Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: HAK on August 05, 2010, 06:06:42 pm
-
I'm offered an opportunity to buy some Carl Zeiss lenses for my CONTAX 645 at good prices.
Which are the ones you like best? For which purpose?
Can you perhaps share some photos with us?
Thanks to all lovers of this fabulous camera!
-
Which are the ones you like best?
As to "perfection" (whatever) I'd rate the 3.5/35 and the 4/120macro being excellent.
However my most used Contax lenses are the 2.8/45 and the 2.0/80 (due to the field of view).
-
My favorite and most used lens is the 55/3.5 for landscape and design. Great sharpness color and focal length.
The 35mm is also fantastic and sharper but because it is so wide can be overdone, so it needs to be used with some restraint.
All of the lenses are excellent. Hard to go wrong.
Only room for two lenses, go with the 55 and 140. You can do an enormous amount with them.
Robb
-
My favorite and most used lens is the 55/3.5 for landscape and design. Great sharpness color and focal length.
The 35mm is also fantastic and sharper but because it is so wide can be overdone, so it needs to be used with some restraint.
All of the lenses are excellent. Hard to go wrong.
Only room for two lenses, go with the 55 and 140. You can do an enormous amount with them.
Robb
i have the same opinion.
my clear favourite is the 55, also because its so small but very good.
-
but the 55mm is soooo hard to find ... unfortunately
-
As to "perfection" (whatever) I'd rate the 3.5/35 and the 4/120macro being excellent.
However my most used Contax lenses are the 2.8/45 and the 2.0/80 (due to the field of view).
If you remove the 35mm from that statement and slap my name on it, it's exactly what I would say.
-
Well, I have all the lenses, and although the 35 is a great WA, and the 55 is light, I defaut to the 80/2 very often. It is still the best all around (a bit sharper than the 55 too) If I am stumped for a wider angle, I stitch.
That said, if I take two with me it's the 45 and the 140.
I have the p65+ and ALL the lenses stand up (though I confess I have not tried all wide open, I rarely shoot that way)
Victor
-
With my P65+, I'd rate them: 55, 120/140, 80, 200, 35 (I don't own the 45 and recently sold the 35). For wider than 55, I prefer Alpa based lenses.
-
Well, I have all the lenses, and although the 35 is a great WA, and the 55 is light, I defaut to the 80/2 very often. It is still the best all around (a bit sharper than the 55 too) If I am stumped for a wider angle, I stitch.
That said, if I take two with me it's the 45 and the 140.
I have the p65+ and ALL the lenses stand up (though I confess I have not tried all wide open, I rarely shoot that way)
Victor
Victor, could you please tell us what you think of the 350/4 APO?
And a general question to Contax 645 users: given that the Contax system is discontinued, while its Mamiya/Phase and Hasselblad counterparts are still being produced and improved, what is the "hook" that keeps you with the Contax? Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, pulls and turnoffs. I am interested in your stories about why you are where you are.
Ray
-
With my P65+, I'd rate them: 55, 120/140, 80, 200, 35 (I don't own the 45 and recently sold the 35). For wider than 55, I prefer Alpa based lenses.
How are you rating them by image quality or focal length perspective?
-
The 55 is sharp from wide open, with a real snap and great colour and very pleasing look to out of focus areas.
80mm is sharp from f2.8 with stunning fall off and creamy look.
140 is sharp from 2.8 with great resolution but less contrast than the others and is very pleasing.
I use them all the same and love every one. If i had to pick a favourite it would be the 80mm just for the look. I have owned the 35,120,210 in the past and although the 35 is sharp it was a bit too wide for most uses, the 120 was for me too brutally sharp and hard and without character, the 210 just lovely but just wanted a three lens kit as i travel with it a lot.
Cheers,
Gary.
-
And a general question to Contax 645 users: given that the Contax system is discontinued, while its Mamiya/Phase and Hasselblad counterparts are still being produced and improved, what is the "hook" that keeps you with the Contax? Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, pulls and turnoffs. I am interested in your stories about why you are where you are.
This is a simple one.
It's got great optics, feels like a real camera with F stops not dials, has a digital interface, doesn't have menus or beeps, has a waist level finder and the mirror may be small* but it's smooth, smooth enough to shoot at a 1/30th wide open and hold focus, unless you've been up for three days.
