Hi, wondering what's the forum's popular opinion comparing Contax's 80-200 f4 against FD L 80-200? The Contax seems to be cheaper. I already have the Contax 35-70 f3.4 and may look for a tele zoom to complement. Thanks.
I had them both and sold them both. They both are good, while the Canon is a bit heavier and more bulky than the Contax. Image quality is quite similar, the Contax is easier to find and cheaper. I sold them, because I found a mint Contax 100-300 which is way better than these two and even smaller and more compact.
Try to find one of the 100-300 Contax.
PEKA62 wrote:
I had them both and sold them both. They both are good, while the Canon is a bit heavier and more bulky than the Contax. Image quality is quite similar, the Contax is easier to find and cheaper. I sold them, because I found a mint Contax 100-300 which is way better than these two and even smaller and more compact.
Try to find one of the 100-300 Contax.
lol great advice but that lens is a whole other price category. I will keep it in mind.
1. The contax 100-300, while having excellent image quality, it's not smaller and more compact. It's quite large and heavy.
2. The Canon has less purple fringing. Contax has that sweet micro contrast.
3. Image quality overall is quite comparable.
4. Some Canon fd lenses have issues with sticky aperture blades, half of mine have either been stuck or oily. If buying, make sure it has a return policy.
Phillips photos with the Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 L made me want to get one of these. I was unable to find one, therefore I bought the Zeiss.
I can find some (easily fixable) CA's and some Vignetting, especially in the close-up range. Except of that, it's a lovely lens with lots of contrast and sharpness.
I found it to be even sharper than the slightly decentered FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS that I had. It is possible, that a perfect example of the Sony will be better.
I have used the Canon 80-200 extensively, and it's a really impressive lens. I would classify myself as moderately demanding user in terms of optical performance. MF is a bit tricky till you get used to it. It has a saturated color palate like lots of Canon glass, and greens can get a bit much, but it's really sharp, and has filmic contrast and coloring to me. I liked it better than my Sony FE 70-200, and have been using it for about a year as my tele.
Maybe I had a bad copy of the CY 80-200, or an especially good copy of the FD 80-200, but I was very unimpressed by the CY, and sold it. Blew highlights and wasn't that sharp. The FD is very sharp, and surprisingly well corrected.
Also, the CY 100-300 is bigger than both of the 80-200, by a fair amount.
I certainly like my FD 80-200 f4L. Very sharp and contrasty. Saturated colours. I'd agree it has a filmic look about it, which I quite like. It's as good as any modern lens I have used. I also like the fact that it is a reverse zoom, ie pull the zoom ring in closest to you when at 200 mm. Makes for steadier holding when yu need it.
Great wealth of info here, looks like either will fit the bill. Im leaning towards canon because i may also use the film camera f1 more than the rx. Btw, what's the opinion on fd 100-300? That lens looks much cheaper than the contax. I'll probably go with the 80-200 tho.
banpreso wroteBtw, what's the opinion on fd 100-300?
I think it really lacks any quality if you pass the 200mm mark.
Until ~150mm it is stellar and produces fantastic macros, too. But I guess that cropping a 150mm image will give you the same quality as a 300mm image with that lens.
My advice: Keep your fingers off the 100-300mm f/5.6 L. It is too bulky for a 150mm zoom
How do these lenses compare, in respect to sharpness and color, to modern top of the line 70-200/2.8 or f/4 lenses, such as those from Canon or Nikon? Obviously the f/2.8 lenses are quite large and heavy... just trying to get an idea of what image quality related differences there are considering the ~20 year difference in manufacture... I've used the Canon 2.8s and for the last ~7 years the f/4 IS extensively and therefore am most familiar with those as a point of reference.
FWIW, I recently picked up a Leica 180/3.4 and am impressed by its sharpness and color quality compared to what I'm used to from the Canon f/4 IS zoom.
rscheffler wrote:
How do these lenses compare, in respect to sharpness and color, to modern top of the line 70-200/2.8 or f/4 lenses, such as those from Canon or Nikon? Obviously the f/2.8 lenses are quite large and heavy... just trying to get an idea of what image quality related differences there are considering the ~20 year difference in manufacture... I've used the Canon 2.8s and for the last ~7 years the f/4 IS extensively and therefore am most familiar with those as a point of reference.
FWIW, I recently picked up a Leica 180/3.4 and am impressed by its sharpness and color quality compared to what I'm used to from the Canon f/4 IS zoom....Show more →
I have done some infinity tests of the Contax 80-200 against the FE 70-200 and Canon EF 70-200 f4L (non IS). The main difference is wide open performance, the Contax has some colour fringing/haze on high contrast edges that is reduced at f5,6 and gone by f8 while sharpness increases. Both the "modern" zooms have very good sharpness and contrast from wide open at least in centre. The Contax also vignettes more.
At f/8 the Contax holds up pretty well against the modern zooms with good sharpness and contrast across the frame and zoom range. It has a slightly green cast compared to the others.
