Mathieu18 wrote:
Maybe my 80-200 or his 200/3.5 was a dud? I dunno... I was testing the two against a Nikkor AiS 180/2.8 ED as well. The Contax 200 has similar contrast and color, but the Nikkor edged it out for sharpness. Not drastically but noticeable. The 80-200 held its own sharpness-wise but contrast-wise it wasn’t close.
Activatedfx wrote
Mathieu18 wrote
Never had a problem with the 80-200 sharpness but owned the 200/3.5 at the same time and it kinda ruined the 80-200 for me. Much better contrast and bokeh. The only upside to the zoom was the close focus ability.
Activatedfx wrote
Thanks! I also have the 80-200 f/4, which is incredibly sharp, but the 180/2.8 has a more 3D look, and is 98% as sharp. My current favorite lens. Interesting. According to the "Contax Zeiss Survival Guide" (Reduser forum), the 200/3.5 (that he owns) has nice bokeh, but is not as sharp or punchy as his 180/2.8. My 80-200/4 is sharper and punchier than my180/2.8, but not by much. And, of course, the 80-200 starts at f/4. If I stopped the 180 to f/4, it would be blisteringly sharp. And I prefer an f/2.8. Basically, you can't go wrong with 99% of the C/Y line.
Another thumbs up: I have the Nikon 180/2.8 IF ED AIS, and it is blazing sharp with amazing contrast and color. I've never felt the need to try anything else in that range, even mounted on high MP sensors. Works great on D800e and Canon 5DsR and Sony a7R2 with dumb adapters.