebay. You won't have this trouble if you go for the Pentax 67.

You are probably right that Contax 35mm is not a good portrait lens. I'm with you even for a 49mmx36mm digital back. Even 45mm could be too wide. 55mm is about right.

This is assuming you are not a professional fashion photographer. Professional fashion photographers who shoot for Nordstrom or Macy or such would love the distortion to death, which is what you can get through 35mm.



.

[Rob C]

I don't know about Pentax, but Contax is a bad system. Warn you, you can get addicted. Once you get any part of  it, you'll want the whole system.

The worst part is you can even get a digital back for Contax. You know how expensive it is  -- a 16mp digital back runs about $2500 at my local store, and can be over $3500 on ebay. You won't have this trouble if you go for the Pentax 67.

You are probably right that Contax 35mm is not a good portrait lens. I'm with you even for a 49mmx36mm digital back. Even 45mm could be too wide. 55mm is about right.

This is assuming you are not a professional fashion photographer. Professional fashion photographers who shoot for Nordstrom or Macy or such would love the distortion to death, which is what you can get through 35mm..

Been there, done that! Not for those stores, but for UK companies when the fashion was to use a 35mm on Nikon instead of a 50mm or, better, longer on half-length shots because of that slight distortion to which you refer.

It's nothing about rules, just l'air du temps!

Had a Pentax 67 ll for about a year - didn't get to love it at all, 55mm included. Its flash synch just wasn't something I ever learned to live with because there always comes the time that it's the only camera you have around but you still need that boost.

Rob C