Jannik Peters wrote:
I think it really lacks any quality if you pass the 200mm mark.
Until ~150mm it is stellar and produces fantastic macros, too. But I guess that cropping a 150mm image will give you the same quality as a 300mm image with that lens.
My advice: Keep your fingers off the 100-300mm f/5.6 L. It is too bulky for a 150mm zoom
I think you had a bad copy. Mine is plenty sharp at 300mm and has very little CA. For $150 you aren't going to find a better lens at 300mm. It is the same optically as the EF version and all the reviews of that lens show no sharpness drop off at 300mm.
The 300 F4L is better but over twice the cost and 350g heavier.
rscheffler wrote:
How do these lenses compare, in respect to sharpness and color, to modern top of the line 70-200/2.8 or f/4 lenses, such as those from Canon or Nikon? Obviously the f/2.8 lenses are quite large and heavy... just trying to get an idea of what image quality related differences there are considering the ~20 year difference in manufacture... I've used the Canon 2.8s and for the last ~7 years the f/4 IS extensively and therefore am most familiar with those as a point of reference.
FWIW, I recently picked up a Leica 180/3.4 and am impressed by its sharpness and color quality compared to what I'm used to from the Canon f/4 IS zoom....Show more →
Marco Cavina has an article comparing the the FD 80-200mm f/4L with the EF 70-200mm f/4L. It's in Italian, but Google Translate does a surprisingly good job:
I haven't used the FD 100-300 L, but the AF version wasn't that great at 300. Get a Tamron 60-300.
The L had a bit of fungus, but I don't think that affected sharpness. I think it was photozone.de that found the 70-300 IS better than the EOS 100-300 L, and the 60-300 Tamron beat the refurb 70-300 IS at 300, too.
Is the FD better? I guess it might be, but I'm skeptical.
Seems like I saw a thread once on here with someone complaining the 80-200/2.8 Tamron mf was sharper than the 70-200/2.8 IS V1. Older lenses are good.
I have a 65-200 OM and a Tamron 70-210, the version that improved on the 80-210, so I'm not really looking for one in that fl range right now. You might look at those, too.
AmbientMike wrote:
I haven't used the FD 100-300 L, but the AF version wasn't that great at 300. Get a Tamron 60-300.
The L had a bit of fungus, but I don't think that affected sharpness. I think it was photozone.de that found the 70-300 IS better than the EOS 100-300 L, and the 60-300 Tamron beat the refurb 70-300 IS at 300, too.
Is the FD better? I guess it might be, but I'm skeptical.
Seems like I saw a thread once on here with someone complaining the 80-200/2.8 Tamron mf was sharper than the 70-200/2.8 IS V1. Older lenses are good.
I have a 65-200 OM and a Tamron 70-210, the version that improved on the 80-210, so I'm not really looking for one in that fl range right now. You might look at those, too....Show more →
The EF and FD versions are optically the same from everything I've read.
This is what photozone said about it:
"Naturally it is interesting to compare this lens to the brand new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and ... the king is dead ... long lives the new king. The EF 70-300mm IS can match the sharpness of the L zoom at all focal length. However, the L zoom can still produce more snappy (more contrasty) results at 300mm."
The Tamron does look nice for its very low price but the images I've seen don't seem any sharper than the ones I'm getting with my Canon. The Canon is about 160g lighter as well. And virtually no aberrations or color fringing. I might pick up the Tamron at some point and compare them since it is so affordable but I think the Canon FDL is worth the extra money for a lighter lens and a better corrected image.
bedwardk wrote:
The EF and FD versions are optically the same from everything I've read.
This is what photozone said about it:
"Naturally it is interesting to compare this lens to the brand new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and ... the king is dead ... long lives the new king. The EF 70-300mm IS can match the sharpness of the L zoom at all focal length. However, the L zoom can still produce more snappy (more contrasty) results at 300mm."
The Tamron does look nice for its very low price but the images I've seen don't seem any sharper than the ones I'm getting with my Canon. The Canon is about 160g lighter as well. And virtually no aberrations or color fringing. I might pick up the Tamron at some point and compare them since it is so affordable but I think the Canon FDL is worth the extra money for a lighter lens and a better corrected image. ...Show more →
The 100-300L I tried was noticably less sharp at 300, compared to the 60-300. The Tamron was good at 300, and, as I mentioned, was a touch sharper than the 70-300 IS I tried, as well.
I took the photozone comments to mean that my opinion was more likely correct, and not the result of a poor sample, since I had the 70-300 as sharper than 100-300, as well.
I suspect the L would be fine at 200mm or less, like my 75-300 AF Tamron, which was actually sharper than my 180 Tamron at f/5.6 in the center. But the L fell off at 300mm, just like that lens.
The Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4 is a very good lens.At around the short end performs like a C/Y prime.From 135 to 200mm is still sharp wide open with decent contrast and colours.Excellent for closeups (1m mfd at 200mm)
