? re Contax 645 WA Lens Choice

I'm the happy owner of a new (to me) Contax 645.

 

Due to the surprising response on e___ of the sale of my Mamiya Pro

TL kit (closes later today) it looks like I will have the money for

my first new lens.

 

Being mostly a landscape shooter I want to get a wide angle. I've

never used a 35mm on a MF system. My 45mm on the Pro TL was wide

enough as far as I could tell.

 

I'm not concerned about the difference in price between the Contax

35mm and 45mm. Is there any drawback the board members could tell

me about regarding the 35mm? Is the distortion noticibly worse than

the 45mm? Is it as contrasty and is the color as good as the 45mm?

Anything else?

 

Given all things being close to equal I plan to get the 35 as when I

want WA I want a lot of it.

 

Any help deeply appreciated.

The 35mm distorts, and a bit more so than the 45mm. However, it's only an issue with architectural shots. The best Contax wide combination I found was the 35mm and the exquisite 55mm. I recently switched to the H1 after a couple of years with the Contax 645, generally happy with the move but I still miss that 55mm!

I've seen enlargements from the 35mm Distagon 645 lens. If you have the $$$, there is no discernable down-side to the Zeiss 35mm- it is sweeeeet. Photodo gives the Contax 35mm Distagon a 3.8 rating based on MTF tests, which is a very respectable Photodo rating for a wide angle MF SLR lens (the Hasselblad Distagon CF 40/4 FLE sample tested only got a 3.1):

 

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/Co645AFZeissDistago-129.shtml

 

Mike Reichman has a cool digital comparison of the 35mm Distagon with a 30mm Russian lens and correction software. About 3/4ths of the way through the article, check out the 100% crop on the Distagon image- wow! You are unlikely to find a better 6x6 or 6x4.5 wide angle lens:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/arstat-30mm.shtml

Regarding Gary's point on distortion, the question becomes: compared to what? The 35mm Distagon is the 35mm format equiv. of a 22mm lens, and all ultrawide MF SLR lenses I have used have shown some distortion of straight lines.

 

For absolute rectilinear MF ultrawide shooting, my favorite is my Biogon-design 43mm Mamiya 7/7II rangefinder lens. Like the 38mm Hasselblad SWC-variant Biogon lenses, the 43mm Mamiya lens can exhibit some noticeable light fall-off towards the edges of the frame. Also, Biogon-design wide angles don't handle spherical elements close to the camera and at the edges of the frame with particular grace.

 

So, you have to pick your poison. No lens will be perfect for shooting all types of subjects.

 

Without buying into another system and sacrificing the convenience of an SLR camera, the 35mm Distagon 645 lens is as good as it gets. Whether you need the 22mm equiv. ultrawide, as opposed to the 45mm lens that would equal 28mm in 35mm format is a question you will have to answer for yourself.

"Also, Biogon-design wide angles don't handle spherical elements close to the camera and at the edges of the frame with particular grace"

 

Good point, but that's not distortion as such (ie the bending of straight lines) it's an inherent property of all ultra-wides, Biogon or otherwise.

"Good point, but that's not distortion as such (ie the bending of straight lines) it's an inherent property of all ultra-wides, Biogon or otherwise."

 

Good point, but the phenomena is particularly acute in WA lenses where the rear elements butt up against the film plane (e.g. Biogon-design lenses).

When I bought my Contax 645, I went for 35 mm and 55mm and skipped 45 mm purposely. Owning the 35 mm for more than a year, I must say I love the sharpness and color of the lense, and the dramatic WA look coming with it. I had experience with 28 mm lense in 35 mm format, which I think is not wide enough for dramatic WA effect, therefore I skipped the 45 mm. Distortion is not that noticable, much better than the 28-70 L Cannon zoom I used to have. There is some light fall off issue off the center of the image. Overall, it is a wonderful lense and I stronly recommend it for landscape. The dramatic WA look will give you a whole new perspective, totally different from a 45 mm lense.

Thank you all. You have confirmed my hopes for the 35mm lens. Excellent information

and it truly helps me a lot.

 

 

Thank you Thank you Thank you

Aren't all the WA lenses from Contax called Distagons? Are these the same designs as Biogons?

I also support 35 and 55mm choice plus you may want to look at 45mm Hartblei Superrotator - it`s not a Zeiss by any means but it is quite handy to have such a lens in your bag.

"Aren't all the WA lenses from Contax called Distagons? Are these the same designs as Biogons?"

 

No and yes- the Distagon lens design is a distinct configuration from the Biogon design; the Distagon design being particularly well-suited for SLR lenses with a reflex mirror creating a greater flange distance. So, you would be right to the extent that 35mm and MF Contax SLR lenses are of the Distagon design, as is the 35mm lens for the Contax G cameras.

 

The Biogon design is suited to non-SLR applications where, in wide angle applications, the rear element can be set very close to the film plane. Biogon and Biogon-design lenses include the Hasselblad SWC variants, Contax G 21mm and 28mms and the 43mm lens for the Mamiya 7/7II.

 

"I also support 35 and 55mm choice plus you may want to look at 45mm Hartblei Superrotator - it's not a Zeiss by any means but it is quite handy to have such a lens in your bag."

 

Here's a good review of the Hartblei 45mm T/S lens:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml

Hi use and love the 35mm for landscapes.

 

Only down side I can think of is size, both the thread size (95mm) for filters and the physical size of the lens.

 

You won't go wrong with any of the lenses in the set but also give a thought to the 'blad lenses that fit the Contax via an adaptor......

 

Regards