A simple question, "What is the actual measured weight of the Contax 100/2 without caps etc?"
I ask because it seems the "official stated" weight includes caps and hood and is quite a bit higher.
For instance, in the case of the ZF 100/2, the officially quoted weight is 85g over the actual measured weight. (585g actual, to 670g official, according to diglloyd.)
According to my scale my AEG C/Y MP100/2.8 1:1 weighs 750g with no caps and 820g with it's matching #4 metal hood. It's 86mm focused at infinity and 174mm at MFD 1:1 macro.
Why is that disappointing? I don't start to dislike a lens for it's weight until it approaches the 2kg mark. 900g and under is very nice to use on even µ4/3 bodies.
You're not planning to tote this in your pocket or something are you?
Bifurcator wrote:
You're not planning to tote this in your pocket or something are you?
Yes Bif, that's exactly what I do!
Perhaps I should explain that I have disabilities which preclude my carrying much weight for long. Therefore I want the best equipment I can get at the lowest weight.
I've tried the NEX system and don't get on with it, but love the FF 5DII and Zeiss lenses.
My "Camera Bag" is a Fisherman's Vest/Waistcoat with multi pockets that spreads the weight around.
I've tried shoulder bag and pack pack camera bags but find them too difficult for me.
I use a vest like that too. It holds 8 large lenses in WP Silk-like lined pockets plus has a bunch of junk-pockets for whatever. It costs me about $25. I have soft and hard cases and bags but don't ever use them for anything other than storage.
I can easily fit any of the lenses discussed here in one of those pockets. But that's not really what I meant when I was teasing you about trying to stuff this lens into a normal pocket.
I dunno your disabilities but for me 10 to 15kg is no problem at all in that vest. It carries very nicely!
Yes, they really are good for spreading the weight whilst making things easily accessible.
I wish the pockets in mine were waterproof and lined.
What make is yours Bif and where bought?
I dunno, my GF got it for me on a lark and there's no tag on it anywhere - besides the washing instruction and material percentages. It's truly a no-name cheapy.
timballic wrote:
Interesting, (and disappointing). So is the ZF lighter weight than the C/Y, or is diglloyd's 585g wrong?
His weight is wrong, if he said that (I can't check since his website is down again). Zeiss gives the bare-lens weight, and they're pretty close in the new datasheets (I've weighed several of the lenses to compare).
For when you don't need the f2 aperture, the Contax Sonnar 100/3.5 is a great weight saver (286g), providing much of the same "magic" (even better at near MFD, where the 100/2 picks up some blue/yellow CA fringing).
I wish I'd known that about 10 months ago, I was offered a mint 100/3.5 for £220.
Now, after everyone here has been praising it, it's selling for over £350!
Actually though I do like to use wide apertures at this FL, so I'll stick out for a 100/2 if I can find one at the right price.
There's an MP ZE 100/2 on ebay at the moment from Poland at a very low price of £889 or nearest offer, but I haven't the money available and it has obviously been "repaired" as the name plate has two holes rather roughly drilled in it, even though the seller is describing it as "mint"! It makes me suspicious.
EDIT: Went very quickly for £850. If it is OK someone got a bargain!
