Leica s 30-90mm vs contax 645 45-90mm

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Used S zoom is about $3200 while use c645 zoom is about $1400.  S zoom. Has the advantage of 30-45mm range, 

Any direct experiences co oaring the IQ between the 45-90mm range?

[1joel1]

I bought a mint 45-90 for about $1000. It is superb like the other Zeiss lenses. I have read mixed reviews regarding the 30-90, but I am sure that it is a fine lens. Also, it is very convenient, but 30-90 is a big ask whereas 45-90 is only 2x and in a less extreme range. It also has greater coverage. Note that it is worth getting the actual Leica brand adapter and know that sometimes you have to release and click into place a few times to get it to work. It is strange whereas the Leica lenses are native and work perfectly. I have the S 35, 70, and 120 ad the Contax 45-90 and 140. 

Joel

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Einst_Stein]

I have read those too, just want comments from first hand expereinces.

Edited February 2 by Einst_Stein

[davidmknoble]

I have the Leica 35-90.  Compared to many zooms on the medium format, it is a great lens, but the corners are softer than the prime lenses of the same size.  However, it is a fantastic lens for a sealed system in the elements where changing lenses is not a great idea.  The newer S cameras - S007 / S3 - have the better quality higher ISO’s necessary for walk about shooting with higher apertures, but on a tripod it still does really well.

[Stuart Richardson]

The biggest problem that I had with the 30-90 was precisely that it could not be stopped down to improve the corners. They maybe got slightly better, but even at f11 they were still soft (truly...below 20% contrast in MTF). For me that was basically unforgivable in a Leica lens, especially one pushing ten thousand dollars at the time. I have not used the Contax, but I could not recommend the 30-90mm in good conscience to anyone who cared about the performance across the whole frame...at least past 60mm. It is a very appealing lens if you don't need the edges, but then what is the point of shooting medium format instead of 35mm? The 30-90mm is the biggest Leica regret I ever had. I lost many thousands on that lens and learned an important lesson -- trust MTF, not marketing. Even then, my copy was worse than the MTF. I brought it back to Leica in person and they improved it slightly, but told me "you're expecting too much". Meanwhile, their marketing insisted it was "as good as the primes".

[Einst_Stein]

11 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The biggest problem that I had with the 30-90 was precisely that it could not be stopped down to improve the corners. They maybe got slightly better, but even at f11 they were still soft (truly...below 20% contrast in MTF). For me that was basically unforgivable in a Leica lens, especially one pushing ten thousand dollars at the time. I have not used the Contax, but I could not recommend the 30-90mm in good conscience to anyone who cared about the performance across the whole frame...at least past 60mm. It is a very appealing lens if you don't need the edges, but then what is the point of shooting medium format instead of 35mm? The 30-90mm is the biggest Leica regret I ever had. I lost many thousands on that lens and learned an important lesson -- trust MTF, not marketing. Even then, my copy was worse than the MTF. I brought it back to Leica in person and they improved it slightly, but told me "you're expecting too much". Meanwhile, their marketing insisted it was "as good as the primes".

I use C 45-90mm mainly for landscape, small aperture works fine, but occasionally I prefer wider angle lens on S3. Last Xmas in Yosemite valley is a typical case. I switched to C 35mm in Yosemite valley, it is about just right, except C645 lenses are not weather sealed. A Lillie uncomfortable during those rainy days. That is why I wonder if L 30-90 would be more convenient. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would say the money is better spent on adding a 35mm S lens and keeping your 45-90.

[Einst_Stein]

47 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I would say the money is better spent on adding a 35mm S lens and keeping your 45-90.

It seems a wise choice. Or spend on another S lens. 

Edited February 7 by Einst_Stein

[Pieter12]

14 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

It seems a wise choice. Or spend on another S lens. 

I agree with the choice. The S lenses are incredible. The big downside is all those lenses are heavy, and carrying more than two and a body gets to be a chore if you are out shooting landscapes all day, or even several hours. If working from a car it's a different story. Still, it is convenient to have a zoom lens and not expose the cameras innards to the environment if you can avoid it.

[Einst_Stein]

In fact, I already have C645 35mm, 80mm, 120mm. I also have HB V 180mm. These are the best performers in each brand. So there is not much incentive to spend money on The Leica S counter parts. Maybe only S70mm as a walk around weather seal insurance? 

[davidmknoble]

I agree with @Stuart Richardson.  Find a focal length you would use a lot and consider the fixed focal length.  I use the 45mm more than any other and 35mm next for the S series.  They are fairly inexpensive right now and sharpen nicely in the corners at reasonable apertures.  No need to zoom if you can walk closer or further away…. If you don’t care about corners (people images?), the 30-90 is fun, but not for serious critical work.

