Contax lenses versus MAM-1 and Hasselblad lenses

[kip_peterson]

OK--looks like I'm on a roll with the most posts in one week! Trying to get this quiet corner of photo.net

a little noisier... ;-)

 

I'm thinking of investing in a mid telephoto lens for my Contax 645. There seems to be some controversy

about variation in sharpness in the Contax Sonnar 210mm. Since this is a focal length I would use less

frequently than others, I'm reaching out to you experienced users to tell me that if one doesn't mind the

totally manual nature of using the MAM-1 adapter with a Hasselblad lens, would this be a more reliable

way to get a sharp telephoto for the Contax system, say, a Sonnar 180mm or 250mm for Hassy, instead of

the f/4 210mm Contax?

 

Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

[mikeseb]

I can't speak for the Hassy, but I have the Sonnar 210 f/4. It is the most underrated and

undervalued lens in the line. I think it's exceptional, but you'll hear other opinions. I think it's

at least as sharp as the 140, which is the lens I use most often (next is the 35, then the 55.)

 

You could get the 210 for not much, and sell it if you change your mind and likely lose

nothing.

[fotografz]

I had and used both Zeiss/Contax and Hasselblad V Zeiss lenses when I shot with a Contax

645.

 

Generally, the Contax lenses are the way to go because everything is coupled: AF, auto

stop down metering, flash metering, and focusing... verses the PITA stop-down metering

and manual focusing with the Mam-1.

 

However, the Contax line up was limited, where the Zeiss V lens line-up is extensive. I

used all sorts of focal lengths via the Mam adapter ... like the fisheye, and 180/4. The

180/4 is pretty hard to top ... and remember, you can also select from the F and FE series

V lenses ... among which is the 110/2, and the 250/4 which is a fab lens much loved by

fashion shooters.

 

In the end if all you want is a that area of focal length and you don't already own the

Hasselbald lenses like I did, just get the Contax 210/4. The hassel of the blad isn't worth it

IMHO.

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hello Kip,

 

besides a couple original Contax 645/Zeiss lenses, I am using successfully over an adapter, also a Zeiss Jena MC 2,8/180mm, and a row of other K-6 telephoto lenses. It works fine, and I have also the AF indicator signal control in the viewfinder. I generally like to shoot hand held, and therefore using the lenses mostly wide open. An K-6/Contax 645 adapter ring, you can order from WIESE-FOTOTECHNIK in Hamburg/German (info@wiese-fototechnik.de)

 

Cheers

 

Wolf

[gary_ferguson1]

You should take a look at this Zeiss site, which gives MTF information for Zeiss lenses that are no longer manufactured

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/8401A54783ED1154C12570F90049667D

 

Incidentally, it's possible to directly compare these MTF charts for Zeiss made Hasselblad and Contax lenses with current Fuji made Hasselblad lenses, the reason is that Hasselblad use Zeiss MTF testing equipment to a standard Zeiss testing methodology so the results are directly comparable.

 

If you go through these charts you see that the performance on several Contax lenses isn't quite as high as the best Hasselblad V and Hasselblad H alternatives. Lenses such as the Contax 120mm Macro are world class performers, significantly better at infinity focus than the Hasselblad V 120mm for example. But other comparisons aren't as favourable for the Contax glass, the 210mm is noticeably inferior to the 210mm Hasselblad H, and to both the 180mm and 250mm superachromat Hasselblad V.

 

I've owned and used every lens in the Contax 645 range apart from the zoom, and it was my experience that although the longer lenses are superb for portraiture (delivering a mellow and fluid rendition) when it comes to out and out resolution they're simply not in the same league as some competitor lenses, and that conclusion seems to be supported by Zeiss's own MTF charts.

[evan_dong1]

Gary and Marc,

 

It would appear as Gary pointed out, that the Zeiss MTF testing equipment will yield the final results. Since the 200mm - 250mm focal length shows that the 180mm and 250mm superachromat Hasselblad V optics to be far better then the Contax 210mm, how does the regular 250mmCF and CFi stacks up against the Contax 210mm?

 

Can someone explain how to read the MTF charts, exactly now that most of the Hasselblad optics MTF results are available on their website.

[kip_peterson]

Thank you all for the responses so far! Very good info. The Superachromats are so much

more expensive than the Contax that i don't think I will pursue that path for the limited use I

think this focal length will see with my use. However, I am very interested in hearing what

folks say about the CF and CFi lenses stack up as Evan asked.

 

Thanks again--

[stefan_prasser]

I did some quick test shots today with the Contax Sonnar 4/210 and both Hasselblad CF lenses Sonnar 5.6/250 and Sonnar 4/180. I shot all lenses wide open and with f=11. I will try to upload the results to this posting.<div></div>

[stefan_prasser]

#2<div></div>

[stefan_prasser]

#3<div></div>

[stefan_prasser]

#4<div></div>

[stefan_prasser]

#5<div></div>

[stefan_prasser]

#6

 

Comment: All pictures were taken with a Kodak DCS 645C Proback. I converted the raw data to JPEG (optimal quality, 800x800 size) in Lightroom.

