I wonder the image quality when Hasselbald lens adapted to contax body. For ex&le, will the image as sharp when Hasselbald 120mm/f4 or 180mm/f4 attached to contax camera body as
contax 100mm/f2.8 macro lens?
I would think so.We are talking Zeiss here.
However , if you already have the above lenses ,then by all means go ahead with the adapter, otherwise I think you will be better off using the 100/2 p or the 180/2.8 s.
The only lens that I want to mount on my contax from the hasselblad right now is the Tele-Superachromat T* 300/2.8.
It is reputed to be the "best of the best" in the Tele range.All this doesn't come cheap - of course.With a price tag of between 16000USD TO 20000USD and a limited production of about 300-400 unit of it ....hmm
I use all my Hasselblad Lenses on a Contax 645. Prior to getting a N camera I also used them on a AX as AF lenses. They are especially better on a 35mm camera because you are using the center sweet spot and avoiding any slight edge fall off of quality. the Hasselblad 120 Macro is very good due to its very flat field. My favorite Hasselblad lens on the Contax is the FE-110/2. I don't even own a F body to put it on. It strictly is used on a Contax 645. It focuses very close, and at f/2 has a Bokeh to die for.
I currently use the awesome Contax 350/4 and wonder how it compares at f/4 to the Hassey Superachromat mentioned above? The 350 focuses down so close that I can use it for head shots in my small studio. that alone makes it worth the Kings' ransom it set me back.
I've been thinking of getting the Hassy adapter and using my Hassy lenses on an Aria. Does anyone know what functions will be lost if any? Can I still use aperture priority and shutter priority? Must I do stop-down metering? Thanks.
The 180mm Blad lens seems to be a better portrait lens than the 150mm Blad, on a Blad. Would this hold true in comparing the 180mm adapted to the 645 vs. the Contax Zeiss 140mm? What features would I lose shooting the Blad 180mm on the 645 body vs. shooting the 140mm on it?
I wanted to purchase the 350/4 Contax but the specs say it is 8 lbs plus. The Hasselblad 350/5.6 CF weighs less than 3 lbs and works great with my 645. As luck would have it the 52mm Contax extension tube allows macro work and the 1.4x Contax Mutar gives me a 490mm/f8. My next trial will be to put the 1.4x and extension ring together for a 490mm macro, and then use it with the nam-1 adapter on the N-1. I hope the Contax mounts are strong.
There is a Hasselblad branded adapter available from Contax.
Items I use frequently are the Hassey Fisheye, 110/2 F lens, 180/4 CFE and 1.4X PC Mutar for shift work with a Hassey 40mm and 50mm. You have to manually stop down when shooting, but I rarely do so when using the 110/2 or 180/4.
Am thinking of switching my Hasselblad with 120 for Contax 645 with benefit of autofocus but the lens I was thinking of is 140 and will not focus close for baby studio head shots - anyone any ideas of lens to go for? Have only small studio.
Any thoughts much appreciated.Chris
I have used RZ and Hasselblad from time to time and never like them as they both are based on very old design. However, I must say the Hassel is a great system.
I have been using the C645 for almost a year now and mainly bought it for studio portraits. I use the 120mm APO macro for portrait since you can get very tight (up to 1:1). It is a manual focus and best lens in Contax line up.
Comparing to the Hassel 150mm portrait, the C645 is AF and is f/2.8. You can get it now for about $1573 from B&H during the Contax Day and after rebate. I won't compare their quality (never like to get into those Canon vs Nikon games), but I love all the C645 lenses. The best thing is, I can use them in my N1.
Since I got the 35mm and 45-90 zoom, I start shooting landscape. I think I can dump my 4x5 now. The 35mm (equivalent to 21mm in 135 format) is very nice lens, especially for interior shoot. And the 45-90mm zoom is great and has fix f-stop. You won't get it from the H1.
I am thinking to get a 140mm in the future to do some editorial/fashion kind of personal work. The AF and the f/2.8 is kind of attractive.
Try the 210mm for fashion work. I have gotten some great results with it. The 140 dissapointed me with it's focus shortcoming and I don't find it an interesting focal length. The 120 and 210 make a great combination.
I too shoot with a C645 and love it. I have all the lenses except the zoom and love it for landscape work. I also shoot an Arca Swiss 4x5 with lots of Rodenstock lenses. I don't know if I'll ever dump my 4x5. When I have a really exceptional scene it's still what I prefer. And if I could reasonably scan an 8x10 I'd shoot it too. There's just something incredible about the detail in a well exposed 4x5 tranny! Not even my C645 can equal. There's also a real sense of art working with a 4x5, if you are a patient person!