[Stuart Richardson]

Agreed, I am not saying one can't make great work with it, it just has to match the kind of photography you make. If that is a lot of portraiture or environmental work or travel etc, where people are not looking too closely into the edges and corners, then it can be great. It is VERY sharp on center. That was one of the problems for me in my landscape work, is that it would look fantastic in the center, but it visibly blurred as you went towards the edges in a way that disrupted the overall impression of the photo. Iceland has a lot of compositions where everything is more or less equidistant from the camera, so a sharpness gradient like that can be disturbing. Had the 30-90 been soft wide open, but then sharp at f8 or f11, I would not have been complaining. The real issue was that it could not be meaningfully improved.

Regarding the Contax and V lenses: they may be the best performers in their brand, but I don't think any of them can truly stand up to the S lenses. Among your lenses, the 120mm is probably the best. According to the Zeiss and Leica datasheets, the 120mm APO Macro Summarit S is better at 2.5 across nearly the entire frame than the Zeiss is even at f8. The Zeiss has a bit better in the extreme edges at f8, but the Leica is sharper at 2.5 over most of the image. When compared with both wide open, it is not even a contest despite the Zeiss being a stop and a half slower. The Leica also has less vignetting and lower distortion and an extra stop and a half of light (useful not just for light and bokeh, but also viewfinder brightness and focusing). The main advantage of the Zeiss is that it is a native 1 to 1 lens. Most of those lenses you mentioned were state of the art when they were made, and are still excellent lenses, but Leica truly threw everything they had into the S lenses at the time, (other than seemingly the zoom, unfortunately!) and they were designed at a minimum 20-30 years later. I still don't think there are really any medium format lenses that have been made that are better. Only extremely specialized lenses like the Zeiss Superachromats, which were in focal lengths that Leica never offered anyway.

The story is the same with the Contax 80mm f2 and the 70mm Summarit. The Summarit is better at 2.5 than the Contax at f4 (they only publish f2 and f4 for this lens). It is easy to compare Zeiss and Leica MTF because they both use 10, 20, 40lpmm charts. Just keep in mind that the Leica goes out to 27mm and the Zeiss to 35mm, so you have to stop reading the Zeiss chart at 27mm for it to be equivalent. The reason being that the S format is smaller than 645 film.

https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-56082-Technical Data_Leica_Apo_Macro_Summarit_120er_E.pdfhttps://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-645/en/datasheet-zeiss-apo-makro-planar-4120-en.pdf

https://www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/technicaldata_leica_summarit_70er_e.pdf

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-645/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-280-en.pdf

Edited February 8 by Stuart Richardson

[ImmerDraussen]

Beeing a bit shocked (😉) by Stuarts comments on the 30-90 mm, I took a look at my pictures. I found 2200 shots made with the zoom. Now looking for pictures taken at 90mm that would allow to evaluate the corner performance, I could find any, because the edges are either out of focus or have no details (water, sky...). This confirms his last comment, the edges might not be important for everyone. However, I became curiuos. I made a quick comparison with the Summarit 70mm. 

Here is a view from behind the house, a dull and misty morning:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Here is crop from the Summarit 70 mm shot:

And for comparison the zoom @90 mm:

The difference doesn´t drive me mad.

I own the 24, 35, 70, 120 and 180mm....they are better. They are better in contrast and colours, but if weight or weather gives restrictions, I´m happy with the zoom. 

Andreas

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

In fact, I already have C645 35mm, 80mm, 120mm. I also have HB V 180mm. These are the best performers in each brand. So there is not much incentive to spend money on The Leica S counter parts. Maybe only S70mm as a walk around weather seal insurance? 

It's really up to you. Those are great lenses that can create high-quality images. There's no need to swap them if you are satisfied with the results.

What the S lenses provide is more consistency across lenses, better weather sealing, and better edge-to-edge sharpness. I especially found that the S 35mm was a huge improvement over legacy medium format wides. The S 70 has a different look from older Planars, especially when it comes to fine detail in high-contrast areas. It's also tack sharp from wide-open, which wasn't the case with older designs.

You should try-out some S lenses if you get a chance, and shoot back-to-back comparisons with your current lenses. I'm sure you'll notice a difference, but nobody else can say if it will be important to your work. I've been shooting a 1930s 5cm Elmar a lot recently, even though I have several later/better standard lenses. Sharpness and micro-contrast aren't always the answer.

[Einst_Stein]

24 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It's really up to you. Those are great lenses that can create high-quality images. There's no need to swap them if you are satisfied with the results.

What the S lenses provide is more consistency across lenses, better weather sealing, and better edge-to-edge sharpness. I especially found that the S 35mm was a huge improvement over legacy medium format wides. The S 70 has a different look from older Planars, especially when it comes to fine detail in high-contrast areas. It's also tack sharp from wide-open, which wasn't the case with older designs.

You should try-out some S lenses if you get a chance, and shoot back-to-back comparisons with your current lenses. I'm sure you'll notice a difference, but nobody else can say if it will be important to your work. I've been shooting a 1930s 5cm Elmar a lot recently, even though I have several later/better standard lenses. Sharpness and micro-contrast aren't always the answer.

