p.15 #1 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Now if only there was a way to keep updated on the progress of these lenses in a way that didn't bump the thread, bringing it to the attention of more people that'll swoop in an pick up these paperweight VSs with separation...
p.15 #2 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
bluloo wrote:
Received the Leitax mount today. Pretty nifty. Have it mounted on my good copy of the VS.
Will be sending the hazed copy to Taiwan for repair in the next day or so. Should have it back in ~30-45 days.
The Leitax helps with the weight as well. I think it's only 60 grams and regular adapters are ~ 100 grams.
p.15 #4 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Fred Miranda wrote:
Finally got a copy with zero haze (after 4 tries). The lens is mint and the rear element is clear. I don't see dust in it either.
The 100-300 VS's serial number is: 747-XXXX
The reason I won't sell mine isn't necessarily because of the sharpness or contrast, it's the size. Weight I can deal with, but I can fit my A7RII, Laowa 15, Zony 16-35/4, Zony 55, and Contax 100-300 (w/collar) in the Peak Design 20L with room to spare. No chance I could pull that off with the 100-400 GM. Of course, I'm doing exclusively landscapes, but still. It's impressively compact for such a high quality and long telezoom.
Jan 08, 2019 at 04:32 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #5 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I have thought about getting this lens for a long time, but I think I am going to pass. Here is my thoughts: the lens is fantastic at its wider focal lengths 100-135 and very very good up to 180mm, but beyond that I don't think it is anything but good. To me that posing a dilemma. I now have a very top level 110 (the CV 110 f/2.5 APO), and I have had level 135 (the Milvus 135 f/2 APO for three years) which means although this lens is excellent it does not quite keep up with either of those two lenses. For most of my shooting I am happy skipping from these lenses to my exceptional Hassy C 250 f/5.6 Superachromat which significantly beats the VS 100-300 for longer focal lengths. So, do I want this as a lens that replaces two other lenses? I am having a hard time justifying it for that, as I like all three of the other lenses too much to give them up and I don't see using this all that much. Still it is one of those lenses that is always in the back of my mind as something to potentially add to the kit?
p.15 #6 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I still get the itch to buy this lens like twice a week. I would rather not go the repair route, but if all it takes is 2 months to get it legitimately fixed, i may go that way.
Non haze 100/300 go for $750-900 range on average, whereas I have seen haze ones go for as cheap at $450. so factor in shipping time from Japan (where most lenses are from), then ship to Taiwan and wait for repair.. Could be 2 months or so, to save $200-$300; but would have a pristine condition one.
I am unsure if the price on that lens goes up if the haze is not on the rear element. (unless that is the only place it happens?)
Come March, I may be the newest member of the 100-300 club
p.15 #7 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Dustin Gent wrote:
I still get the itch to buy this lens like twice a week. I would rather not go the repair route, but if all it takes is 2 months to get it legitimately fixed, i may go that way.
Non haze 100/300 go for $750-900 range on average, whereas I have seen haze ones go for as cheap at $450. so factor in shipping time from Japan (where most lenses are from), then ship to Taiwan and wait for repair.. Could be 2 months or so, to save $200-$300; but would have a pristine condition one.
Come March, I may be the newest member of the 100-300 club...Show more →
Unless you buy well under $400, I don't see that much in likely savings.
Assume the repair is $150. My EMS from NJ to Taiwan was ~ $75. I assume it will be less on the return, but if we assume on the high side @ $75, that's $300 + the original $450 = $750, so not saving much (nothing on the low end), but you do have the upside of potentially gaining a virtually guaranteed haze-free lens for the foreseeable future.
p.15 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I've seen nice but hazed copies going for under $300 and the pessimist in me wouldn't count on a $700+ copy being problem-free. I'd much rather do $400 (base) + $200 (repair, S&H) vs $600 for one that may or may not be a problem in the near future.
p.15 #10 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Brief update on the repair process: at last they answered and I was quite surprised that not only they received the lens, they actually already fixed it and sent me a pic of the rear element in almost pristine conditions!
I say "almost" as they pointed me to the fact that it had retained a tiny bit of haziness due to coating permament damage due to lens aging (nothing to do with separation apparently) and that would require an additional USD 150 cleaning treatment if I want that fixed too. But they were honest enough to say that according to their judgement it won't impact image quality and therefore is not necessary. So now I'm going to pay the repair fee+return shipping and hopefully they will actually send my lens back at the end..
Talking about buying hazy lenses, considering that shipping back and forth plus repairing is around USD 260-270 in total, I won't pay more than USD 300 for a hazy copy to make the whole exercise worth, otherwise it's just better to go directly for a (supposedly) good copy.
p.15 #11 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Well I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad... Bluloo and Fred received good copies, I got haze... and scratches and separation. I think I also saw a few early stage fungus blooms, but couldn't get the light to hit them consistently.
