Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion
/forum/topic/1009161/193

1       2       3              193      
194
       195              249       250       end

carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

The 100-300 is meant to be very good. I have tried it only once, and it is very sharp. The 135/2.8 is not that sharp, nice lens though. I don't know the others. The best one is probably the 400/4 but that is an N lens



old yorker
Registered: Jun 26, 2008
Total Posts: 212
Country: N/A

Mescalamba wrote:

An Owl

Not remembering which kind..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Owl



AhamB
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Total Posts: 5253
Country: United States

@ken.vs.ryu: As far as I know none of them are really strong performers (all suffering from various forms of fringing). The Vario-Sonnars 80-200/4 and 100-300/4.5-5.6 are excellent though (especially the 100-300).

I've seen people here who said they like the 135/2.8, 180/2.8 and 300/4 for their drawing style though, so they must have some of the Zeiss character.



briantho
Registered: Oct 07, 2011
Total Posts: 1122
Country: Sweden

The 100-300 is superb at 100mm, but performance degrades the closer you get to 300mm, where it's just bad. Purple fringing everywhere. I wouldn't recommend it other then as a very large and slow (although superb) 100mm lens, with a bonus feature that it can be zoomed to 300 in emergency situations.

carstenw wrote:
The 100-300 is meant to be very good. I have tried it only once, and it is very sharp. The 135/2.8 is not that sharp, nice lens though. I don't know the others. The best one is probably the 400/4 but that is an N lens



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

Well, I have the 80-200/4 and quite like it, although it is not excellent in any way, really. But it has all-round decent performance and a nice rendering style. Stopped down it is quite sharp, but what isn't?



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4782
Country: United States

ken.vs.ryu wrote:
which contax tele would you recommend? 135/2.8, 180/2.8, 200/3.5, or the 300/4? all seem to be at the same price range - which is the one to get?


Contax n 70-200 is excellent, sharper than the 80-200 and 100-300.



ervantrelo
Registered: Nov 14, 2013
Total Posts: 83
Country: United States

I have owned the C/Y Zeiss 100-300/4.5-5.6 for few months. Love it. Many of my pictures were taken @ 300mm, and wide open (f4.5). It's on my Fujifilm X-E1, with the crop sensor, it's an 150-450mm lens. I am going to finally convert it to Nikon F mount, I think it will be even a better performer on my Nikon full frame cameras. But many of them have zoom creep problem. It happens to almost all push-pull telephoto zoom lenses.

Pictures straight from camera, JPG, w/o any posting process.



rico
Registered: Jul 13, 2003
Total Posts: 5030
Country: United States

ken.vs.ryu wrote:
which contax tele would you recommend? 135/2.8, 180/2.8, 200/3.5, or the 300/4? all seem to be at the same price range - which is the one to get?

In C/Y mount, the Aposonnar 200/2 or Tele-Apotessar 300/2.8 are my recommendations. Don't look at prices on a full stomach.



ervantrelo
Registered: Nov 14, 2013
Total Posts: 83
Country: United States

The C/Y Zeiss VS T* 70-210 f3.5 Macro is a famous lens, too. It's in more traditional Zeiss category, more rich, deep... But it's heavy. I haven't had chance to use it, but have seen my friend's.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

200 pages!

Wow, who would have thought it would come this far. Usually only the lens/camera-of-the-day threads (and the Leica and ZF/ZE/ZM threads) make it that far.



joakim
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 2152
Country: Sweden

I guess that the spread Zeiss has in focal lengths and mounts old and new and the consistency in quality plays a major part in this.

Then again I guess that we're a bunch of persistent old geezers here at the alt forum also plays a role



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

Musicman, Sonnar 85 & architecture seems to be good combination.

ken.vs.ryu wrote:
which contax tele would you recommend? 135/2.8, 180/2.8, 200/3.5, or the 300/4? all seem to be at the same price range - which is the one to get?

