![contax 645 80mm f2 contax 645 80mm f2](https://briandsmithphotography.com/static/media/uploads/blog/fortogs/contax-645/2002-charleston-studio-bridal-portrait-green-seamless-florals-kodak-portra-160-film-strobes-00006_web.jpg)
The Both Pentacon Six lenses (Carl Zeiss Jena Biometar 80mm f2.8 and the Mir 26b 45mm f3.5) was disappointing.Here are a small cropped area of each test photo, aperture is f11, raw files are unprocessed. But I know some people are gonna disagree. Dropping digital or cropping with a smaller sensor is the same. Since the focal lengths are so different (from very long to very wide angle) it was hard to get the exact same framing, but I think it’s still possible to make a conclusion based on the test photos.ĭoes it matter that it was tested on aps-c and not medium format? I don’t think so, it’s just a crop. The test was done indoor shooting a bunch of object with the same lighting and with the same camera settings (iso200, fixed white balance) on a tripod. I don’t have any experience comparing lenses like this, so I’m sorry if I oversee something. Shot with Mamiya 645 Sekor C 210mm f4 f4 on Fujifilm X-T20. But how do they all compare and how do they compare with modern lenses? I made this comparison test to figure out. I bought a lot of older medium format cameras and lenses through the years, to shoot film and to use with my Fotodiox Rhinocam adapter with the Fujifilm X cameras (will write more about the Rhinocam soon). Note that there are two different versions of the Mamiya 80/1.9, the earlier Mamiya-Sekor C 80mm f1.9, which has lower contrast and the newer Mamiya-Sekor C 80mm f1.9 N which has a higher contrast, the latter will be closer in look to the 80 Planar than the former.Notice: People have wrote me that some of the lenses might be bad copies, take that into account when you look at the lens test and try to compare it to other lens tests online.
#Contax 645 80mm f2 full#
It's got the Zeiss 3D look and is full of contrast but lacks the smoother bokeh and rich blues of the Mamiya. You'll get a very different look out of the Contax 80/2 Planar. They were reasonably popular unlike their N mount brethren and are great cameras but are also pretty darn pricey. Their primary selling point was getting the Hassy V-series style rendering (ie the 'Zeiss Look') in a more modern package as Hasselblad's H-series lenses are designed by Fuji and have a different rendering style. The Contax 645 stuff is well loved but was always a niche market. Today Mamiya and Hasselblad are neck & neck and everbody else is way behind although it looks like Pentax's recent re-entry will shake things up. Mamiya dominated the 645 market with Pentax second until the digital revolution made Hasselblad temporarily the dominant player with the H series. Jonathan Canlas is one fellow who takes great shots with the 80mm.Īctually, far more pro's use the Mamiya kit (albeit the 645AF stuff these days). I've seen great examples from both, but perhaps more "pros" use the Contax stuff.
![contax 645 80mm f2 contax 645 80mm f2](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/13/1738913.jpg)
OverdeaR Īnd from few samples I've seen I think 80/1.9 is sharper 'til f/5.6 compared to Zeiss 80/2, but also vignettes are more pronounced with f/1.9 lens. I think the DOF would be so close in size that it won't better.īut for the price standpoint, the Mamiya is a much cheaper system.
![contax 645 80mm f2 contax 645 80mm f2](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8lwAAOSwZ~hhITGS/s-l300.jpg)
I've not had time to try it out so much yet though.īut I started thinking: price difference aside, is there a lot of difference between the Mamiya 80mm f1.9 and the Contax / Zeiss Planar 80mm f2? Sharpness, bokeh etc? The DoF at same distance, SHOULD be the same, but sometimes different lens designs have different looks.Īny thoughts on this? Anyone who's tried both and has an opinion? As the DoF addict and cameraholic I am, I recently ended up with a M645 1000s and a 80mm f1.9 lens.