![contax 645 80mm contax 645 80mm](https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2019/1/21/2/f/a/2fa00b32-b6a6-4246-acfb-9b8e87e36e32.jpg)
However, to obtain the best of Leica's Rs means spending a 4-figure sum for each lens! C645 lenses, on the other hand, are relatively dirt cheap, except the 80mm (whose astonomical price still befuddles me).
#Contax 645 80mm series#
The only lens series I feel come close to it, other than the Zeiss Z series, is the Leica R. It's also that 'look' that really wows people above the stuff I've taken with even the best of my Nikons, and enourages them to buy my images. and the quality of those 645 slides compared with my APS-C sized digital is better, despite the disadvantage of film grain and advantage of the larger 'sensor' size of 56x42mm. I missed the resolution, micro-contrast, and 'feel' of the IQ of my C645 lenses :-(. Even with today's lenses, nothing I have is able to better (or at least by a large margin) the C645 120mm macro, for example. My subsequent experiences of 35mm digital proved this was a load of codswallop and I regretted selling it although I held on to my 120mm makro. I had heard the word 'on the sreet and interweb' was that 35mm digital was as good as or better than MF. I wasn't naive to own it but I was when I stupidly sold it (for a stupidly low price). Way back when I was more naive than I am now I had a C645 system. and now were getting close to the crux of the question.
![contax 645 80mm contax 645 80mm](https://briandsmithphotography.com/static/media/uploads/blog/fortogs/contax-645/1909-riley-michigan-contax-645-film-portraits-abandoned-building-fashion-00006_web.jpg)
Consequently, it lacks that bite that my Contax 645 (C645) 120mm Makro has.
#Contax 645 80mm full#
While this is one of Schneider's sharpest digitars (I use the term 'sharp' generically), sharper than most 35mm macros, it covers up to 6x9 on film which means that 35mm Full Frame (FF), let alone APS-C, is just not making full use of it. I did say that I am finicky didn't I?!! My Schneiders for macro are what they are - the main one being the Apo-Digitar 120mm. I did have a 100mm macro but the 1:2 mag' ratio and major purple fringing made me send it back. I've never really been happy with either as they lacked the real bite my 50mm macro and 25mm can have. Same with the first version of their 85mm. However, even these vary in quality - the 35mm, while still excellent, is not up there with the best of the other focal lengths, or 35mms from other makers (e.g., Leica R). I can't do much about this - the only other lenses that equal or better them are the expensive Leica R APO-Telyts - some images I've seen taken with these lenses make my heart drop! The Zeiss ZF lenses are generally excellent and IQ was better than the best equivalent Nikons (for more reasons than you think) when I test compared them way back when.
![contax 645 80mm contax 645 80mm](https://files.gearfocus.com/products/6600/o-e101115f-1627712929.jpg)
The Nikons are very good but they rely more on contrast and lack out-and-out resolution, bar maybe the 200mm f2 and to some extent the 300mm f2.8. I've been reassessing my (35mm) camera gear lately! One of the reasons for this is the lack of IQ (photographer's failings aside) for many of my images. The inbetween general photography stuff is catered for by my Zeiss ZF lenses (25 to 85mm). My macro stuff is sort of covered by my Nikon gear using non-Nikon lenses (a couple of Schneiders) but I'll touch upon this later. My bird/mammal/reptile photography is covered by my Nikon (APS-C) telephoto's (200 to 600mm). Landscape and 'large print' capability is covered by my large format gear. To put it all into perspective I cover the whole range of photography, invariably natural history related. I'd much rather have a 12" image that has utterly, draw-droppingly stunning 3D IQ than a 24 inches of low tonal nasty contrasty plastic 'meh' (yes, I know, that's partly down to poor image processing and camera system limitations). I'm not too bothered about enlargement capability - 18" to 24" is more than ample and anything larger required is catered for by my large format gear. I should also note that I am an image quality* (IQ) freak - I don't care much about high mega-pixel counts but I do care about native resolution bite (not contrast), realistic look (not plastic), etc. This is also a bit of a hybrid post as this could equally be posted under one of the 35mm forums so please bear with me. Okay, this is a really long one so prepare yourself.