Contax: 35mm Lens or 45mm Lens?

[laura_iwanaga]

I am on the verge of purchasing the Contax 645 kit and want to add

either the Carl Zeiss T* M-Distagon 35mm f3.5 lens or the Carl Zeiss

T* M-Distagon 45mm f2.8 lens. My use will be for landscapes on a

tripod so the difference in aperture is not too important. I am

leaning toward the 35mm lens as I prefer the widest angle possible

for landscapes (crop later if needed). Anyone out there who can

provide comments on differences of the two lenses and why one might

be better than the other? Thanks for any thoughts.

[andrew_schank]

Laura,

 

I went throught the exact same thing on my Pentax 645 system, and I chose the 35mm over the 45mm. To me, wide angle photography is where the 645 format really excells over 35mm, because even with the wide field, you still can get decent size images on the negatives. I also tend to want to make bigger enlargements from my wide angle landscape photography than say portraits. At f16 or 22, I can get everything in sharp focus from about 3 1/2 to 4 feet to infinity with the Pentax 35mm lens. The Contax lens should have the same great depth of field, and is even a bit sharper than my Pentax lens, so I'm sure you'll love it.

[ShunCheung]

I have been thinking about getting a 645 system for landscape work as well. Whether the 35mm or 45mm is "better" is your personal choice. However, I think the 35mm on a 645 system is a pretty extreme wide-angle lens. At least it wouldn't be my only wide angle. I think I would get the 45mm first and if I can afford a second one, it'll be the 35mm.

[john_coan]

I didn't have a lot of money, so I took an alternative approach and bought a Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon multicoated 50/4. They are about $325 for an excellent specimin. Adaptors for the Pentacon Six mount are $200 from Zoerkendoerfer. Once you have the adaptor you can then use all the other CZJ lenses too (such as the excellent Sonnar 180/2.8) and in addition, the dirt cheap but pretty darn good Ukranian lenses for the Kiev 60. No autofocus, and stop down metering ... but for landscapes this shouldn't be a problem. I've been generally pleased, and for the money, they cannot be beat. (Especially a bargain is the Kiev 30/3.5 fisheye for less than $200 brand new with filters and case.)

[ShunCheung]

Finally I am kind of in the same situation as Laura was a year and half ago. Can those of you who use the Contax 645 for landscape/nature photography share their experience on this system, in particular the choice between the 45mm and 35mm wide angles?

 

I find my personal perference has changed since a year and half ago too. Before, the 24mm was my primary wide angle for landscape work in 35mm format. Now I have used a 17-35mm lens for a while, I am getting more interested in the super wides too. Would the 35mm be a better choice in 6x4.5?

[coop]

It's really a matter of personal taste, I would think. Best way to decide - go out and shoot a bunch of shots at 21mm on your 35mm system, then shoot a bunch at 28mm on your 35mm. Place them both on your light-table and decide which is the preferred perspective.

 

To me it's hands-down the Distagon 35mm F/3.5, which is about equivalent to 21mm in 35mm terms. Once you get up around 28mm, (the 45mm in MF speak), I think you're moving a little outside the "landscape," zone. But again, it's a matter of preference. Best to shoot a bunch and decide for yourself before making the plunge in to MF lens prices. And don't forget - the 35mm Distagon has a 95mm filter. That means you'll need to buy new filters, since your 17-35mm is probably 77mm; whereas the 45mm Distagon is 72mm. You can use a stepping ring on the 72mm and use your 77mm filters without any problems. If you haven't already, price a decent 95mm circular polarizer - that may make the decision for you! :)

 

Good luck,

 

Derek

[ShunCheung]

Actually, I ended up with the 45mm. I have seen the 35mm and it is big, and the price for thoes 95mm polarizers is discouraging: like around $400 or so.

 

As the only wide angle lens for the Contax 645, the 45mm is fine. In fact, I wish I had the new 55mm as well as the 45mm can be too wide in some occasions. The 55/35 could be a nice combination. There are rumors that Contax will have a 45-90mm zoom (and a 90-180 zoom), and that could be a good companion lens with the 35mm as well.

 

With the introduction of these new lenses, the decision may be different. I just hope that those new zoom lenses will bereality soon, unlike the Contax full-35mm-frame N digital, which takes 2 years between initial announcement and eventual production introduction.

[francis_yiu]

I have experience in using 35, 45, 55, 80, 120, 210mm lens for the contax 645 system and Hasselblad 250SA, 350SA with the use of adaptor on the contax 645 sytem. From my own personal experience (with the need of developing prints up to 24 x 20 inches size). The 35mm is a great lens with excellent optics and edge to edge sharpness. The 45mm have some problem with image sharpness near the edge of the film (which correlates to the drop of MTF curve as published by Zeiss) which I cannot accept. The problem cannot be overcome with aperture stop down to 16. I therefore sent the lens back to Zeiss for a thorough examination and there was nothing abnormal according to the report. Finally I go for the Hassel biogon 38 system instead which have even higher image quality than 35mm due to its symmetrical non-retrofocus lens design.

[william_yu]

I am in the same situation trying to decide between the 35 mm and the 45 mm. I am curious whether anyone has tried to use the Hassy CFE 40 mm or CFT 40 mm with the Contax adapter on the Contax 645 body? Does this set up work and if yes, how good is the quality of the Hassy 40 mm lense?

 

Thanks,

 

William Yu