I was wondering if anyone had experience with this lens and can comment on image quality vs. Canon 70-200 F4 L.

Thanks!

Guy

Just Curious Why You Want To Compare The 70-300mm to The 70-200mm Canon
Instead Of The N 70-200mm f3.5/4.5? That Would Be More Apples To Apples,
Instead Of Apples To Oranges ..... I Have Just Gotten Both Back From Conversion
(The N's) And Will Be Testing Both In The Next Few Days... I Should Warn You, I Have
Sold All My >100mm Lenses, Keeping Only The EF 35mm f1.4, For Converted N's
I Might Be A Tad Bias ...

that's exactly was I am interested in too
and af speed and accuracy, iq in the 200-300 mm range
christoph

The Zeiss N 70-300, at 300mm, is not stellar. It would not be a substitute for a good 300mm lens. Consider it there as a convenience just in case you need it.

I am comparing the 70-300 because it is a more substantial lens and is supposed to have the higher image quality than the 70-200N

I am interested in comparisons mainly in the 70-200 range. I have heard that the 200-300 range is weaker, as the Contax MTF curves show. Still, it is a good convenience to have that range available and I have a Canon 300f4L if I need higher quality at the far end.

jrn813, I look forward to hearing the results of your comparisions especially if a 70-200 f4L is in the mix.

The zeiss 17-35 is living up to its truly stellar reputation. I am not a zeiss- over-all addict, though. the 70-200 L has on a legendary reputation and if the zeiss 70-300 does not measure up then my money will go to the canon.

The 70-200N is a very good lens as well. Easily on a par with the 70-200mm range of the 70-300N. I'll try to get a few samples up for you from both lenses. The 70-200N is small, light, and black. It makes an excellent stealth street lens.

Andrew,

Will look forward to the samples. However, I am looking for max image quality and not stealth so much. I also like that extra 100mm of range. But, the Canon is truly amazing from what I have seen and so I can go with that plus converter if the quality is distinctly better.

Not to hijack my own thread, but you have me salivating for a 400 APO!

I already have a Contax 645 350mm APO. I know Bo-Ming is not fully converting the NAM-1 adapters, but I have asked him if he can just replace the Contax N mount with the Canon mount and forget about the wiring and firmware. Then I would have a 350 (or 500 with converter) fixed aperture manual focus lens. But that would work fine for a lot of my wildlife and bird shooting, especially using live view in the 5dII with my unbelievable Zacuto Z-finder for focusing.

Already have a 100 Makro, and a 24-85 "like new" lens coming. Both will be going to Conurus for conversion.

The non-IS 70-200/f4 L has amazingly good IQ wide open, is fast focusing and pretty cheap. It's weather sealed, and will pass the luminescence data to the newer EOS bodies.

The IS version is not bad either (I like the IQ of my older non-IS version though). I was able to produce a good enough picture with the IS 70-200/4 on a stacked pair of Kenko Pro 1.4x and 2x converters shot off a rocking boat in Alaska in light rain which I printed at 11x17 and sold in a photo auction.

You'll like your 24-85 after getting used to the wide barrel. It's got quite a bit less vignetting in the corners at 24mm than the 24-105L does. At 85mm end mine vignetted heavily in the corners on the 5D. So, I removed the square shroud that was in the back. Much better now. My only concern now.... the high quality 82mm polarizers are not cheap!

Here is an image shot at F/11.0 1/5sec ISO200 5D2 @285MM Contax 70-300 N

I need to point out that this is a tricky lens to use. You will need a very sturdy tripod to shoot at 300mm and slower shutter speeds. Hand held, you will need 1/400 sec or better. It is a much bigger lens than the Canon 70-200mm. The best comparison would be with a Canon 100-400mm. The Contax is lighter than 100-400mm and is equal in quality at the longer end.

The 70-300mm is one heavy lens - you can feel the build quality and the image quality is nothing short of typical Zeiss. However, as pointed out above, it is a bit lacking at 300mm. Wide open, it's so-so. Stop down to f8.0-f11.0 and you will get very impressive images. Why Contax decided not to provide a tripod mount for this lens is unclear - it surely could use one.

If you have the 70-300 and the 70-200N, I would go with the 70-200N which to me appears to be a better lens from the standpoint of smaller, lighter, and almost equal image quality - I could not tell them apart.

I would agree with Pascal, the 70-200n is better overall and you get a lens that is better than the 70-200 Canon. If you need the reach past 200mm the the 100-300 CY Contax is the way to go. I had one and it was sharper at 300mm than my Canon 300mm F/4. It is Manual focus though.