Most lenses fit on it, and the 80mm F2 is sweet.
Also the price is low and let's face it, nobody's gonna change the firmware and make it obsolete because it is what it is.
You CAN shoot film and Digital by just changing the backs and a lot of people complain about the Autofocus but I find it more than reasonable. It's ain't a D3 Nikon, but no MF camera is.
(http://russellrutherford.com/sports/thumbs/th_012rr_sports_june_08.jpg) (http://russellrutherford.com/sports/thumbs/th_022rr_sports_june_08.jpg) (http://russellrutherford.com/life/thumbs/th_008rr_life_june_08.jpg) (http://russellrutherford.com/life/thumbs/th_099rr_life_june_08.jpg)
Do yourself a favor and find a WLF. You may use it only 10% of the time but that 10% is well worth it and the view is big with the WLF.
I dig the cameras, they'll last longer than anything else I use and there are still rentals in most major markets, though buying double is not a deal breaker.
The one and only thing that would move me from it might be a Hasselblad H cause I like the skin tones in PPPPhocus and at that point I'd just buy an H4D complete and still keep the Contax.
Everybody has been trying to kill this camera off for years, but if you talk in hushed tones, around the corner, under a dark street light to almost any dealer they'll tell you they'd love to see it come back.
It's that good, IMO.
BC
Sorry to keep adding to this, but it also has a 90 degree grip and two battery systems. You can load trays and trays of batterys and just slap em in, or switch from the inboard battery to the 90 degree grip battery on the fly.
If your buying, do yourself a favor and find a dealer like Samy's on Fairfax that sells all medium format backs and cameras and just hold them and shoot a few frames. It's a real camera.
-
hard to add something to bcooter's post… as all is simply true.
IMO the Contax shines in its total simplicity while at the same time you won't miss anything.
-
Thank you all for your input - yes, this camera should really have remained in production.
And another yes: the waistlevel finder is something I miss on the latest digital newcomers.
Does anyone have an opinion on the quality of the CZ zoom lens for the Contax 645, the 4,5/40-90mm?
It seems it is very difficult to find.
-
Victor, could you please tell us what you think of the 350/4 APO?
And a general question to Contax 645 users: given that the Contax system is discontinued, while its Mamiya/Phase and Hasselblad counterparts are still being produced and improved, what is the "hook" that keeps you with the Contax? Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, pulls and turnoffs. I am interested in your stories about why you are where you are.
Ray
The 350 is a very good lens, and I would likely use it more if I could squeeze some more ISO out of the P65+. That said, It is always on one of my tripods, facing oyut over our property waiting for our resident hawk and other fauna (fox, possum, rabbit deer. we are close to a park and all have 1-5 acres.
just clamp the Contax and P65 on and go.
Biggest issue for any tele lens esp with 60 MP is keeping the speed over 1/500 and getting DOF. once done, the 350 is sharp. I even use with the 1.4 I'll hunt up some shots. That said I am usually using thye 350 wide open, just bto get the stability of a fast shutter. the 350 AF is just ok, but that is because with a narrow DOF it is a little lacking in ESP :-)
Why do I keep the Contax?
1. It is a great system; RELIABLE, good features (eg mirror up via 2s works just fine, and mirror slap is virtually nil for any fast shutter.
2. I have never had a failure, so maintenace isnt an issue
3. that said, there is likely more contax 645 'float' even new, than any other discontinued system, including many Hasselblads.
4. DID i SAY The lenses are GREAT? (Zeiss design, Manyia, is just catching up)
5. Phase keeps making backs
regards
Victor
PS I acxtually have the zoom and don't use much because it is heavy. I have the Leica 35-70/2.8 as well. These two zooms are the only ones that at times can be BETTER than their respective primes. If I want to do a local shot and want some flexibility is composition that is thye lens to use. If I did more PJ, I would keep the vario Sonnar (it is a zeiss sonnar design) and keep it in the car. Since I have had shoulder surgery, I take the M9 instead :-)
PPS Here's and example. original was way overexposed, but you can see the 350 wide open does a credible job. This is P65+ the first is a 1/3 crop of original and the 2nd is 100%
PPPS BTW blue jays LOVE to dive bomb hawks! LOL
-
I second everything bcooter and Victor have to say. Let's keep this our little secret, shall we?