I did compare 35mm, 120mm, and 180mm of Zeiss and Leica. I did not see which is superior as some claimed. But they are different. Z has its signature shallow depth of focus, good or bad, depends on each person's taste. 

Leica S has clear advantages in build quality, weather seal is one. But I have HB Z lenses developed slightly rattling or, back lash,  in focus ring. It is very annoying though not IQ problem. C645 is OK so far, but it does not feel as solid as Leica S. 

Overall I am happy with c645 lenses I have, nothing more to desire IQ wise. Just wondering if a weather sealed walk-around LS lens worth to add.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

In fact, I already have C645 35mm, 80mm, 120mm. I also have HB V 180mm. These are the best performers in each brand. So there is not much incentive to spend money on The Leica S counter parts. Maybe only S70mm as a walk around weather seal insurance? 

On that last thought - that's what I did. I have the 80mm Planar and use it with great pleasure, but I also bought the native Leica 70mm lens, for two reasons: 1. it is weather sealed; 2. I don't want to fiddle all the time with a capricious adapter.

[Einst_Stein]

Just compared S70 and Z80, still prefer Z80. The weather seal did not justify the double spending. If I don’t have Z80, I might choose S70.

Edited February 8 by Einst_Stein

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, ImmerDraussen said:

Beeing a bit shocked (😉) by Stuarts comments on the 30-90 mm, I took a look at my pictures. I found 2200 shots made with the zoom. Now looking for pictures taken at 90mm that would allow to evaluate the corner performance, I could find any, because the edges are either out of focus or have no details (water, sky...). This confirms his last comment, the edges might not be important for everyone. However, I became curiuos. I made a quick comparison with the Summarit 70mm. 

Here is a view from behind the house, a dull and misty morning:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Here is crop from the Summarit 70 mm shot:

And for comparison the zoom @90 mm:

The difference doesn´t drive me mad.

I own the 24, 35, 70, 120 and 180mm....they are better. They are better in contrast and colours, but if weight or weather gives restrictions, I´m happy with the zoom. 

Andreas

Yes, if it does not matter for you, it does not matter! I will say, however, that the 70mm has pretty substantial field curvature, so when taken at a distance, the sharpest point is a semicircle across the frame, not a plane. This works well in a lot of compositions, but not well if you are photographing a lot of things that are all at the same distance. I noticed these issues because my first big work with the S was landscape work in the winter with the S that was printed to 100x150cm, so at that size, and with the contrast of dark rocks and white snow, the differences become a lot more obvious. I found that I had to stop down to at least 6.8 to f8 to have even edge to edge sharpness at infinity with the S70mm. Iceland is an extreme environment and makes extreme demands on equipment, and I have the blessing/curse of being a printer, so I tend to be able to see the difference fairly quickly, as I can just print it out myself in situ. This is not at all a major issue for most photographers. For me, however, there was a clear difference.

[Stuart Richardson]

Ok, just so people know what I am referring to, I am showing a picture to indicate what I mean. This was taken at 90mm at f9.5, which was the best aperture I could find.

This is OK. It is totally a usable photo, but it is also the best of what I could get out of the lens. For big prints, this transition of sharpness can be pretty visible, as the print is enlarged past 100%. Anything larger than a 16.5x25 inch print from the S2, S006 or S007 requires interpolation (uprezzing), which is basically magnifying the detail at 100%. So bigger than that (roughly 40x60cm) and you are magnifying this softness so that it is more visible than it is on a screen at 100%.

In any case, this is the whole photo, and two crops at 100%. One in the center where it is very sharp and nice, and one on the left side where it is noticeably soft at the best aperture for the edges. I realize this is nitpicking, but it was a 10,000 dollar lens ten years ago! So I reserve the right to, at least. We are not talking about a cheap kit zoom here.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ImmerDraussen]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Stuart Richardson:

Ok, just so people know what I am referring to, I am showing a picture to indicate what I mean. This was taken at 90mm at f9.5, which was the best aperture I could find.

This is OK. It is totally a usable photo, but it is also the best of what I could get out of the lens. For big prints, this transition of sharpness can be pretty visible, as the print is enlarged past 100%. Anything larger than a 16.5x25 inch print from the S2, S006 or S007 requires interpolation (uprezzing), which is basically magnifying the detail at 100%. So bigger than that (roughly 40x60cm) and you are magnifying this softness so that it is more visible than it is on a screen at 100%.

In any case, this is the whole photo, and two crops at 100%. One in the center where it is very sharp and nice, and one on the left side where it is noticeably soft at the best aperture for the edges. I realize this is nitpicking, but it was a 10,000 dollar lens ten years ago! So I reserve the right to, at least. We are not talking about a cheap kit zoom here.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Thanks for sharing the pictures. I thought the issue is only in the corners. It's clearly more visible if it's the  whole side left and and right. Still I might be more lucky with my copy of the 30-90 mm (it came as used lens from the Leica Academy).

And the crop