Best 645 for landscape photography?

I am moving up to medium format digital and would like to find the

best 645 for landscape work. I use three Contax lenses for my Canon

(28,35,and 50) and am impressed with their build quality and

sharpness, but the MTF curves on the Zeiss website for their 645

lenses are not that good. Mamiya posted a test by Pop Photography that

showed that the Mamiya lenses are sharper in the corners than the Contax.

 

Hasselblad is out of my price range. How does Contax compare to Mamiya

and Pentax? Does anyone have any first-hand experience that they can

report?

How about one of the fuji 645 rangefinders.

 

I have never used Contax MF, but I would expect their lenses to be among the best.

 

I personally did not think the RB/RZ lenses were that great. I mean they were nice, but not contax/leica 35mm sharp.

 

I have used the Pentax 645 and 67. Both are nice. i think the film flatness is a little better with the 67II. Also for both cameras the lenses are all over the board. The EDIF lenses are superb, except for the P645 400mm was a little off. The 67 300mm EDIF lens was one of the best lenses I have ever used.

 

None of the above are up to the level of the Mamiya 7 though.

 

That is probably the most recommended MF LS camera.

 

Probably not much else as sharp as a M7 except maybe a Hassy or Rollei.

In the medium format, I can only comment on the ones I've owned, Mamiya TLRs, Rolleicord, and Pentax 645. Lens differences are pretty minimal. I used each at their optimum aperture (f8-ish) and they provided great results. The Pentax lenses seem to deliver a bit better flare resistance and thus contrast and is much easier to focus. If interchangable backs are not an issue for you, it is hard to beat the Pentax especially given the price.

I have had a bit of fun over the last 18 months picking up a modest Mamiya 645 set for B&W landscape photography. With a bit of looking I got every part I wanted in very good shape through eBay, KEH and OnLine ads. Examples are the basic 80mm lens for under $100, PRO camera bodies for $150-$200, 55 and 150 lenses for a bit over $200 each (55 was essentailly new old stock, Prism finder for $70, Backs for about $100-120. Negatives are contrasty and sharp. The kit stores in a small photopack for travel/hiking. This is not my main camera and part of why I have it is probably the bargin prices I ran into for some very nice equipment. I have used the Pentax set in the past and find that when the resulting negatives from the Mamiya are compared to my older ones from the Pentax they are equivilent. I have never used a Contax.

While I never used a Mamiya 645PRO, my friend has one and we took pictures together a few months ago at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

 

He used Mamiya 645 Pro with 45mm, 80mm, and 100-210mm on tripod and I brought 503CW with Zeiss 50/4, 60/3.5, 100/3.5 and 120/4 Makro. Both shot on tripod with MLU and cable release. Honestly, his slides are not as sharp as mine and lack clarity and details. Maybe due to his technique or something but I suspect his lenses are not up to Zeiss optics. Just an observation.

I own Contax 645 AF with 45/2.8 and 80/2. Recently I have additionally invested into 55/3.5 and 140/2.8. The system is great, especially for landscape work. You can see examples at my web page.

 

regards,

Alexander Krasotkin

www.krasotkin.com

imo, there is no point in comparing zeiss,pentax or mamiya lenses. They are more or less the same. I'm using p67 and M645 and it is difficult to make out which is sharper.

For 645 you can buy Pentax or Mamiya or Contax depending on the budget. There is not much difference between the lenses, it is person who is using it.

I use M645,1000s and C lenses. As sharp as it gets.

I have owned and used the following 645 systems: Contax 645, Mamiya 645 Pro, Pentax 645, Bronica ETRSi. As far as sharpness goes, without question the Contax lenses were the sharpest. The Pentax 645 lenses come in second. Mamiya 645 lenses third. Bronica ETRSi fourth. If you can afford it, get the Contax as the lenses are superb and very consistent throughout the lineup. If you are looking for the best bang for the buck, it would have to be the Mamiya.

 

While I have found the Mamiya 645 lenses to be very contrasty, they did not seem to have as much resolving power as the Contax lenses. For portraits, it isn't a big deal. But for landscapes, you will be able to see the difference in 12"x18" prints. The Pentax 645 lenses are contrasty and seem a little sharper than the Mamiya 645 lenses. The Bronica PE normal and telephoto lenses were generally very good with high contrast and excellent sharpness. But I found the wide-angles to be very disappointing. Very flat, low-contrast images, and prone to flaring. The one I decided to keep was the Pentax 645 system due to the cost/performance ratio.

 

That is my 2 cents. YMMV.

An SLR is used for landscapes not only for exact framing but because of the need for grad nds as well. That said, if you are looking for the sharpest MF lenses that would be rangefinder, specifically the Mamiya 7, but it is also very expensive compared to the others mentioned above. The tradeoff between the ultimate in quality or maximum flexibility depends on what you want most.

Why not just buy a LF field camera and use film? You can get a really nice 4x5 with lens for about $1,200 new from Badger Graphics (Shen Hao kit).

 

I love my Mamiya 645 Pro TL, but I don't do much landscape work. It's nice for portraits.

Hi Bob-I didn't see anything above that I wooulld disagree with, maybe the Mamiya 7 would be better as a travel/landscape camera, but a 67 size negative is a real plus.

 

I had a M645Pro, and a couple of lenses. I had three camera kits ripped off and replaced the M645Pro with a C645, used both and carry the C645 now.

 

I really liked the simplicity and man machine interface of the M645. And C is just as nice to use, I love it actually (the AF, while not the best in the world works ok and it adds versatility to the box). In use, in my hands they are both nice. Losing patience with my girlfriend for being slow (taking ruins photos of ruins) I showed her that I could set up the camera, hand meter the light, compose, focus, MLU and shoot, it took 45 seconds. Obviously I was in practice, I oculd take shots with it buy guessing the exposure and prefocuse and shoot. Both cameras handle GREAT!

 

Lenses-I really think, from personal observation of negs, chromes, wet and digital prints from both lenses (the Mamiya were ULD lenses), that the CZ lenses are slightly sharper or resolved colors and details better, and that I like a lot of the the Mamiya photos better. The Contax is a lot more expensive. The Mamiya has a 50mm PC lens.

 

If you are only going to shoot landscapes, look at a 4x5. I want one for a "travel camera", and make contact print b&w postcards on weekends in a hotel bathroom.

 

The guys that use Pentax cameras like them, if you like Contax, stick with it. I like the CZ lenses better, aestheticly and general performance.

 

Have fun