p.22 #2 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
httivals wrote:
Nehemiah: When you say the CY images have so much more “life,” do you mean the famous Zeiss microcontrast, or is it something else? Thanks,
Nowadays, CY lenses don't have as much micro-contrast as many newer lenses that are better corrected. I would say the CY 100-300 is very sharp with good but not cutting edge micro-contrast.
I would say the colors feel richer and more nuanced on the CY 100-300, the color palate is preferable and while the CA control is very good on the CY 100-300, images feel a little more "organic" or less sterile. A thing you often hear with CY lenses but is hard to quantify. Many shooters talk about the rendering of such lenses, I agree. The Canon I had to massage the colors more, and often had to adjust global contrast--images felt flat and just generally needed more work. The rendering is just so nice on the CY line, and the 100-300 more than most IMO.
p.22 #4 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Man, I am really thinking of selling my Sigma 150-600 for the CYZ 100-300, even for wildlife that doesn't move fast. Ronny is helping much me towards this purchase
p.22 #17 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Epic and emotive photo--composition, lighting and processing. Excellent!
---------------------------------------------
Dustin Gent wrote:
DAMN! this is SPECTACULAR, to say the least. I could stare at this all day
Thanks The lens got a workout on my most recent visit to Patagonia. In fact the amount of time it was attached to my camera became something of a running joke amongst my friends But as it was my third visit, I had already done much of the more typical wide angle stuff so was happy to spend some quality time shooting telephoto landscapes.
But as it was my third visit, I had already done much of the more typical wide angle stuff so was happy to spend some quality time shooting telephoto landscapes.
