p.1 #1 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
Hi,
I am contemplating about getting one these old Zeiss tele primes: CY 4.0 200 mm, CY 3.5 200 mm, CY 2.8 180 mm and would be happy to read your comments, recommendations, comarisions etc. on these.
Thank you in advance for input and photos made with either of them.
p.1 #2 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
I’m too lazy to dig for photos, but optically the 180/2.8 though the 200/3.5 will be close. To be honest I’m not 100% sure the 200/3.5 doesn’t have better centers but believe the 180 is better across the frame. The 200/4 is compact but not as good. So for the money, probably the 200/3.5.
Edit: Just pulled the data sheet, I didn’t think the 200/3.5 used to be up there. Anyway, it IS better than the 180, with worse astigmatism it appears.
p.1 #3 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
I would prefer the C/Y 80-200mm f4 zoom for the money. Or for more $$$ I would check APO Leica or L Canon glass. But to be honest I am still waiting for an AF 4/200mm APO E-mount...
p.1 #4 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
The 180 was always a nice lens and better than the 200s. You didn't ask about zooms, but the 100-300 is a lot better than the 80-200 in my experience with the RTSII and RTSIII. I haven't used them on digital cameras myself.
p.1 #5 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
I got all three.The Sonnar 180/2.8 C/Y is the most zeissy (colour,contrast,sharpness),very closely followed by the Tele Tessar 200/3.5 C/Y.The Tele Tessar 200/4 C/Y is newer and a bit different from those above.At a first glance less zeissy,but it's zeissiness shows quite well in PP (i.e. by what you can get out of RAW file).
I take Sonnar 180/2.8 C/Y for Zeiss look and tele Tessar 200/4 for convenience.Bulky,the heaviest TT 200/3.5 is used least.
All these lenses are manual focus and the only one not having problems producing lots of purple fringing seems to be the VS 100-300mm which is quite expensive, only manual, not very fast and has issues with the rear lens glue.
Had the opportunity to buy a TT 200mm 3.5 recently for only 150$. Did not touch it as I did not want to have another heavy MF tele lens with lots of purple fringes. I also will not touch any expensive manual focus APO 200mm anymore. Next will be an AF APO... Of the manual lenses the Leica R APO 3.4 180mm is the most tempting to me.
The C/Y 2.8 28mm, C/Y 1.7 50mm, C/Y 1.4 85mm, C/Y 3.5 100mm, C/Y 35-70, C/Y 2.8 60mm, C/Y 80-200mm are still in use but the tele lenses 2.8 135mm, 2.8 180mm, 4 300mm are not satisfying to my needs - too heavy, not well corrected enough and missing AF. However, I have to say that I like the bokeh of the C/Y 2.8 180mm... and therefore I likely will keep it...
Conclusion: For both lenses there is significant purple fringing even at f8. Sharpness of the zoom is better! However, I have to state here that the Olympus OM 4/200mm has a significanty worse purple fringing than the two zeiss lenses.
To get a shot as sharp as this with a manual lens it needs some trials... In my opinion, for hand held photography with manual 200mm lenses on this level, lens handling becomes more important than the optical quality... A optically better manual lens which is more heavy or more difficult to handle could mean inferior results... Therefore, the C/Y 80-200mm lens is a perfect manual lens for me. It is easy to handle, better than many primes and cheap. The optically better lenses are mostly significantly more heavy or more bulky.
p.1 #11 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
Thank you all for this great feedback that I will carefully check out, especially to chris9 for posting photos. FM: Just sit back and wait overnight for the info to come. Great.
Also be aware that there are two versions of the 2.8 180mm!!! The newer MM version is improved optically and also looks different. I own the newer MM version.
It seems the C/Y 3.5 200mm is slightly inferior to the C/Y 2.8 180mm. The 3.5 200 has more fringing... - good I did not buy that...
p.1 #15 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
not sure there are two versions of the Sonnar 180, there are two of the Elmarit 180 non-Apo.
The Sonnar 180 is ok, but optically nowhere near as good as the Sonnar 180 F4 (even wide open this one is better)...roughly the same size but you need an adapter to use it...
I found one in Europe for around 350 dollars, in basically mint state... sold it for about the same...
p.1 #16 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
Thank you very much once more. That detailed comparison of 2.8 Sonnar and 3.5 Tessar by Marco Cavina is really interesting and clearly points towards the Sonnar. However, the comparison of the Leica Apo 180 to some others is impressive, too.
p.1 #17 · Zeiss CY 4.0 200, CY 3.5 200, CY 2.8 180: Who can compare or recommend?
Peire wrote:
I got all three.The Sonnar 180/2.8 C/Y is the most zeissy (colour,contrast,sharpness),very closely followed by the Tele Tessar 200/3.5 C/Y.The Tele Tessar 200/4 C/Y is newer and a bit different from those above.At a first glance less zeissy,but it's zeissiness shows quite well in PP (i.e. by what you can get out of RAW file).
I take Sonnar 180/2.8 C/Y for Zeiss look and tele Tessar 200/4 for convenience.Bulky,the heaviest TT 200/3.5 is used least.
By far the best conjugation of the word, Zeiss, ever. Well done, sir!
the last link includes a comparison of the apo Elmarit with the C/Y 100-300, both lenses are considered to be significantly better than the C/Y primes but of course more $$$.
links do not include any info about the C/Y's 180mm, 200mm primes
I continue to wait for an e-mount AF APO Telyt 2.8 200mm that focus to 1meter.
