Good point! Any extender samples would be cool! Zeiss says the only converter that works (Mutar III) there will be strong vignetting. Wonder if it'll be the same with Canon or Kenko extenders.
This lens can be considered to have "good" sharpness and CA.
Crops are at 300
Note this was hand-held, around 200 mm at F8, shutter speed of only 1/250 s (so may well be a bit sharper if I used a tripod, MLU etc.) Just standard LR3 sharpening and "Strong Contrast" tone curve to cut a bit through the atmospheric haze.
jotdeh wrote:
Good point! Any extender samples would be cool! Zeiss says the only converter that works (Mutar III) there will be strong vignetting. Wonder if it'll be the same with Canon or Kenko extenders.
I've used the lens with Mutar I and II. Saw no difference, and no vignetting (on 1.5 crop).
I actually removed the rear element for the cleaning of mine 100-300.
What's weird is that it looks cloudy, but I it's a solid glass according to the diagram. Both sides of the element appears to be fine though...
That would be the one. Is it possible that the rear element is actually a group of two? I can't seem to be able to take those apart - they sit tight in the retention ring..
Actually, if you zoom right in you may notice a small discontinuity in Groups 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 (which nicely adds up to 12 elements, too). Group 7 is what you are looking at, and the haze may well be at the cemented interface.
Briantho
Did you really see no difference between the Contax 100-300 on Mutar I and II for both near distance and infinity? I remember your shots over the ice and wondered if you tried both Mutar I and II. It is interesting if there is no difference. In that case Mutar I would make more sense since it can be used all the way from 100mm.
Briantho, thanks and it would be great if you do this test and can share the findings!
Z250SA, did you ever compare the Contax 100-300 with the Canon 400L 5.6? I was taken with the following comment in your first post on the lens.
"I will of course match it against my 300L4 and 400L5.6. But I´m afraid the L´s just might not make it to the last round. I´m allready shure that they are defeated in the colour fringing and LoCA matches. And this is all on a 7D with the pixel density of a 46Mp FF. Yes, Canon, bring me the 5Dmark5. Now. I´ve got the lenses to match!"
Nice ones Bif!
I remember you had this post where you tested all kinds of achromatic doublets for macro. Have you tried one on the 100-300? A 500D should give 1:1 at 300mm if I'm not mistaken...
inglis wrote:
Briantho, thanks and it would be great if you do this test and can share the findings!
Z250SA, did you ever compare the Contax 100-300 with the Canon 400L 5.6? I was taken with the following comment in your first post on the lens.
"I will of course match it against my 300L4 and 400L5.6. But I´m afraid the L´s just might not make it to the last round. I´m allready shure that they are defeated in the colour fringing and LoCA matches. And this is all on a 7D with the pixel density of a 46Mp FF. Yes, Canon, bring me the 5Dmark5. Now. I´ve got the lenses to match!"...Show more →
Sorry, no direct comparison done. I see no reason for such, as I find the IQ of the VS more pleasing than either 300L4IS or 400L5.6. Otoh the VS collects dust these days. Zooms... Don´t know if it´s the inherent "instability" of focal length or the varying IQ over the zoom range, but the VS got mostly used for P&S jobs. At 100mm it is _very_ good. It catches my eye. But then again, I find the 100/2 makro planar even better (not by that much) AND with stable focal length. At the long end the VS is in many aspects just barely better than the Canons mentioned whilst my new 400 TAT is far superior, except weight.
I love the zoom! I mean, being able to frame as I like. Though the lens is not as strong at 300 as it is at 100, it's still fantastic, and leaves little to be desired, imho. It is heavier than the 80-200 (which is really light I realize now) but manageable. For full frame (i.e. largish 5D) I feel no urge to get anything else to cover these focal lengths.
On a NEX I'd want something smaller.