I have not had priviledge to use 2.8/180 or 4/300. I did like rendering of 2.8/135, but it has too much LoCa. I shoot a lot with 3.5/200, and liked it a lot. Eventually I ended up shooting with Vario-Sonnar T* 4/80-200, which I think is better than mentioned 135mm or 200mm. This zoom had extreme nice rendering (from rendering style point of view AND also technical aspects are in pretty good shape) from 80mm to 120mm - even tele-end wasn't the forte of 80-200 I think it was better than 200mm on many aspects.

Let me know if you need some samples and I can try to check if I have some online or develop few photos for you.




carstenw wrote:
200 pages!

Wow, who would have thought it would come this far. Usually only the lens/camera-of-the-day threads (and the Leica and ZF/ZE/ZM threads) make it that far.

Zeiss has so wide range of legacy lenses still in use that I'm not surprised. Medium format, C/Y, G-series, ZA-mount, Sony compact cameras and even cellular phones.

Thou I'm not sure cellular phones should have "Carl Zeiss" printed on them. Last Sunday I forgot CF-cards from both cameras to card readers at home So the outdoor time was spent mostly scouting the forest for good places for 2014. While doing that took about 20 photos with "Carl Zeiss" lens equipped smart phone. Photos look awful in phone screen and even worse in computer. Not even slight hint of Zeiss rendering. I can't understand why Zeiss gives their name to all kind of crap these days.





One of the few shots I ever took (won't do it in future...) wide open with ZA 24-70. Unlike photos I usually post this has been sharpened (because f/2.8 even at best range 35-40mm wide open isn't much to talk about...).

Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/24-70 @ 40mm & f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 100


Samuli



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3215
Country: Sweden

ken.vs.ryu wrote:
which contax tele would you recommend? 135/2.8, 180/2.8, 200/3.5, or the 300/4? all seem to be at the same price range - which is the one to get?


What do you want to shoot, birds?

Otherwise for a kind of general purpose I'd go for the 135 in your range, or better yet the 100/2 and use the legs.

For flexibility I (oddly) agree with Carsten, the 100-300. It will rest the legs :-)

There's also a Contax tele-converter that I dont know much about. Canon does a remarkable -1EV 1.4x and without knowing I would hope that the Zeiss is on par.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3215
Country: Sweden

Very nice Samuli, subtle yet clear separation in the träsksjö.

EDIT
(for me you should post slightly larger, 1280 or so)



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

wfrank wrote:
For flexibility I (oddly) agree with Carsten, the 100-300.


I deserve that.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3215
Country: Sweden

carstenw wrote:
wfrank wrote:
For flexibility I (oddly) agree with Carsten, the 100-300.


I deserve that.


I think so though I somewhat unwillingly always regarded you as a valuable asset here ;-)



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

See, there is your first mistake

Although I am a loud-mouth, I do try to contribute. I need to get out there and start shooting again. This year has been very stressful and full of big decisions. Hopefully next year will be more relaxed again.



rico
Registered: Jul 13, 2003
Total Posts: 5030
Country: United States

wfrank wrote:
There's also a Contax tele-converter that I dont know much about. Canon does a remarkable -1EV 1.4x and without knowing I would hope that the Zeiss is on par.

Actually, there are three tele-converters in the Contax line. CZ calls them Mutars: standard 2x, APO 2x, and APO 1.4x. I have both APOs and, in particular the 1.4x, have no reluctance using them image-wise. Due to mechanical clearances, the APOs operate with a subset of the CZ C/Y lens lineup. The standard 2x is compatible with all lenses, including the Distagons.



raboof
Registered: Mar 04, 2011
Total Posts: 2094
Country: United States

ZF 2/35







dreamplayer
Registered: Jun 22, 2012
Total Posts: 116
Country: N/A

ZF.2 15 F2.8

GrafftiTown by vvnhy, on Flickr



1       2       3              193      
194
       195              249       250       end