I think it is premature. The forum as a whole is quiet, it is just winter, dark, grey, wet. Let's wait until photography season, and if things are still slow in the Zeiss threads, but busy elsewhere, we can talk about what to do. These threads rarely leave the front page or two, so they are doing fine.
rattymouse wrote:
Wow...I didn't know you could mount c/y Zeiss lenses on an F mount camera!
Ehm, yea.. you thought Im using ZF lens all that time? Its my old hazy Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 MM, mount switched for Leitax one. Easy to do, almost any MM lens can be used on F-mount camera with Leitax. Same goes for Leica R lenses.
So what does everyone think of the C/Y Sonnar 180/2.8 MMJ? I've read some very mixed things about it and the going prices seem to indicate it's not the most popular lens in the line. Worth it or skip it?
I bought one a few weeks ago after reading some of the same mixed reports, but also after seeing some encouraging comments on this site by Edward Karaa.
I am no expert by any means and its early days but so far I like it. The characteristics seem very similar to the 50 1.4 but............... longer. I also have the 85 2.8 and 135 2.8 and I think the 180 compares well.
This is a shot I posted on the A7 etc thread a few days ago (along with a few others) but have since used as a reprocessing experiment on Capture 1 (possibly over-processed a bit). The brown grass strand close up on the left is unfortunate but never mind.
freaklikeme wrote:
So what does everyone think of the C/Y Sonnar 180/2.8 MMJ? I've read some very mixed things about it and the going prices seem to indicate it's not the most popular lens in the line. Worth it or skip it?
Easily the worst Contax lens I have used, with low contrast and massive color fringing due to both longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration. The MTF charts do complete justice to this lens.
That said, and to put it in perspective, I did get a couple of nice images from this lens.
Peter T wrote:
I bought one a few weeks ago after reading some of the same mixed reports, but also after seeing some encouraging comments on this site by Edward Karaa.
I am no expert by any means and its early days but so far I like it. The characteristics seem very similar to the 50 1.4 but............... longer. I also have the 85 2.8 and 135 2.8 and I think the 180 compares well.
This is a shot I posted on the A7 etc thread a few days ago (along with a few others) but have since used as a reprocessing experiment on Capture 1 (possibly over-processed a bit). The brown grass strand close up on the left is unfortunate but never mind....Show more →
Thanks, Peter. I like the first shot quite a bit, despite the unfortunate grass. Was it wide open?
Toothwalker wrote:
Easily the worst Contax lens I have used, with low contrast and massive color fringing due to both longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration. The MTF charts do complete justice to this lens.
That said, and to put it in perspective, I did get a couple of nice images from this lens.
I see what you're saying about the MTFs, but nearly all of the C/Y teles, with the exception of the APO's, of course, show that kind of astigmatism. And when people talk about them they do invariably mention the CA, but they also talk about the presence that the lenses bring to their shots (or depth or 3D or whatever you want to call it). It makes me wonder if the astigmatism contributes to the optical illusion.
Mescalamba wrote:
If speed isnt concern, then 80-200/4 looks like quite nice lens. Also cheap and easy to get brand new.. (relatively speaking "new" ).
Speed actually isn't a concern. If they'd made a Sonnar 180/4, I'd be much more interested in that, but no zooms. Zooms make me lazy. I'm much better off letting the limitations of a handful of primes force me to really consider my approach.
The Tele-Tessar 200/4? My biggest concern there would be difference in bokeh between it and the Sonnar.
I have Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200 and Tele-Tessar 3.5/200. Both are ok but after shooting many years with Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180 f/2.8 and Vario-Elmar-R 80-200 f/4 all I can say that if you want good optical quality the old Contaxes can't match more modern and expensive designs from Leica. But 80-200 is pretty damn good from 80 to about 135mm, only the long end is not what you expect to get from Zeiss.
However I'm still preferring Vario-Sonnar over Leica's zoom in "flare situations", for example shooting something like this just can't be done with Leica zoom, too much flare and contrast reduction:
Few other photos from C/Y teles, if you want to see larger versions of my photos send PM:
2009 - Tele-Tessar 3.5/200, f/8 (btw. same island and tree btw as above...)
2009 - Tele-Tessar 3.5/200, f/8
2011 - Tele-Tessar 3.5/200, f/11
2010 - Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200, f/4
2010 - Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200, f/8
(if some photos don't load, just refresh and they will come, my old website is not doing "well" these days...)