 

There was no model available, so I unwrapped my Harley for a quick test.

 

Hope it helps,

Stefan<div></div>

[kip_peterson]

Stefan--

 

This is fabulous! Thank you so much--it's a better response that I could have hoped. It

will take me some time to evaluate these images, but I think we all are extremely grateful

for your efforts!

 

Initial gut feeling--the Contax seems cooler, but not less sharp.

 

Thanks again--

[gary_ferguson1]

"Can someone explain how to read the MTF charts, exactly now that most of the Hasselblad optics MTF results are available on their website."

 

You'll find lots of guides to using MTF charts, here's just one

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml

 

Incidentally, I tried using Hasselblad V lenses on a Contax with the OEM converter. The results were mixed, but I've tried using Zeiss lenses on a Canon with a cheap Chinese converter and the results were excellent.

 

Consequently I'd be sceptical about emphatic recommendations regarding converters. They're all indifferent in terms of usability, but in terms of image quality I suspect the results can be very variable, and may even show noticeable differences within the same batch. For this reason I'd tend to avoid them unless you're prepared to pursue the search doggedly until you find the perfect converter.

[stefan_prasser]

Image quality of the Contax lens is very good - I'd range this lens with all my other Contax telephoto lenses on an equal level - one exception: The Makro Planar, this lens is by far my sharpest lens (wide open, close up and at infinity). The Hasselblad lenses ar suprisingly good but not better than the Contax lens - but the differences will not count in day-by-day work.

 

My concern using the Hasselblad lenses is driven by practical usage: No AF, stop-down metering, adapter quality. May be I'm wrong with the adapter quality because I'm using a Novoflex adapter, I've never used the Contax adapter, so the quality of workmanship could be far different.

 

Kip, if you need larger JPEG or RAW files or other details - just let me know. I can send these files to your email account.

 

-Stefan

[evan_dong1]

Gray,

 

Thanks for pointing out that link. I will read it carefully and hopefully will have a better understanding of how to read a MTF chart from the Zeiss website for Contax 645 and Hasselblad V optics.

I am somewhat surprise and a bit confused in regards to your mixed results. I assume you are referring to the use of the MAM-1 with Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad?

 

Are you referring to the sharpness or color contrast? Is it possible that the lenses are not as newly designed as the Contax 645 with the stray light baffling and newer optic design?

 

Are you using the split image screen with these lenses?

I had a similar problem and it took several rolls of chrome film to determine that my body AF mechanism was off with some lenses and then perfect with some other lenses. In addition, the Contax 80mmF2.0 is currently in Japan being overhauled for a motor.

 

In short, I also agree with your assessment regarding the Contax 120mm Macro being better then the Hasselblad 120mmCF (thats what I have).

Since the Contax 645 55mm and 45-90mm zoom are rare beasts to be founded, I use my Hasselblad 50mmFLE CF and 60-120mmFE with my Contax 645. Both are superbly sharp and has good color contrast. BTW I use my Hasselblad V lenses with the MAM-1 adapter with the Split Image focusing screen.

[evan_dong1]

Stefan,

 

Nice digital photos using all of the longer optics from both Hasselblad and Contax 645 line.

Can you include me for some of those larger jpeg or RAW (tiffs - I assume?) files? I do not have any lenses longer then the Hasselblad V 150mm.

 

The Novoflex adapter and the Hasselblad MAM-1 adapters are the better of the lot of adapters for Hasselblad to Contax 645 adapters.

[gary_ferguson1]

"Thanks for pointing out that link. I will read it carefully and hopefully will have a better

understanding of how to read a MTF chart from the Zeiss website for Contax 645 and

Hasselblad V optics. I am somewhat surprise and a bit confused in regards to your mixed

results. I assume you are referring to the use of the MAM-1 with Zeiss lenses for

Hasselblad?"

 

 

Yes I am, the explanation's probably quite straightforward, the engineering precision

required for a successful adapter is extremely high, and it's likely that a percentage of

adapters simply don't deliver to the required level, some do, some don't. I think this is why

there's such mixed reviews regarding adapters. Some people have a good one, others

don't.

 

My MAM-1 showed all the characteristics of "decentering", producing an image that wasn't

uniformly sharp across the frame, it consistently showed maximum sharpness off to one

side and progressive blurring on the other side.

 

Incidentally, I agree that the Contax 120mm is a standout optic, significantly better than

the Contax 140mm and 210mm. The point is that there's several competitor lenses in the

100-350mm range that are equally as sharp as the Contax 120mm, a claim supported by

the respective MTF data.

[evan_dong1]

Gary,

 

That's first I heard of any problems with the MAM-1 adapter, let alone by any of the higher quality adapters. I read and was told that focusing to Infinity was the main problems with some of these adapters. Now that I know someone "firsthand" having a problem with the MAM-1, I would have to review and re test my MAM-1 adapter to see if its within correct tolerance.

 

Thanks for the information. Could that be why the MAM-1 had a short lifespan in the camera shops when it was available?