p.26 #1 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
PEKA62 wrote:
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:
I am afraid to ask how much it cost to purchase 2 lenses and the labor cost to cannibalize both lenses to prepare one like new perfectly centered sharp copy.
p.26 #2 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Congrats!! It’s worth it IMO.
PEKA62 wrote:
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:
p.26 #3 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
naturephoto1 wrote:
I am afraid to ask how much it cost to purchase 2 lenses and to then the labor cost to cannibalize both lenses to prepare one like new perfectly centered sharp copy.
Rich
Don't tell my wife, I paid around 900.- EUR all together. The second lens was not that expensive..
Of course it's a good question if it's worth it.
I'm looking at it more from a collector's point of view than from a professional photographer's (which I'm not).
I believe I could sell this lens for the price I payed, if I wanted.
But I just don't care...
p.26 #4 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
PEKA62 wrote:
Don't tell my wife, I paid around 900.- EUR all together. The second lens was not that expensive..
Of course it's a good question if it's worth it.
I'm looking at it more from a collector's point of view than from a professional photographer's (which I'm not).
I believe I could sell this lens for the price I payed, if I wanted.
But I just don't care...
Good show! The classic sports car of zoom lenses! Congrats! 😊😊
p.26 #8 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I still love the VS 100-300 but the 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar (latest version) does slightly better at 135mm. I was surprised to see this as the Contax is capable of amazing performance at this focus length.
p.26 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I am interested in Tele-Elmar. When you say last version, do you mean Tele-Elmar-M, 11861? I have tried several of the old ones, in shops, but either they show some kind of coating damage or wobbly focusing ring. I was thinking of giving the 11861 a try, but it is significantly more expensive...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I still love the VS 100-300 but the 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar (latest version) does slightly better at 135mm. I was surprised to see this as the Contax is capable of amazing performance at this focus length.
p.26 #10 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
hanay78 wrote:
I am interested in Tele-Elmar. When you say last version, do you mean Tele-Elmar-M, 11861? I have tried several of the old ones, in shops, but either they show some kind of coating damage or wobbly focusing ring. I was thinking of giving the 11861 a try, but it is significantly more expensive...
I have the 135/4 Tele-Elmar 11861, so the one with the built-in hood. Having owned both, I prefer this version to the latest 'apo' for its longer focus throw and more pleasant rendering to my eyes. They are very close in sharpness and physically, the 135/4 is slightly longer than the 135/3.4 APO.
p.26 #11 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Have the 11861 and the 11851 some difference in the optics? some update in the coatings?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have the 135/4 Tele-Elmar 11861, so the one with the built-in hood. Having owned both, I prefer this version to the latest 'apo' for its longer focus throw and more pleasant rendering to my eyes. They are very close in sharpness and physically, the 135/4 is slightly longer than the 135/3.4 APO.
p.26 #12 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
hanay78 wrote:
Have the 11861 and the 11851 some difference in the optics? some update in the coatings?
Basically there is version I (11851) and version II (11861). Both designed by Mandler with the same optical design. The latter is about 40 grams heavier but it has a built-in hood (It's more rare and expensive). This was one of the most successful telephoto lenses and had a run of 35 years before being replaced by the 135/3.4 APO which is still in production and only marginally better in terms of resolution and contrast. (Not in rendering in my option).
Honestly you can't go wrong with the version I and it's a bargain for the price. I regret selling mine but I'm even happier with version II just for the haptics.
p.26 #15 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Sorry for my late response. Is version 11861 multi coated? in case it is, does this make a significant difference?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Basically there is version I (11851) and version II (11861). Both designed by Mandler with the same optical design. The latter is about 40 grams heavier but it has a built-in hood (It's more rare and expensive). This was one of the most successful telephoto lenses and had a run of 35 years before being replaced by the 135/3.4 APO which is still in production and only marginally better in terms of resolution and contrast. (Not in rendering in my option).
Honestly you can't go wrong with the version I and it's a bargain for the price. I regret selling mine but I'm even happier with version II just for the haptics....Show more →
