(although Freds awesome testing made it a bit superflous )
Good review—I’ll have to spend some time going through your photos on this thread.
Like one of the comments in the review, my experience of the Canon FDn 80-200L/4 has been quite different. Mine performs very well indeed, hasn’t proved fragile in any way, and from what I can tell is at least the equivalent of the Contax Zeiss 80-200 (looking at photos here, compared with my own). While 200 is the weakest focal length, at 80mm mine is very sharp across the frame from f4.
p.18 #2 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
expwmbat wrote:
Like one of the comments in the review, my experience of the Canon FDn 80-200L/4 has been quite different. Mine performs very well indeed, hasn’t proved fragile in any way, and from what I can tell is at least the equivalent of the Contax Zeiss 80-200 (looking at photos here, compared with my own). While 200 is the weakest focal length, at 80mm mine is very sharp across the frame from f4.
I just can say - Lucky you! It's almost like owning a well centered FE 1.4/35 ZA. Phillips and my lens was flawed.
(although Freds awesome testing made it a bit superflous )
@Jannik Peters@, good review, can't wait the spring so I can shoot with my 100-300
One comment regarding 300mm slanted landscape comment "f4.5: Interestingly, f4.5 is still selectable and makes a difference in exposure. Image quality also makes a difference to f5.6"; when this lens is zoomed the maximum aperture number gets larger, but naturally the aperture scale in lens stays the same. You can check from the MDF pdf what aperture scale settings f/4.5 & f/8 represent at each focal length. 100mm and 135mm we can trust the aperture scale, but at 200mm and 300mm we need to shift the aperture scale ~1/3 stop and ~2/3 stop.
I made a small table of this, the top line tells lens aperture scale settings, rows are for zoom position and cell data represents actual shooting aperture:
p.18 #5 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I made a small table of this, the top line tells lens aperture scale settings, rows are for zoom position and cell data represents actual shooting aperture:
p.18 #6 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
mike reid wrote:
Zion
Zeiss 100-300 on fuji gfx50s
This is magnificent. Breathtakingly so. You can actually feel --- viscerally --- the imposing presence of the mountains. In a purely visual medium. That is incredible.
p.18 #7 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Jannik Peters wrote:
Thank you very much!
Do you mind if I use your table for the review?
Go ahead. It's based on info I had available about Zeiss MTF measuring processed & 100-300, and I could not find info about exact values of apertures => some of the numbers are estimates.
p.18 #8 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Thanks...the zeiss 100-300 on the gfx50s has been a real treat down here in Zion
jeetsukumaran wrote:
This is magnificent. Breathtakingly so. You can actually feel --- viscerally --- the imposing presence of the mountains. In a purely visual medium. That is incredible.
p.18 #16 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Was warm Friday; +6C (42.8 American) and I finally got to test Contax 100-300mm. Evergreen forests in Finland are super ugly now; melting snow covered by pine and spruce needles - thou it makes good test for boke
First thing I noticed was that DOF to boke transfer zones were always calm and nice. Boke itself can have harsh elements in, but lens doesn't seem to have any transfer zone ugliness (based on limited testing of course).
#1 100mm & f/8:
Second observation was that lens seems to have strong contrast on focus plane, and very nice and calm contrast on boke. Overall contrast was lower than with my usual Zeiss primes (135mm APO-Sonnar, 50mm Alpha Mount Planar, Zeiss ZMs etc.) but similar to best C/Y-mount lenses (e.g. 3.5/100). I used black levels of 4-5 instead of 2-3 what I normally use. Otherwise focus plane seemed clear (no visible aberrations), but I'm no pixel peeper, for me focus plane is either good enough or sucks.
#2 200mm & f/8.8 (=aperture ring at "f/8"-setting)
#3 200mm & f/8.8 (=aperture ring at "f/8"-setting)
#4 200mm & f/13 (=aperture ring at "f/11"-setting)
#5 100mm & f/8
Third observation was that on medium distances 250-300mm seem OK. I mention this as I expected longest focal lengths suck badly because people have been saying in forums that last 50mm of this zoom is not as great as 100-200mm. I did only take one landscape image @ 300mm (focus distance ~100m/300feet), and it's left short edge don't look as good as rest of the image, so there might be some de-centering issue in my lens - but I can't judge lens from one image. I pixel peeped all medium distance (5-30m/15-90feet) and close-up shots after noticing the issue with the one 300mm landscape shot; I could not find any similar softness on left edge (if vertical image then top). So I will need to later check 300mm how it works for landscapes, 200mm and shorter landscape images didn't have any issues on left edge or otherwise. On practice biggest issue for me using 300mm was the thin DOF, and diffraction creeping in when closing down to gain more DOF. So it was positive surprise that whole zoom range is usable in medium distance and close-up shooting.
#6 300mm & f/14 (=aperture ring at "f/11"-setting)
#7 300mm & f/10 (=aperture ring at "f/8"-setting)
#8 300mm & f/14 (=aperture ring at "f/11"-setting)
#9 300mm & f/10 (=aperture ring at "f/8"-setting) - don't dream on circular boke highlights on corner, lens barrel is way too small for that
User experience was good, focus throw and focus feeling were good. Of course it would be nice that lens would record EXIF-information, as now I change folder to indicate focal length and change ISO to indicate aperture used for shooting. I know already now that few months from now, when the snow is gone, I curse the rotating front element as it makes polarizer usage super annoying and at spring&summer&fall I use polarizer for >95% of photos.
I used 67mm rubber hood, it has many folds and extends about 10cm (4" American) so it's as efficient as Contax metal hood designed to be used with this lens. In backlit situations lens did not handle very well light shining to front lens element so I ended up shading sun with hand anyways=> next time I go shooting I don't bother with the hood. I'll anyways shoot this lens 100% from tripod. Only sometimes when I use reflector (=I can't be next to camera to hold my hand/hat/whatever between sun and front lens) I would prefer to have hood.
I was afraid this lens would be "landscapes only", but after one shoot I can see myself using this also for my normal shooting. Can't wait to shoot more with this lens...
p.18 #17 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Fred Miranda wrote:
Zeiss should start a new MF E-mount line without the constraints of the Loxia line (slower aperture and filter thread)
They should also revive great zoom lenses like the Contax 35-70 and 100-300. The latter is a non-brainer!
p.18 #18 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
IndyFab wrote:
I second the motion, do I hear a third
I third the motion. I wish they would be:
- with static front filter thread
- with zoom ring (no push/pull)
- rounded aperture, at least in 100-300 (I hate the straight blades on Loxia lenses, most limiting factor of Loxia 85 usage)
Most likely 35-70 could be made smaller if made for mirrorless. Maybe also they could use collapsing design like Nikon Z 24-70.
Sadly there is no way they will ever remake these zooms, I can't see there being enough commercial interest. If 100 FM-forum member buy lens it's not enough...
)
