p.1 #1 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
Hi everyone, since there's a lot of Zeiss knowledge on this board, I thought I might ask here.
Some years ago, I had the Contax G1 and G2 with the 28, 35, 45 and 90 mm. I used all kinds of negative film and Kodak 100G Ektachrome. Actually, IMO it didn't matter much wich film I used, all the photos looked gorgeous. Lots of contrast (sometimes a bit too much) and wonderfully saturated colors.
Than the M8 came along, I sold all my Contax stuff for a song (little did I know at that time) and I lost the look I liked so much. I tried to emulate the Contax G look with some succes in PP with the M8 files, but it was not the same. Now I must say that the files coming out of the M8 in combination with Leica glass are very nice too. In fact I like this look so much, I started saving for an S2 and now I shoot with that camera and the 70 mm.
This winter I found a Contax G 90 mm, adapted it on the NEX 7 and boom, there was that look again, contrasty, saturated, warm.
I've ordered the new Leica S to Contax 645 adapter. I hope this will give me the look I like on the nice 30 x 45 S2 sensor. I've looked at Flickr and I like the 645 images over there. Now somehow the 645 lenses seem less contrasty. Maybe it's the latitude of the MF film, maybe it's the glass, design or something else.
How do you think the G line compares with the Contax 645 lenses? Which ones are sort of the same design? Which ones will give the G-look I'm after?
p.1 #2 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
Does the Leica S to Contax 645 provide aperture control? I'd actually doubt it since it's electronic, so it would require a sophisticated adapter.
Regarding the look of Contax 645 lenses: no personal experience but the images I've seen here from the Apo-Makro-Planar 120/4 and Planar 110/2 and 80/2 definitely didn't lack contrast. PP is always a factor to consider, of course. I believe user Paul Yi has a thread somewhere with samples from his Contax 645 with digital back. Edit: here you can see the kit he had/(has?): https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1050030
p.1 #4 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
Hi, Peter. Do you already have the Leica S? To me, much of the advantage of the S is the Leica lenses, so, if you're thinking about using Contax lenses, maybe you should just try a D800 with Contax 645 or C/Y lenses? Sure, the S sensor is a little bit bigger, but not much, and the newer tech of the D800 sensor would likely trump the small size difference, no?
Ohhh, that's fairly cool. I'd go with the 120/4. To my mind, it's everything people love about Zeiss lenses without the little problems that you have to correct in post, particularly axial CA and fringing. But it is MF. Does the S2 make it easy to manually focus?
p.1 #6 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
IMHO, the Contax 645 lenses are designed for a more sophisticated look, a bit less contrasty but with much richer tonal reproduction than the Contax G, which even by Zeiss standards, were a bit too much on the hard side. Even if you compare Contax G with Zeiss ZM, you will find the ZM more subdued and subtle, with richer tonality.
p.1 #7 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
I would say that each Zeiss line is different, be it C/Y, Contax G, N or 645. All these old have kinda similar colors, but they are not identical. Tho thats actually thing to like.
p.1 #10 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
There's also a finite number of S owners to whom they can sell, and only so many who are interested enough to buy, so they've got a very steep ramp to reach profitability on something that does not, specification-wise, seem simple or cheap to produce. It's also highly unlikely that they'll see many repeat sales. That and, relatively speaking, when you look at the prices paid by SLR users to get full AF/EA compatibility (I'm thinking Conrus converted N lenses or the Metabones EF to E electronic adapter, or the AF G lens adapter) we should be so lucky as to have that mod/adapter cost 10% of what we have invested in the camera we're trying to mount them on.
p.1 #11 · How do Contax G and Contax 645 lenses compare?
Thanks everyone, sorry for not responding for two days, but something came up.
@Douglas: The D800 leaves me cold, and yes I already have the S2. I wouldn't call the 30 x 45 mm sensor only 'a little bit bigger', it's 56% larger and in the digital age that's a lot. There's a difference of 486 square mm's between the so called FF which is 864 mm2, the S2 is 1350 mm2. I also happen to like the look of the 30 x 45 'Leica Pro Format' and think it's a nice 'compromise' for size, my other system is Sony NEX and the difference with APSC and S gives me interesting choices. Anyway, there are enough S2 /medium format vs D800 threads all over the web and let's not go there. Besides, AF is very important to me and the C645 lenses are fully functional on the S2 and not so on the D800.
I know the glass is a an important reason for stepping into the S system, but so is the S' ability to adapt different lenses from different systems, the S is kind of like the NEX of MF-land, in that respect. The adapter is very expensive but for €3.500 I can have the adapter, a Contax 35 and a 140 mm. That's about half the price of the S 120 CS.
@Edward: Thanks for your observations about the rendering of the C645 lenses. They're in agreement with my conclusions after looking at the examples I found on the net.
