akashyap
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.20 #10 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6 | |
WhyFi wrote:
I haven't had my 80-200/4 that long, so take this with a grain of salt -
My copy isn't bitingly sharp at infinity - definitely the weak spot in the focus range, it's much better at short and mid distances. I thought that it was just a problem with my infinity hard stop, but I've since adjusted it and it's better, but still not super sharp. It's also not at its best at 200mm - even backing out to 180mm improves things noticeably. It occasionally gives me that combination of sharpness and contrast that makes Zeiss so attractive to me, but it's more hit-and-miss than my C/Y 28/2.8 and 35-70/3.4; those two are more consistent in delivering that magicality. CA can also be pretty bad wide open, which is sometimes disappointing as wide open is f/4.
In summary, I'd say that it's a good lens that's occasionally great. It's worth the price of admission, though I'd probably replace it if I could acquire a clean 100-300 at a reasonable price.
edited to add: fwiw, it looks like I only have a handful of 80-200 shots uploaded, but here they are - [edit - nope, that link isn't working. Just go to this pic and click on the 80-200 tag in the lower right corner, that should take you to another page with a link to the 10 or so pics that I have tagged with that - https://flic.kr/p/2cXmmoY]...Show more →
I bought a CZ 35-70 and 80-200 around the same time last year, and I love the 35-70. The 80-200 was pretty solid, but I didn't use it much because I wasn't as comfortable or impressed with tele landscape pictures as I am now. Since then though, I knocked over my 80-200 (stuck at f8 or f11?) and am looking at tele replacements.
Assuming I don't knock it over and mountain landscapes remain one of my favorite types of pictures, the extra ~$500-600 isn't a bad idea for the 100-300, it's just the handling. Seems long. Thanks for sharing your examples for the 80-200, seems like you liked it for it's close to mid distances over infinity.
---------------------------------------------
Sarpedon wrote:
I agree with all of this, and would only add that distortion (barrel) at 80 is pretty bad in my opinion, while the MFD is fantastic. It's actually a great lens for head shots with it's combination of close focus, good contrast/saturation and so-so sharpness. Just not good enough at infinity, though. I bought mine for landscape so I'm going to sell it and get a Canon F4 in the same focal range.
Edit: Dustin Gent has gotten some really good landscape photos out of this lens. I think I remember him saying he may have had an exceptional copy, and I believe he's moved onto another lens as well, but his opinion would be a good one to seek out. ...Show more →
More issues with infinity huh? I have heard the Canon 70-200 f4 is a great lens, and has a nice price. Any reason you aren't jumping for the 100-300? Do you know how the contrast compares?
Also Dustin Gent's pictures are one of the main reasons I'd consider an 80-200 again! When I broke my 80-200, I asked him which serial number he has on his copy.
---------------------------------------------
Dustin Gent wrote:
I still have the Zeiss 80-200 lens. Been thinking of going the 100-300 route, but am on the fence between the 100-300 and Sony 100-400G for AF purposes. I used the 100-400GM last year, and it is hard to decipher between the 80-200 and 100-400, in terms of micro contrast and straight IQ.
Some may find it hard to believe, since I bought my copy for $240 here and the GM goes for almost 10 times that.
With buying lenses, I am VERY deliberate in my purchases; and do a "bit" of research. My Zeiss 34-70 was replaced by the Leica 34-70 4ROM, but it is worth the price to admission, so to speak.
I have not found a lens in the 70-200mm FL range to replace the said lens, in regards to price to performance ratio. With this said, I may buy BOTH the 100-300 AND the 100-400GM and test them all. BTW, I hate testing lenses, as I NEVER shoot brick walls, and focus bracket most everything  ...Show more →
Hm maybe it's the focus bracketing at tele distances that does the trick! Nice. The price and size of the 80-200 is just so sweet.
I also have a 35-70 and I was interested in your tests against the Leica. Sunstars looked great, but I'm still extremely happy with my CZ.
We all need (especially this thread) more tests of the 100-300 vs 100-400!
---------------------------------------------
Ronny Olsson wrote:
CZ 80-200 is good but not as good as 100-300
I think the 100-300 actually beat 80-200 on all points
I had 80-200 for a while but I don't regret a second
that I changed .. but this is my personal opinion
I was happy with 80-200 also
I think 100-300 is a more usable focal length
for landscape .. big problem is to find a good ex of 100-300
and then it will cost more .. but I think it's worth it 
Someone who can provide more technical info regarding weaknesses and strength etc
is Samuli , very knowledgeable person on contax and zeiss and all technical details
Bye the way 100-400 GM is a very nice lens also
but it is very expensive .. but you get AF performance and it can be worth a lot
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47689744301_f54c16f834_k.jpg
Sony Alpha A9 + 100-400/4,5-5,6 OSS GM by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr...Show more →
Hey Ronny! I love your images! Beautiful colors and landscapes! One question I wanted to ask was regarding the handling of the 100-300. Are you hiking with this lens, or mostly driving to locations? My major use case is hiking, and it's very tough to see me clipping that lens and my camera to my Peak Design Capture Clip. Do you have a different harness system for it?
The 100-400 is definitely on my wishlist (same goes with the RX1Rii. Luckily I've already got my Loxia 21), but it's gonna take a while getting to. Trying to become a first time home owner, and I know my lens buying factory is going to be shutting down for a bit.
Some really good responses in this thread, thanks! The 100-300 is very alluring, but seems like the responsible choice seems like the CZ 80-200 or Canon 70-200.
|
