p.25 #3 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I still love the Contax 100-300!
Hi Fred.
Would you recommend this on the Sony a7R IV? I don’t find any lenses in this range to resolve most of the sensor. This seems like a good option for landscapes.
What other vintage lenses would you recommend on the a7R IV for outstanding or at least excellent results all around? It can be some that are great for landscapes stopped down or some that are very good to excellent in the center but got nice rendering. Anything goes when it comes to focal length.
p.25 #4 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I use the Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6L on the A7RIV with the sigma adapter. It’s fantastic. I may have gotten a magic copy. Mine is exceptional from 70-200mm, excellent from 200-240mm and still very good from 240-300mm. Well centered at all focal lengths.
p.25 #5 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Hang onto it. Hard to find anything truly great at 200mm that is lightweight. I use a Canon 200/2.8 II it’s good but I’ve not seen anything that can compare to my VC 110/2.5 or Canon TSE 90/2.8 II
httivals wrote:
I use the Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6L on the A7RIV with the sigma adapter. It’s fantastic. I may have gotten a magic copy. Mine is exceptional from 70-200mm, excellent from 200-240mm and still very good from 240-300mm. Well centered at all focal lengths.
p.25 #6 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
The Canon L lens is not lightweight. With the adapter it's about 2 1/2 lbs. A nice thing about the Sony is that it comes with a tripod mount ring, and it has built in IS for handheld images. . . .Bummer that they don't make the Sony 100-400 GM, in a 70-30mm GM variant. I much prefer having the 70mm option to 400mm.
p.25 #7 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
httivals wrote:
The Canon L lens is not lightweight. With the adapter it's about 2 1/2 lbs. A nice thing about the Sony is that it comes with a tripod mount ring, and it has built in IS for handheld images. . . .Bummer that they don't make the Sony 100-400 GM, in a 70-30mm GM variant. I much prefer having the 70mm option to 400mm.
You could consider the new Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 DI III RXD. It’s only 545 g and is for the FE mount. Not sure if it’s up for the task when it comes to image quality on the a7R IV, though.
p.25 #8 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I doubt the 70-300mm Tamron is up to the task on an A7RIV. I tried the 70-180mm f2.8 but it was worse than my Canon L 70-300mm at every common focal length and aperture even though the Canon was wide open and the Tamron was stopped down. The Tamron I tried 70-180mm wasn't defective, but it wasn't all that well-centered. The Tamron also doesn't offer in lens IS which is a drawback for my uses.
p.25 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Well, guess you got a lemon since my copy of the Tamron 70-180 is quite sharp already from wide open, really nothing to complain about even when I use it with my A7RIII. Decentering could be an issue though as I'm just noticing a bit of it on one of the corners as well, so there is definitely some lens variance around.
I very like the lens as a rather lightweight and compact telezoom, especially considering the constant F2.8 aperture: sharp, contrasty and very quick AF (and I have the 100-400GM and had the Contax 100-300 for quite some time to compare with). Of course it lacks the 300 FL, but for the price is a best buy IMHO.
p.25 #11 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Finally picked up a Contax 100-300 VS that performs just as good if not better than the one tested here against the 100-400 GM.
It's very hard to find a used copy without haze, without zoom creep and that's is well centered at all FLs...It took me more than a year but I found it. NEVER selling it again.
Here are the optimal apertures across the image field for all the FLs. The zoom @135mm came very close to my Batis 135 in resolution and contrast and I think the Contax has better colors.
100mm: Optimal at f/4.5 (wide open)
135mm: Optimal at f/5.6
200mm: Optimal at f/5.6
300mm: Optimal at f/6.3
100mm: Optimal at f/4.5 (wide open)
135mm: Optimal at f/5.6
200mm: Optimal at f/5.6
300mm: Optimal at f/6.3
Contax 100-300 VS: Added Leitax and Novoflex tripod mount
p.25 #12 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Wow Fred, that's awesome. I need to retest mine now that I have the Leitax adapter, not sure I really tested it "seriously" when I first got it. So you can point yours down and it doesn't creep?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Finally picked up a Contax 100-300 VS that performs just as good if not better than the one tested here against the 100-400 GM.
It's very hard to find a used copy without haze, without zoom creep and that's is well centered at all FLs...It took me more than a year but I found it. NEVER selling it again.
Here are the optimal apertures across the image field for all the FLs. The zoom @135mm came very close to my Batis 135 in resolution and contrast and I think the Contax has better colors.
100mm: Optimal at f/4.5 (wide open)
135mm: Optimal at f/5.6
200mm: Optimal at f/5.6
300mm: Optimal at f/6.3...Show more →
p.25 #13 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
tsdevine wrote:
Wow Fred, that's awesome. I need to retest mine now that I have the Leitax adapter, not sure I really tested it "seriously" when I first got it. So you can point yours down and it doesn't creep?
Yes, this copy has zero creep. If I hold the lens by the Leitax adapter facing down, it does not move. Serial number 7471988
p.25 #14 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Congrats, Fred.
I also bought one on Ebay Japan recently as well, waiting for delivery.
I hope it is as mint as the seller is promising.
This is my 3rd copy I'm re-buying after selling 2 good ones I already had...
Obviously this lens causes some special variant of GAS, where no vaccine can help ...
p.25 #16 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Fred Miranda wrote:
Finally picked up a Contax 100-300 VS that performs just as good if not better than the one tested here against the 100-400 GM.
It's very hard to find a used copy without haze, without zoom creep and that's is well centered at all FLs...It took me more than a year but I found it. NEVER selling it again.
Here are the optimal apertures across the image field for all the FLs. The zoom @135mm came very close to my Batis 135 in resolution and contrast and I think the Contax has better colors.
100mm: Optimal at f/4.5 (wide open)
135mm: Optimal at f/5.6
200mm: Optimal at f/5.6
300mm: Optimal at f/6.3...Show more →
I have also said I am never selling the CY 100-300, and yet I have owned 3 copies
It’s amazing how well this and the CY 35-70 hold up technically despite their age. And the colors and contrast are preferable to me as well.
p.25 #17 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Well, I guess I won't ask if you'll sell it back to me, Fred. I'm going to be backpacking the entire Colorado Trail in a few months and it would've come in handy!
p.25 #18 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
PEKA62 wrote:
Congrats, Fred.
I also bought one on Ebay Japan recently as well, waiting for delivery.
I hope it is as mint as the seller is promising.
This is my 3rd copy I'm re-buying after selling 2 good ones I already had...
Obviously this lens causes some special variant of GAS, where no vaccine can help ...
p.25 #19 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
BTW: I'm selling both Leitax + Novoflex tripod mount:
I've but decided to use this lens on the Leica as well (via adapter) so I'm selling the Leitax. ;-(
Now I will be able to adapt the Contax 100-300 Vario-Sonnar on both Leica and Sony bodies.
I finally have a perfect copy of a like new lens. It was not easy though, and took some time:
I bought one in Japan 2 months ago that was advertised as 'near mint' and 'just cla'd'. When it arrived it was a pure disaster. Lot of dirt inside, lot of fungus on the central lens element, but it had a perfectly clear rear element, no haze, like new.
My local camera repair lab could not clean the lens, it was not possible to completely disassemble it and access the central lens element...
I found another copy, that was advertised as 'defective', 'just for spare parts'. The rear element was completely missing in this one, but the rest really was like new. So my lab combined the two defective ones and TATAAA:
