Peter Figen wrote:
If Fringer makes the adapter you're looking for, and they have a fairly limited selection at the moment, they are the best. As far as I know they only make one 645 to GF adapter and that's to adapt Contax 645 to the Fuji.
Thanks for the info. Yes, Contax 645. I just realized that I didn't specify that in my earlier post so I just added it.
Edit: removing my recommendation of the Kipon 0.8x adaptor as it causes a blue artifact in the centre of all images when stopped down.
mmm55 wrote:
I'm a novice to adapting lenses to the GFX bodies (100S in my case), but I'm interesting in trying out a few Contax 645 lenses (which ones are a separate topic). I've read through much of this thread and a variety of reviews and forum discussions. However, I'm still at a loss as to which adapter I should get. Are there any good resources/reviews that show or discuss side-by-side comparisons? Any rankings in terms of performance, build quality, features and reliability? Or how about some personal opinions as to which should be at the top of the list and which should be avoided?
thrice wrote:
The best (and by far most expensive) is the Kipon 0.8x AF adaptor. You will retain the 645 fov the lenses were designed to deliver, have more detail, a stop more light and autofocus.
Trying to sort things out. I understand how the Kipon 0.8x adapter affects focal length, fov and dof. But ... what would be the effect on the 1:1 reproduction ratio of the Contax 645 120mm?
mmm55 wrote:
Trying to sort things out. I understand how the Kipon 0.8x adapter affects focal length, fov and dof. But ... what would be the effect on the 1:1 reproduction ratio of the Contax 645 120mm?
Can't imagine why you'd need to change the effective focal length of that wonderful macro. Just use it without any extra glass and enjoy it. I'm going to guess that if you use that Kipon adapter you're going to lose your 1:1 as the image is going to be twenty percent smaller at the same distance. At least that's how my brain is working at the moment.
I've read previously regarding adapting the canon 100-400 there is vignetting unless you remove a piece of plastic. If anyone can comment on this or provide a photo it would greatly be appreciated. I'm picking up a 100-400 to do double duty on my 100s and 5dsr.
thanks
george malamis wrote:
I've read previously regarding adapting the canon 100-400 there is vignetting unless you remove a piece of plastic. If anyone can comment on this or provide a photo it would greatly be appreciated. I'm picking up a 100-400 to do double duty on my 100s and 5dsr.
thanks
Peter Figen wrote:
Can't imagine why you'd need to change the effective focal length of that wonderful macro.
I don't. But I'm still researching adapters and want to make sure I understand not only the capabilities of each but also the consequences (positive or negative) of using them.
Peter Figen wrote:
Can't imagine why you'd need to change the effective focal length of that wonderful macro. Just use it without any extra glass and enjoy it. I'm going to guess that if you use that Kipon adapter you're going to lose your 1:1 as the image is going to be twenty percent smaller at the same distance. At least that's how my brain is working at the moment.
I suppose it depends on whether your goal is magnification or to get as close as you can to the original 645 experience of the lens. The latter can only be achieved with the focal reducer.
MAubrey wrote:
I suppose it depends on whether your goal is magnification or to get as close as you can to the original 645 experience of the lens. The latter can only be achieved with the focal reducer.
You're not shooting 645 anymore, so what does it matter. The only thing that matters is if that focal length works for your shot, and so far, in the last little over a year, I have not once said to myself, "oh crap, I wish I had a 96mm lens rather that this 120". Not for a macro anyway. And for the Contax 350mm f/4, well, that's exactly where I want it to be - at 350mm and not an effective 280.
If you really want the experience of shooting a Contax or Pentax or Mamiya 645, there are plenty of them out there and affordable too. You're the very first person I've heard try and make the argument of staying "true" to the original film camera that those lenses came from. I had no idea it was even a thing, and it's probably not, but hell, go and buy that adapter and have fun with it. Show us the results.
Any thoughts / opinions on the AF adapters? Fringer / Kipon / Metabones ?
I love my Kipon dumb adapters, but not sure how they fare in an autofocus world. Fringer vs Metabones, typically I'd side with Fringer but they're charging a $200 premium over Metabones, and the Metabones has a programmable function button..
Plan on using it on my 100s and 50r, so welcome and feedback regardless of GFX sensor..
Peter Figen wrote:
You're not shooting 645 anymore, so what does it matter. The only thing that matters is if that focal length works for your shot, and so far, in the last little over a year, I have not once said to myself, "oh crap, I wish I had a 96mm lens rather that this 120". Not for a macro anyway. And for the Contax 350mm f/4, well, that's exactly where I want it to be - at 350mm and not an effective 280.
If you really want the experience of shooting a Contax or Pentax or Mamiya 645, there are plenty of them out there and affordable too. You're the very first person I've heard try and make the argument of staying "true" to the original film camera that those lenses came from. I had no idea it was even a thing, and it's probably not, but hell, go and buy that adapter and have fun with it. Show us the results.
You're probably almost alone not understanding that some people prefer certain focal lengths.
I'm not into macro, but for example, I find an 80 mm lens extremely less useful than a ~64 mm lens.
BrandonSi wrote:
Recently picked up a Contax 645 80/2.
Any thoughts / opinions on the AF adapters? Fringer / Kipon / Metabones ?
I love my Kipon dumb adapters, but not sure how they fare in an autofocus world. Fringer vs Metabones, typically I'd side with Fringer but they're charging a $200 premium over Metabones, and the Metabones has a programmable function button..
Plan on using it on my 100s and 50r, so welcome and feedback regardless of GFX sensor..
These are good questions. I'm using the Fringer with the Contax 120 and the 350. The macro, of course is manual focus. The 350 is autofocus but it's slow as cold molasses if it even autofocuses at all. Well, it tries anyway. My buddy down the street has the Contax 645 and a few lenses, including the 80mm. I've been meaning to borrow it from his to test it out on the Fringer. All I have to do is ask but I also have a big location job on Wednesday so it won't happen until after that shoot. If you can wait a few days I'll report back. I'll report back anyway.
Thanks! Always been curious to try that Contax macro.. I love my Mamiya 645 120, wonder if there's much difference.
Would love to hear your feedback regardless of time, thank you!
Metabones has always served me well when I shot Sony and needed to go EF -> Sony cameras. That being said, my Fringer EF -> Fuji X is rock solid and I couldn't ask for more there.
Might just come down to availability.. Looks like the Fringer can be had at Amazon relatively quickly. Despite being released in January 2023, seems like the Metabones isn't readily available in stock anywhere in the US..
BrandonSi wrote:
Thanks! Always been curious to try that Contax macro.. I love my Mamiya 645 120, wonder if there's much difference.
Would love to hear your feedback regardless of time, thank you!
Metabones has always served me well when I shot Sony and needed to go EF -> Sony cameras. That being said, my Fringer EF -> Fuji X is rock solid and I couldn't ask for more there.
Might just come down to availability.. Looks like the Fringer can be had at Amazon relatively quickly. Despite being released in January 2023, seems like the Metabones isn't readily available in stock anywhere in the US.....Show more →
Hi Brandon,
I had the Contax 645 80 f/2 and I liked it a lot. It is not that sharp wide open, but stopped down a bit is it very nice and has a really gentle transition from in focus to out of focus. I have also had both the Contax 645 120 f/4 APO and the Mamiya 120 f/4 A and both are nice lenses, but I found the Contax to be quite a bit better. I also had the Contax 645 35 f/3.5 which is a nice lens but is probably supplanted by the newer Fuji lenses. I also think a hidden gem is the 55 f/3.5 which I found to be a lovely lens. I used the Fringer adapter and had no problems with it, but it was on a GFX 50S, so it only had contrast AF and the AF was very slow. I basically just used manual focus.
I had the Contax 645 80 f/2 and I liked it a lot. It is not that sharp wide open, but stopped down a bit is it very nice and has a really gentle transition from in focus to out of focus. I have also had both the Contax 645 120 f/4 APO and the Mamiya 120 f/4 A and both are nice lenses, but I found the Contax to be quite a bit better. I also had the Contax 645 35 f/3.5 which is a nice lens but is probably supplanted by the newer Fuji lenses. I also think a hidden gem is the 55 f/3.5 which I found to be a lovely lens. I used the Fringer adapter and had no problems with it, but it was on a GFX 50S, so it only had contrast AF and the AF was very slow. I basically just used manual focus....Show more →
Thanks Steve, great info, much appreciated! May have to pick up a copy of the Contax macro then and see how it stacks up. I love the Mamiya, quite impressed with it so have a hard time imagining much better!
Here'a hand-held shot from the 100S wide open @ f/4. Full image then 100% crop..
Mamiya 645 120 f/4 Macro
GFX100SM645 120M lens120mmf/1.01/250s800 ISO0.0 EV
100% crop
GFX100SM645 120M lens120mmf/1.01/250s800 ISO0.0 EV
Peter Figen wrote:
You're not shooting 645 anymore, so what does it matter. The only thing that matters is if that focal length works for your shot, and so far, in the last little over a year, I have not once said to myself, "oh crap, I wish I had a 96mm lens rather that this 120". Not for a macro anyway. And for the Contax 350mm f/4, well, that's exactly where I want it to be - at 350mm and not an effective 280.
If you really want the experience of shooting a Contax or Pentax or Mamiya 645, there are plenty of them out there and affordable too. You're the very first person I've heard try and make the argument of staying "true" to the original film camera that those lenses came from. I had no idea it was even a thing, and it's probably not, but hell, go and buy that adapter and have fun with it. Show us the results.
All of the compressors from the metabones speedboosters to this kipon 0.8x will increase effective MTF and light gathering capacity.
If one desperately needs the 96mm f/3.2 t/4.0 (in FF terms) of using the lens without the 0.8x then you can have that. If you want the sharper 77mm f/2.5 t/3.2 equiv of using this lens with the 0.8x adaptor that is available to you also.
Many tools exist for many people to get the results they want. None are invalidated simply because you personally haven't found the need.
Edit: it appears the Kipon 0.8x adaptor causes a blue artifact in the middle of images when stopped down. Best to avoid for now.
