Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.21 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6 | |
I had CZ Contax 80-200 a few years back to use adapted to Canon bodies. It was a so-so lens -- not awful, not great. Also, I was not happy with the many Alt lenses I had with no exif -- it became very hard to categorize in PP trying to remember what was shot with which focal length and at which apertures. So, I got rid of the 80-200 along with the Contax Zeiss 135/2.8, another fairly mediocre lens.
I'm not a big telephoto shooter, so I continued to shoot the Canon 100-400 v.I with good results, after the Sigma MC-11 adapter came out, I used it on the Sony bodies. But that is a big heavy lens, used for tripod work for the most part.
Since then, I acquired the Canon 70-200/4L (no IS), and am happiest with this lens for the times I need a tele-zoom. Has AF, which I prefer in tele-zoom, exif, IBIS on the a7R2, relative small size and light weight, and is very sharp. (I got a great deal here on B&S, thanks again, Mathieu!.)
I'm not a fan of the size, cost, and uncertainty of internal delamination/haze issues with the Contax 100-300, although the ones without the issues produce outstanding results! Fred, Mike, and Ronny (among others) have shown how great the Zeiss 100-300 can be.
I'm also not in the habit of lugging push/pull super-teles around -- they are awkward on jaunts through the brush, with two cameras/lenses dangling off neck and shoulder. I keep trying to talk myself into pulling the two-ring 70-200 Canon zoom out of the bag for rhododendrons, but haven't yet this season.
I certainly can't fault anyone for trying to find the Zeiss Holy Grail for $200. I tried, but I learned. 
Lastly, Dustin's photos are great sales tools for the gear he uses, but I'm convinced he could shoot great landscapes with Coke bottles affixed to any camera body! Great work, Dustin, and always a pleasure to visually follow your quest. 
|