S/N 7505862 - Described as "mint" and free of it's afflictions.
Looking at it under normal light it's ok, but as soon as you hit it with a direct light it's noticeable but light. Putting a light at a 45 degree angle to the rear element and you get what's in the picture. It's patchier than typical haze, which makes sense as it's the glue causing it.
p.15 #12 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
rps_23 wrote:
Well I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad... Bluloo and Fred received good copies, I got haze... and scratches and separation. I think I also saw a few early stage fungus blooms, but couldn't get the light to hit them consistently.
S/N 7505862 - Described as "mint" and free of it's afflictions.
Looking at it under normal light it's ok, but as soon as you hit it with a direct light it's noticeable but light. Putting a light at a 45 degree angle to the rear element and you get what's in the picture. It's patchier than typical haze, which makes sense as it's the glue causing it.
I'm sorry this has happened to you. It was the case with my last 4 purchases. (except for the last 5th one)
Tell the seller that you want to return it since the item does not match the description and ask them to reimburse the shipping costs.
I have definitely encountered more issues with "750" serial numbers...
p.15 #13 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
rps_23 wrote:
Well I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad... Bluloo and Fred received good copies, I got haze... and scratches and separation. I think I also saw a few early stage fungus blooms, but couldn't get the light to hit them consistently.
S/N 7505862 - Described as "mint" and free of it's afflictions.
Looking at it under normal light it's ok, but as soon as you hit it with a direct light it's noticeable but light. Putting a light at a 45 degree angle to the rear element and you get what's in the picture. It's patchier than typical haze, which makes sense as it's the glue causing it.
That's terrible. I assume it was an ebay buy.
Most of those listings are a joke. IME, Japanese sellers have been honest to a fault, which makes these listings, and your condition issue unusual. Again, IMO.
Have you considered asking for a partial refund to cover estimated repair costs?
p.15 #14 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm sorry this has happened to you. It was the case with my last 4 purchases. (except for the last 5th one)
Tell the seller that you want to return it since the item does not match the description and ask them to reimburse the shipping costs.
I have definitely encountered more issues with "750" serial numbers...
---------------------------------------------
bluloo wrote:
That's terrible. I assume it was an ebay buy.
Most of those listings are a joke. IME, Japanese sellers have been honest to a fault, which makes these listings, and your condition issue unusual. Again, IMO.
Have you considered asking for a partial refund to cover estimated repair costs?
I've already opened the return request with a bunch of pictures to back up my case. Shipping was included, but either way I expect full reimbursement as it's not as described. eBay is pretty good about that even if a seller isn't.
Their feedback and volume would indicate that they are honest, but at a minimum the scratches should have been caught. If it was just the haze I might have been open to a significant discount, but with all the other issues it's not really worth it. The scratches aren't correctable, and the separation is on a different lens group than the one with haze.
p.15 #15 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Wow, that's quite surprising even for me, how can something be advertised as "Mint", with a high asking price to match and then be like that?
I agree that usually Japanese sellers are very serious and honest about lens conditions, so it is really bothering that an increasing number of people is reporting that is definitely seems not the case with those lenses, looks like there is some wild speculation going on because they have become very sought after in the last years..
Therefore I've decided to risk the repair route instead, at least knew the overall conditions of the rest of the lens (anyway they seem to suffer even of coating detachment due to aging, although it doesn't look to be as serious as an issue like the rear element separation at least..).
p.15 #16 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
rps_23 wrote:
S/N 7505862 - Described as "mint" and free of it's afflictions.
I had this s/n on my list as a clean one, don't know when I added it.
Probably I saw the auction on Ebay and believed the seller's description...
So beware trusting this statistic, it only collects what *others* say about a lens, there's no prove that this is true. http://kappel.com/fotos/VS100-300.png
p.15 #17 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
So I guess that buying based on serial numbers for now is an exercise in futility at the moment since there is not discernible pattern on one side (save for the 840xxx apparently) and on the other even the sources cannot be fully trusted..
p.15 #18 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Tirpitz666 wrote:
So I guess that buying based on serial numbers for now is an exercise in futility at the moment since there is not discernible pattern on one side (save for the 840xxx apparently) and on the other even the sources cannot be fully trusted..
Yeap, it does not look like we have a pattern here...
p.15 #19 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
In the meantime mine should be on its way back from Taiwan, if the pics they sent me are anything real, it looks to have been really fixed for good, will keep you posted as soon as I manage to test it directly (and report the serial, so that we can add it to the lemons list )