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks, Peter. I like the first shot quite a bit, despite the unfortunate grass. Was it wide open?
Also, your dog is adorable.
Thanks and no, I don't think that one was wide open, f4 perhaps. I did however take a variety of wide open shots earlier this morning in order to try and trigger some CA. I can't see any in most shots, only in a couple where sunlight was shining through water droplets. I will post some later.
freaklikeme wrote:
I see what you're saying about the MTFs, but nearly all of the C/Y teles, with the exception of the APO's, of course, show that kind of astigmatism.
The drop of the tangential curves is not due to astigmatism, but to lateral chromatic aberration.
And when people talk about them they do invariably mention the CA, but they also talk about the presence that the lenses bring to their shots (or depth or 3D or whatever you want to call it). It makes me wonder if the astigmatism contributes to the optical illusion.
I would need to see examples to understand what this 'presence' is. So much is clear, I find the presence of lateral CA undesirable. It is the lens aberration that I dislike most.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
freaklime, back in 2009 forum helped me on same topic what you are now struggling: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/742417/0
You most likely find answer to your question(s) from there.
I have Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200 and Tele-Tessar 3.5/200. Both are ok but after shooting many years with Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180 f/2.8 and Vario-Elmar-R 80-200 f/4 all I can say that if you want good optical quality the old Contaxes can't match more modern and expensive designs from Leica. But 80-200 is pretty damn good from 80 to about 135mm, only the long end is not what you expect to get from Zeiss.
However I'm still preferring Vario-Sonnar over Leica's zoom in "flare situations", for example shooting something like this just can't be done with Leica zoom, too much flare and contrast reduction: http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/686/U686I1401135852.SEQ.0.jpg
Few other photos from C/Y teles, if you want to see larger versions of my photos send PM:
2009 - Tele-Tessar 3.5/200, f/8 (btw. same island and tree btw as above...) http://www.vahonen.com/1/jpg.php4?id=213&file=1.jpg
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
freaklime, back in 2009 forum helped me on same topic what you are now struggling: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/742417/0
You most likely find answer to your question(s) from there.
I have Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200 and Tele-Tessar 3.5/200. Both are ok but after shooting many years with Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180 f/2.8 and Vario-Elmar-R 80-200 f/4 all I can say that if you want good optical quality the old Contaxes can't match more modern and expensive designs from Leica. But 80-200 is pretty damn good from 80 to about 135mm, only the long end is not what you expect to get from Zeiss.
However I'm still preferring Vario-Sonnar over Leica's zoom in "flare situations", for example shooting something like this just can't be done with Leica zoom, too much flare and contrast reduction:
(if some photos don't load, just refresh and they will come, my old website is not doing "well" these days...)
Thanks, Samuli. That thread popped up when I was doing Goggle research, and it's an interesting read, but I'm not looking for "the" 180-200, just a medium tele that won't stick out like a new fender on a 30 year-old car when I've got the C/Y kit with me. My Elmarit 180 is in no danger of losing it's place at the head of the line.
Toothwalker wrote:
The drop of the tangential curves is not due to astigmatism, but to lateral chromatic aberration.
I would need to see examples to understand what this 'presence' is. So much is clear, I find the presence of lateral CA undesirable. It is the lens aberration that I dislike most.
Interesting. I thought when you saw improvements in both sagittal and tangential, then the relatively poor wide aperture performance was CA, but if the separation between the two increased when stopping down, it was astigmatism. So can you only measure astigmatism with a monochromatic MTF?
Peter T wrote:
A few random, not very exciting, wide open shots with the 180 for you freaklikeme.
Thanks again, Peter. Very informative. From yours and other samples I've found on the web, it seems like a lens that has some limitations, but with a little distance and a stop or two down on the aperture, it can give very pleasing results.
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks again, Peter. Very informative. From yours and other samples I've found on the web, it seems like a lens that has some limitations, but with a little distance and a stop or two down on the aperture, it can give very pleasing results.
I think that's fair, wide open towards the sun does seem to be problematic but stopped down a little, or in any other direction, it seems fine. I can live with that compromise. It's also not much larger than the c/y 135 f2.8 although I think it probably is quite a bit heavier.
Shot two was at minimum focusing distance. I think it might also work quite well with extension tubes.
).
Yep, Leica is far better, but also far more expensive..