-
All the Zeiss lenses are exceptional, but for digital the 120mm is the sharpest...look at the mtf curves on Zeiss' website and you will see this lens is world class. Also consider Hasselblad V lenses with the readily available 3rd party adapters,
the 100mm f3.5 is equal to the 120mm, the 180mm F4 surpasses both but not by much. The 30mm Hasselblad fisheye is unique and quite fun, the barrel distortion can be straightened in photoshop or left for a unique look. If you really have a great deal of money Hasselblad made a 300mm F2.8 for the V system, I've heard (wish I could afford one) that it is without equal. The poor man's alternative is the exceptionally good Mamiya 300mm F2.8 Apo for their old manual focus 645 cameras, the great difficulty is finding the rare rare rare, did I mention rare Mamiya lens to Contax body adapter. The focusing gets very difficult with the 300mm lenses especially wide open and the 2x magnifier helps along with the split image focusing screen. Both these items are getting difficult to find but the old Nikon 2x magnifier from B&H fits the Contax with the proper Nikon adapter. Btw- Contax and Nikon viewfinder threads are identical and accesories can be interchanged. Okay, since I am so far off subject....Canon flash extension cords for ttl work on Contax, the pins line up perfectly, and the tla 360 can be extended this way, but Canon flashes don't work ttl on Contax and Contax flashes don't work ttl on Canon. So, to answer your question, I shoot my 120mm and 45mm mostly.
Good luck!
-
Hello,
As a Mamiya RZ and Mamiya 645AFD user I have to say that the lenses are superb.
Attached is a comparison between Mamiya and Carl Zeiss lenses. And yes I am a Mamiya fan boy.
Cheers
Simon
-
Hi Simon,
Yes, that comparison report is familiar to me for some years now. It's always dangerous to draw conclusions from a sample of one (ok, a sample of 3 types here) but the Mamiya lenses do emerge as impressive from that test. Nothing in my own experience contradicts that. I was keen to hear however what Contax users think about their own lenses, and I've been glad to see some great responses in this thread.
Ray
-
All the Zeiss lenses are exceptional, but for digital the 120mm is the sharpest...look at the mtf curves on Zeiss' website and you will see this lens is world class. Also consider Hasselblad V lenses with the readily available 3rd party adapters,
the 100mm f3.5 is equal to the 120mm, the 180mm F4 surpasses both but not by much. The 30mm Hasselblad fisheye is unique and quite fun, the barrel distortion can be straightened in photoshop or left for a unique look. If you really have a great deal of money Hasselblad made a 300mm F2.8 for the V system, I've heard (wish I could afford one) that it is without equal. The poor man's alternative is the exceptionally good Mamiya 300mm F2.8 Apo for their old manual focus 645 cameras, the great difficulty is finding the rare rare rare, did I mention rare Mamiya lens to Contax body adapter. The focusing gets very difficult with the 300mm lenses especially wide open and the 2x magnifier helps along with the split image focusing screen. Both these items are getting difficult to find but the old Nikon 2x magnifier from B&H fits the Contax with the proper Nikon adapter. Btw- Contax and Nikon viewfinder threads are identical and accesories can be interchanged. Okay, since I am so far off subject....Canon flash extension cords for ttl work on Contax, the pins line up perfectly, and the tla 360 can be extended this way, but Canon flashes don't work ttl on Contax and Contax flashes don't work ttl on Canon. So, to answer your question, I shoot my 120mm and 45mm mostly.
Good luck!
Thanks for all the info! I am intrigued about the "rare Mamiya lens to Contax body adapter" - I imagine this was a Zoerk creation? But given that the Contax registration distance is 64mm vs. the Mamiya's 63mm (someone recently posted the Contax value, thanks), wouldn't that mean that the lenses could not focus to infinity?
-
Thanks for all the info! I am intrigued about the "rare Mamiya lens to Contax body adapter" - I imagine this was a Zoerk creation? But given that the Contax registration distance is 64mm vs. the Mamiya's 63mm (someone recently posted the Contax value, thanks), wouldn't that mean that the lenses could not focus to infinity?