I've been planning on getting a Valeo back for my 645/4x5 for commercial work. I'm very impressed with it's capabilities yet I struggle a bit with a "35mm-sized" chip (11meg version, can't afford the 22meg). As great as digital is getting, unless I am missing something, it's still the same story. Take a 35mm sized image, as sharp as it may be and enlarge it a multiple of times vs enlarging a 4x5 image just a few times and it seems evident that there will be more clear detail in the 4x5. I have compared identical scenes taken with my Canon with L lenses, my 645 and my 4x5 and there's just more detail to begin working with in the 4x5 over the 645 and likewise in the 645 over the 35mm. And if the detail isn't there to begin with it never will be. To shoot for just magazine size images I can see where the 11meg image from the Valeo is sufficient. When I do a 24"x36" or a 30"x40" print it's a different story.
I keep my Canon for shooting when I can't use a tripod and need the IS capability. But even more so I use it when I want to shoot people on thew go with fill flash, when I don't have the opportunity to use lighting. This is the one area where I am dissappointed with my 645. I never get consistent results with the TLA360 whereas my Canon is ultra consistent. If I only could get better results with the 645 I might lighten my load and say goodbye to my Canon.
I got a bit off track but the comparison thing over the various formats has intrigued me.
I'm condidering the zoom. A couple of quick questions ... Can I assume the the TLA 360 will not provide complete coverage at 45mm? Is the lens really, really superb? And finally, have you checked out/used any digital backs for the C645?
Thanks for your suggestion on the 210mm. I think it will be a good combo with the 120mm. My only concern is the size of the lens, and sometime I like the selective focus from f/2.8 provided by the 140mm. I don't know how handheld-able with the 210mm is (although I mostly use tripod). With fashion shoot, I may need to hand held the camera. I should rent both lenses to try them out. They are only $25 a day (or the whole weekend) rental in San Francisco.
If I can ever afford the full frame digital back, it would be best of both (film & digital) worlds. Right now, I just have the lab scan my films. A way cheaper optional and small price to pay for the turn around time. For instant feedback, there is always Polaroid.
I don't think I can apart from large format. That is my real passion. In fact, I was shopping for Linhof Tech Master kits or Toyo AII. I was just thinking to dump my Toyo G view camera for a field camera outfit. Since I spent the money on the 45-90 zoom, I will stick with the C645 for landscape for a while.
I have just got the zoom a week ago and in the process shooting the first roll of film in landscape. It really impressed me a year ago when I tested drive it at the dealer. My mind had set for it ever since. (Not to mentioned this zoom has been named product of the year, or editor choice in numerous magazines).
First of all, I like the idea of having zoom for my medium format. As I have used zoom for decades and own all N zooms and pretty impressed with the Carl Zeiss zooms. I am planning to use it for landscape, street, people, studio, wedding, or even travel (if you believe it). I think I may be able to use it 80% of my time and not worry about carrying extra lenses. So, for the product point of view, it is a winner for me. Since I own the 35mm and 120mm lenese, this zoom is a good fit for my kit. I can keep my 80mm for my N1 as portrait lens. Also, I can share the 95mm filters with the 35mm and N17-35 lenses.
My first impression: I immediately start liking it as this morning I went up to Mt Diablo made a couple of shots before work. It made it so fast to take the shoots as I can utilize the zoom rather than moving in and out or changing lenses. I must tell you that I am not a fast shooter and like to take my time in general. Although the light was not very good but I still willing to try it. As if I shot 4x5, I would have just left because I didn't want to bother with the long set up time for the less perfect lighting.
For the TLA360 flash, I am sure it will cover it since 45mm is in equivalent to 28mm in 135 format. And the TLA360 can cover up to 24mm. I am going to mount the flash to the camera with this zoom to see how the TLA360 matches up the focal length automatically and run some test with the TTL flash. Judging from the setup, I don't thing the lens will block the flash.
I cannot answer if the lens is really superb yet. Something it can be subjective and depends on personal needs. I have mounted it on a tripod to play with it the first day in the studio, and I could see some vignetting at the corner from 45mm to 55mm. Stopping down didn't seem to correct the problem. It was just the observation from the viewfinder in a relative dark studio. The spec claims superb sharpness and brilliance, and I will run some test to keep you posted.
I think it probably not as good as the 45mm, 55mm and 80mm primes (at least on paper), even Carl Zeiss and some users claim it does. But I have learned to live with that for the trade off of the versatility of using zoom years ago.
In short, my first impression is very good. Well balance with the body, well built, distortion is very well controlled, and a very versatile lens.
>=20 >=20 >=20 > Autofocus is just a convenient option, no absolutely need in macro > photography, and the 120mm Apo-Makro-Plannar for 645 is at least as good = as > the Hasselblad or better. Kaisern >=20 >=20 >=20
Thanks for the comments on the zoom. I shot my first wedding in years a few weeks ago and used both the N1 and the C645. The only lens I have for the 645 is the 80. The results were stunning. But I must say that when I was shooting the group shots things would have been so much easier if I had had the zoom capability. It can be really tough to get a big group shot when your back is up against the pews with an 80mm focal length!
I think I'll put that zoom on my wish list. But I really would also need a digital back to fully utilize the C645. The ND has really spoiled me!