Zeiss 80-200mm 4.0 C/Y anyone?
/forum/topic/927029/0

1
       2       3       end

rsrsrs
Registered: May 14, 2008
Total Posts: 758
Country: Germany

hi,
im very sure that somebody uses this lens!
its quite cheap, someone offers me a unused boxed one for 200.
but is it as good/ better than a modern canon zoom?

gruss
reinhard



AhamB
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Total Posts: 5075
Country: United States

Samuli has posted a number of (landscape) pictures taken with that lens, I think in the C/Y thread.

I think it's not better than a modern Canon zoom in terms of CA correction and maybe also resolution (at least wide open), but a Canon zoom is still a Canon and doesn't have the Zeiss color and microcontrast which this Contax zoom does have.

Superficial differences Contax vs Canon (non-IS version):
67x160mm (I think this is at 70mm and that it gets much shorter at 200mm) vs 76x172mm
58mm vs 67mm filter thread
680g vs 705g
1m vs 1.2m MFD

200 euros is a definitely good price for an unused boxed one.



helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3748
Country: Canada

I had been wondering about this unit for some time. I think it would add quite a bit of range for not much $$...



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13382
Country: United States

I've got one in my bag and it is one of the more UNDERRATED lenses. I put it head to head agains my M645 80mm/4 Macro and against my M645 150 2.8 A. I was hoping to find justification for 'kicking it to the curb' but instead I found good reason to keep it.

The Zeiss microcontrast is alive and well, especially as you move toward the shorter end. It gets a touch softer when you go longer nearing the 200 range (what zoom doesn't). Check out the MTF's at pebble place and you see what I mean at the 80mm range. It is not quite the same as the best Zeiss primes, but for $200 you sure are close enough (imo).

I can definitely recommend it ... especially in the 80mm-135mm range where it performs best. I had been getting some pretty good 3D-ishness out of my M645 80/4 in certain applications, but the 80-200 gave even more when I went head to head in a 3D shootout for myself. Kinda reminds me of how the Zeiss 35-70 is a zoom that totally rocks on the short end ... besting many primes ... and the long end is still plenty good, even if a bit slow, complete with Zeiss looks (maybe to a bit lesser degree than some Zeiss primes).

200 ... play it down and offer 150, but 200 for new would still be quite nice.



rsrsrs
Registered: May 14, 2008
Total Posts: 758
Country: Germany

hi,
i asked him for 150, but no he didn't.
so we agreed at 180. ;-)
it has some very little marks at the mount, but he told me,
it was never used for making one single picture.

and its quite small and not so heavy.

reinhard




helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3748
Country: Canada

RustyBug wrote:
I've got one in my bag and it is one of the more UNDERRATED lenses. I put it head to head agains my M645 80mm/4 Macro and against my M645 150 2.8 A. I was hoping to find justification for 'kicking it to the curb' but instead I found good reason to keep it.

The Zeiss microcontrast is alive and well, especially as you move toward the shorter end. It gets a touch softer when you go longer nearing the 200 range (what zoom doesn't). Check out the MTF's at pebble place and you see what I mean at the 80mm range. It is not quite the same as the best Zeiss primes, but for $200 you sure are close enough (imo).

I can definitely recommend it ... especially in the 80mm-135mm range where it performs best. I had been getting some pretty good 3D-ishness out of my M645 80/4 in certain applications, but the 80-200 gave even more when I went head to head in a 3D shootout for myself. Kinda reminds me of how the Zeiss 35-70 is a zoom that totally rocks on the short end ... besting many primes ... and the long end is still plenty good, even if a bit slow, complete with Zeiss looks (maybe to a bit lesser degree than some Zeiss primes).

200 ... play it down and offer 150, but 200 for new would still be quite nice.



Funny you say that, I find the 70mm end better on my 35-70. But maybe I just prefer the short tele end for whatever reason. I have been eyeballing this unit for months now, as I am hoping it would complete by alt bag by adding quite a bit of range. Rusty, how big is it compared to the 35-70? Same girth, only longer maybe?



helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3748
Country: Canada

Well, I guess I will find out... I have an EX one coming from KEH for $265. Plus I had to maximize the shipping costs, so a couple of Mamiya MF lenses got thrown in too. (for comparison puposes only. )



TeamSK jay
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Total Posts: 627
Country: United States

Some 80-200 shots:









































helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3748
Country: Canada

Impressive. I like the heli shot, despite a little CA. Very well done, considering there is no AF or especially IS. The detail on the refinery shot is remarkable as well. That burning waterfall is something I would love to see in person...

Thanks Jay.



rsrsrs
Registered: May 14, 2008
Total Posts: 758
Country: Germany

i just made small test...

its great !

more later, here ...



helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3748
Country: Canada

rsrsrs wrote:
i just made small test...

its great !

more later, here ...


Please do post some. I am excited... I guess you guys talked me into it.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 13382
Country: United States

180 ... nice. CONGRATS !!!

I've been using mostly my Mamiya glass lately ... maybe today I'll pull out the 80-200 and join the party.



ersatz
Registered: Aug 25, 2009
Total Posts: 222
Country: United States

It's a solid lens but I didn't find it too awe-inspiring. Mine was a thoroughly worn copy as it had lot of zoom creep. In fact just hanging off the neck strap the lens would extend fully. Not sure if there were other issues as well but mine wasn't particularly sharp until f8 and only if under 150mm. Seeing TeamSK jay's pics I wonder if I didn't have a bad copy. I actually found the Canon 70-200/f4 non Is to be better.



Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

I got one a couple of months back as cheap replacement for my 70-200/4L. Havent been disappointed so far!
It is a bit hard to focus on distant objects when the hard infinity stop isnt accurate thanks to my cheap adapter.
Nice IQ overall, just as sharp as the L non-IS, but has more vignetting.

I personally like the bokeh too, despite having fairly noticeable LoCA


I'll put some samples up tomorrow



Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

This one is around 135mm at roughly f5-5.6. It's been sharpened and as a bit of vignetting correction.







EDIT: this is in Adobe RGB so looks most accurate in firefox..


helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3748
Country: Canada

Looks pretty good!



Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

Here's a 100% crp of the above, Sharpened in LR 3.0 at 45|0.8|47 and exported straight to sRGB jpg








EDIT: seems to have lost some quality in the upload to fllickr...


Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

Bokeh at 180-200mm

f4









f5.6








f8









f4







Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

Testing lenses





















100% crop - various sharpening levels






Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

Some barrel distortion at 80mm







1
       2       3       end