The Zoerk adapter is no longer made, I have been looking for well over a year and none has surfaced. Lloyd Chambers of diglloyd.com says the Zoerk adapter was "crappy". I am not sure what aspect of the adapter he was less than impressed with...materials, workmanship, etc. Finding one at least offers a template. Car enthusiasts often machine parts and a good friend told me that it wouldn't be impossible to machine this adapter. I never pursued it. I purchased an aluminum adapter (not Zoerk) last year on ebay, the seller said he had it custom machined. The adapter I have works perfectly, it is very thin and all my Mamiya lenses focus to infinity, therefore Contax flange to film distance is shorter than Mamiya. The Mamiya flange distance is 63.3mm. Contax? Prior to finding the adapter I had been talking to Adam at SK Grimes, skgrimes.com, and he indicated they could either change the Mamiya mount to Contax or make an adapter, I would need to send body and lens to them, the approximate cost would be $500.00....if it could be done. Once the lens mount is changed it might not be possible to change it back. The adapter made this whole process unnecessary. Since this discussion started with lenses I will tell you my impressions of Mamiya lenses vs. Contax in controlled tests. Mamiya lenses are generally as sharp as Zeiss lenses, the richness of color of Mamiya is poor compared to the brilliant Zeiss rendering. Photoshop is the great equalizer and the Mamiya lens images can be made to look Zeiss-like without too much effort. I would not give up my Mamiya lenses but Zeiss is more pleasing to my eye.
-
Hmmm...so the Contax flange distance is shorter than the Mamiya's. That completely inverts the impression I'd been given in the other thread. I wish people wouldn't toss out values that they are uncertain of.
That inversion is planting dangerous ideas in my head...I could keep my M645 lenses and switch to a Contax body with a WLF...no, no, Ray - stop it. You only just got your AFD + DCS645M back a few months ago! ::)
-
Hmmm...so the Contax flange distance is shorter than the Mamiya's.
according to Zeiss, the Contax 645 register/flange distance is 64mm
-
I shot a bunch of stars tonight with the 45mm.
-
according to Zeiss, the Contax 645 register/flange distance is 64mm
After a quick search of the internet for Contax 645 info I found it is extremely scarce. Many websites list the Mamiya as 63.3mm.
I did some crude measurements of the Contax body and it repeatedly measures 59mm, but wait, there's more. The film or sensor doesn't sit flush with the back mounting flange of the camera, it sits back 2-3mm (best guess using unsophisticated eyeball technique). Okay, here's where it gets fun, the Mamiya adapter is 4mm+, which roughly results in 63+mm of the Mamiya (59+4=63), but if you add the extra 2-3mm for the setback of sensor or film this adapter should not work.....but alas it does. A quick call to Contax and discussion with a tech rep should clear this up but sadly they are all gone, if anyone has some experience with this I will gladly defer to their expertise.
-
A quick call to Contax and discussion with a tech rep should clear this up but sadly they are all gone, if anyone has some experience with this I will gladly defer to their expertise.
Here are some numbers from the Repair Manual.
(http://www.tomasjohanson.se/LL/Contax645-C21.jpg)
-
according to Zeiss, the Contax 645 register/flange distance is 64mm
After a quick search of the internet for Contax 645 info I found it is extremely scarce.
i'll give you a hint ... "according to Zeiss".
Zeiss may also know something about the register specification. ;)
-
Thanks for all these numbers and scans, guys.
OK:
- Zeiss says 64 mm
- Contax repair manual says 59.80mm + 4.35mm = 64.15 mm (right?); same ballpark but not the same.
But:
- Darylgo says his Mamiya adapter is 4mm+ thick; so 64mm (body) + 4mm (adapter) = 68mm...and yet his Mamiya lenses (63.3mm) do focus to infinity on this adapter
- I found the Zoerk link (http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_mounta.htm) which backs up Darylgo: "We also offer a unique Mamiya 645 to Contax 645 cross-platform adapter. This adapter allows the use of Mamiya lenses on the Contax 645 with the full focusing range from infinity to close up."
It doesn't add up. ???
Could it be that the "throat" of the Contax is wide enough to allow the Mamiya lenses be recessed a few mm into the adapter? I'm clutching at straws to make the maths work.
-
- Zeiss says 64 mm
Zeiss quotes its number relative to the film plane.
