Mamiya 645 AF Lenses Vs Contax 645 AF Zeiss Lenses

[braxus]

After a failed attempt in using a Mamiya RZ67 kit and not liking it, I sold that kit. But I don't want to cancel out Mamiya all together. I still want a Medium format film camera with removable backs, and also AF. I already own a Pentax 645N and love it, but it doesn't have removable backs during mid roll. So this comes down to the Contax and Mamiya 645. The main thing I want to consider is the lenses between these two kits. First off we all know the Mamiya will be the cheaper of the two kits to purchase today. But then there is the Zeiss lenses on the Contax. I watched a video comparing these two cameras, and she said the Mamiya may actually produce sharper results over the Contax, but the Zeiss lenses have their own look which is hard to match. Im also not sure if either of these two cameras can do 16 shots or just 15? Also the Zeiss lenses may have more contrast? I'm still going to keep my Pentax, but Im told these two cameras here are a step up in every aspect.

So when it comes to the lenses between these two, including the AF capabilities, and picture quality- what am I going to notice between the two?

 

[ruilourosa]

Will you see the difference? Curiously pentax and zeiss have some affinity...
Mamiya went high microcontrast and saturation....

If you want better go bigger...

If you have wallet hitch go for the most expensive ...

 

[MattKing]

The Mamiya choice permits you to use the manual focus lenses too, provided you don't mind stop down metering.
I don't know that there was much Contax penetration into the Canadian market.

 

[Pieter12]

Good luck finding a Contax 645 kit.

 

[CJG]

I agree. I once traded my Hasselblad kit in for RZs. The RZ lenses we're more saturated and contrasty. I also thought
Pentax lenses rendered more like Zeiss than Mamiya

 

[McDiesel]

@braxus I never owned a Contax, but I've been quite happy with several Mamiya cameras. Notably, my 645 Pro kit with four lenses blows my mind optically. The 55mm, 80mm, and 110mm are all phenomenal, on the same level or better as my primary Hasselblad 503cx system. The AF lenses are even newer, so I can't imagine them being worse.

I will also say that my ancient (!) Mamiya TLR lenses are also pretty good.

In my mind Mamiya glass, any Mamiya glass, automatically means top-notch quality, just like Zeiss or Leica.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The Mamiya AF lenses are pretty good, the Pentax lenses are also very good. The Contax 645 lenses are largely superb, and the 80mm F2 created an enormous film shooting bubble among the wedding portrait community.

The Contax 645AF system however is SO expensive that I would advise you to go with the Rollei 6008AF or Hy6 system, which will cost you the same or less and is largely superior in it's capabilities and support.

If you just want a medium format system with pretty good AF, that would ben the Pentax 645N. It's a solid system with some stand out glass, and even a digital option which is excellent. The premium cameras are better but they're so expensive that it's like talking about totally different classes.

The not mentioned camera that probably has among the best AF in medium format is the Hasselblad H1 and H2. These are less expensive than Contax cameras and the glass is among the best out there. The Mamiya and Pentax have usable AF, the Hy6 Mod 2 and Hasselblad H1/2 have excellent AF. The Contax 645 AF is barely usable. People manually focus that camera mostly.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you did not like the Mamiya RB, and you have a 645, how about a 6X9 with interchanable lens, backs, and pretty good lens? Mamiya press. It is of course a rangefinder, the last press the Universal has built in views for the 100, 150 and 250, a separate viewfinder is needed for the wide's, 55 and 65. In addition to the 6X9 there are 6X7 and a multiback with masks for 6X6.45, 6X6 and 6X9. The only expensive lens is the rare rangefinder coupled 250 5.6. It is heavy, easy to carry with grip.

 

[braxus]

Yeah. The Mamiya 645 AF to get into a system would be between $1500-2000 Canadian, where as the Contax 645 AF would be 5 grand. Ive heard of issues with the focusing system on the Contax, including film plane flatness issues which requires the occasional servicing. You're right about going larger format. I use 6x7 often, and also have 4x5. The Mamiya was meant to fill the spot of interchangable backs, with AF. I just wasn't sure if getting Zeiss lenses would make all the difference in 645 really. I don't know if there is an adapter for Hasselblad lenses on the Mamiya or not. I at this point might just go with the Mamiya 645AF when Im able to. Certainly not as cheap as my Pentax 645N kit, but not so high as the Contax either.

 

[ruilourosa]

If wise and not automation dependent, hasselblad 50x is the best MF camera there is
...
Its ae af and motordrive almost never fail...

I traded a pack of bodies, lenses and parafernalia from Mamiya 645 for a swc....

 

[grain elevator]

Maybe a second P 645N body would do in place of swappable backs, instead of getting into a different system?

 

[braxus]

Maybe a second P 645N body would do in place of swappable backs, instead of getting into a different system?

I thought of that, but carrying two bodies and have to swap them out for each shot and match the framing, isn't ideal. Every review I've seen said the Mamiya is a step up in quality from the Pentax. I still have the Pentax gear, so if it doesn't sell, I'll just keep it.

 

[Dismayed]

I shot a manual focus Mamiya 645 for a good while. No complaints at all about the lenses - they were excellent. But I ultimately opted for a Mamiya 7 II for the portability. Yes, there are compromises in shooting a rangefinder, but the Mamiya 7 lenses are stunning!

 

[MattKing]

Every review I've seen said the Mamiya is a step up in quality from the Pentax.

If so, it is a small step.
Unless you are printing optically, and making really large prints, Pentax, Mamiya and Contax lenses for 6x4.5 cameras will be incredibly similar in level of quality.
They will have some slightly different qualities, and slightly different features, particularly in combination with the different camera features.

 

[Eric Rose]

I the real world of film photography you will be hard pressed to tell the difference. That is unless your primary photo targets are brick walls with colour charts pasted to them.

 

[Huss]

I had a Mam 645 ProTL but found it hard to focus so sold that then looked for a 645 AF kit.
I picked the Hasselblad H1 primarily because Hasselblad still services it. The fact that it is awesome is a bonus.

H1, 80mm

 

[calico]

In case the original poster or anyone else is interested -- there is a Contax 645 group on Facebook, and fairly often, individuals put Contax 645s up for sale. Sometimes they're switching to digital, sometimes selling their backup cameras.

Contax 645 Film Photography | Facebook

* ASKING TO JOIN * Unless you have 2+ friends in the group and obvious film photography stuff on your _public_ Facebook wall, please message Justin Parker (admin) explaining you want to join. We...

www.facebook.com

Members of the group all seem to be wedding photographers, just fyi.

I love my Contax 645. The 80/2 lens has a really special look, and the slow focussing is not an issue for me.

 

[Huss]

..

I love my Contax 645. The 80/2 lens has a really special look, and the slow focussing is not an issue for me.

Is the focus accurate? Slow is not a big deal as this is not an action camera.

 

[calico]

Is the focus accurate? Slow is not a big deal as this is not an action camera.

Works fine for me.

Like any auto-focus, you have to have the focus on an area with enough contrast for it to work well. I don't have any problem using auto-focus on eyes in portraits, for example. Also, there's a light in viewfinder which tells you when you've got the focus.

Focusing at f 2.0 can be tricky, of course, because the depth of field is so very shallow. Possible to miss the area you're trying for. But I've often gotten focus even at 2.0 with auto-focus. I tend to use 2.8 to be safer.