- Contax repair manual says 59.80mm + 4.35mm = 64.15 mm (right?); same ballpark but not the same.
you forgot to account for film ... ~ .11/.12mm
But:
- Darylgo says his Mamiya adapter is 4mm+ thick; so 64mm (body) + 4mm (adapter) = 68mm...and yet his Mamiya lenses (63.3mm) do focus to infinity on this adapter
- I found the Zoerk link (http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_mounta.htm) which backs up Darylgo: "We also offer a unique Mamiya 645 to Contax 645 cross-platform adapter. This adapter allows the use of Mamiya lenses on the Contax 645 with the full focusing range from infinity to close up."
It doesn't add up. ???
Could it be that the "throat" of the Contax is wide enough to allow the Mamiya lenses be recessed a few mm into the adapter? I'm clutching at straws to make the maths work.
all along the assumption for the M645 has been 63.3mm.
is that even accurate?
-
Zeiss quotes its number relative to the film plane.
you forgot to account for film ... ~ .11/.12mm
I don't think so; check the Contax repair manual scan again. I used the distance to the inner film rail, and omitted the extra 0.4mm to the pressure plate. The film (and its backing paper) would occupy that extra 0.4mm space. Accounting for film thickness would actually add ~ .11/.12mm to the 64.15 mm value, making 64.27mm or so.
So we still have a discrepancy.
all along the assumption for the M645 has been 63.3mm.
is that even accurate?
Perhaps not! It's a value I've seen quoted everywhere for years, but I would like to verify it from at least one original Mamiya source.
I have a Mamiya 645 1000s repair manual...maybe that will mention it.
Ray
-
I don't think so; check the Contax repair manual scan again. I used the distance to the inner film rail, and omitted the extra 0.4mm to the pressure plate. The film (and its backing paper) would occupy that extra 0.4mm space. Accounting for film thickness would actually add ~ .11/.12mm to the 64.15 mm value, making 64.27mm or so.
yup, i was referencing the wrong set of rails and got the film orientation reversed.
(... that's what happens when i review specs before my AM coffee)
so, what we're potentially accounting for is just the thickness of the emulsion layer ~ .015mm or so.
Perhaps not! It's a value I've seen quoted everywhere for years, but I would like to verify it from at least one original Mamiya source.
I have a Mamiya 645 1000s repair manual...maybe that will mention it.
and i did come across what appears to be a Mamiya service manual, that has the flange to film-surface distance at 63mm
(... and 63.3mm to outer film guide rail)
-
Could it be that the "throat" of the Contax is wide enough to allow the Mamiya lenses be recessed a few mm into the adapter? I'm clutching at straws to make the maths work.
Problem solved...maybe. ondebanks hit the nail on the head, the Contax throat is wide enough to recess the Mamiya 645 lens.
And in fact the adapter is 4mm thick but the back mount of the Mamiya lens does not sit on the extended portion of the adapter. It recesses into the adapter and sits anywhere from 1/2mm to 1 1/2mm recessed into the lens. These are indirect measurements as direct measurements require more sophisticated tools than a fairly accurate mm ruler. At this point we know that the Contax is 64mm, maybe 64.15mm, we also know that Mamiya is 63.3mm. The recess would have to be .7 to .85mm which is consistent with the measurements of the adapter. Thanks everyone for going through this mental excercise!
-
just got the 45-90mm zoom lens.
It's quite heavy and bulky and it's "only" f4.5 ... but this is an impressive lens!
First impressions (in conjunction with a P45):
It's very sharp at all focal lengths wide open in the center and not bad at all the edges.
At 45mm you have to stop down to f8 to get sharp edges, from 55mm upwards the edges are really good at f5.6.
It shows less distortion than I thought it would (at 45mm and 55mm complex/moustache barrel distortion, similar to the 2.8/45, at 70mm literally distortion free, at 80mm and 90mm slight pincushion distortion - but I think you will notice distortion at any focal length only when shooting architecture or stuff where distortion shows up very clearly).
It also shows very little CAs.
Actually I was looking for a replacement for my 2.8/45 that was quite a weak copy (even stopped down not really sharp at the edges and heavy CAs). Well, now I have a new 45mm and a bit more...
Nice lens!