p.3 #1 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
DavidBM wrote:
Wow! While I have lenses that measure a bit better than the 3.5/100 I don't have any that really look better (sunstars aside) so that's an amazing result.
Indeed, I really like my Contax 3.5/100 as well and I like it's practical usefulness, it does a different trick than the zoom because of it's tiny size. It had a safe place in my kit until the Loxia 2.4/85 came across one week ago. I actually thought that I would keep the 3.5/100 for the rest of my life but my little family limitates my financial resources.
p.3 #2 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Having the Batis 135 on hand. I Would opt for the GM zoom it looks like but I'm bothered by the 200mm setting on it as that would do a big job for me. Something to think about.
p.3 #3 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Jannik Peters wrote:
Indeed, I really like my Contax 3.5/100 as well and I like it's practical usefulness, it does a different trick than the zoom because of it's tiny size. It had a safe place in my kit until the Loxia 2.4/85 came across one week ago. I actually thought that I would keep the 3.5/100 for the rest of my life but my little family limitates my financial resources.
Hmm. You won't get that much if you sell it, and it makes a great light hiking tele on longer trips when you might not want to take that gorgeous Loxia...it'll stop you buying a ZM for hiking as your third 85!
p.3 #7 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
kdrk888 wrote:
Sometimes I forgot to tell myself that I am only a hobbyist doing this for fun, not for money, do I need to be so anal about such minimal difference?
You are not alone there , Douglas! Actually, we tend to be more obsessed with "the quest of the holy grail" more so than pros.
p.3 #8 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Thanks for the comparison Fred
Now I can sleep calm and know what I have in the camera bag
Had hoped to use C / Y 100-300 much more than I did when I was on lofoten .. now I go to Iceland 20sep then it will probably be more for use ... hope it will deliver some good pictures
There are certainly many benefits with the GM 100-400
But in my shooting, I think I'm perfect with this one
I manage to find a good price in Japan and in good condition
is very pleased with how it performs, and it works quite well with Extension Tube also .. negative is that sometimes it is hard to see if one is right on focus
But overall it performs well. The easiest is if you have a tripod
But it works to handheld as well
A7r II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
One from Lofoten
Sony A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
p.3 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I'd go even further and say that not just a few pros would envy our equipment... Professional still just means that one can make his living from taking pictures..
p.3 #10 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Jannik Peters wrote:
I'd go even further and say that not just a few pros would envy our equipment... Professional still just means that one can make his living from taking pictures..
I always envied the hobbyist gear. When I shot MF gear I was crushed by what folks had over mine. Of course they had too much but man would I would love to have some of that gear. You guys have 3 or 4 85s I got one. Need i say more.
p.3 #11 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Ronny's pictures scream, at least, whisper "eat your heart out, GM" ! But then I realized that it is more the person behind the camera that plays more of a role than "the holy grail".
p.3 #12 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Ronny posting macro shots is almost unfair. While he uses the Zeiss 100 makro planar too, I get the impression he could use a kit zoom and do better macro pics than I could with the best macro gear around. Ronny must speak bug or something to get them to hover for his manual focus zoom or puts magic faerie dust on a leaf to get all manner of bugs to pose just for him.....
p.3 #13 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Maybe a little off tangent but are there any 300mm mf or af primes that can deliver comparable image quality to the Contax or Sony GM lens in a smaller package? The GM is impressive but I'd love to have a small long telephoto for hiking. The only thing that I can think of is the Nikon 300mm PF VR but doesn't seem like that'll adapt well to a Sony A7R II.
p.3 #15 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I got some clouds here so I won't be able to update the crops with better lighting.
However, I worked on the files and fixing exposure and reducing haze for both lenses (same settings). I will update them shortly.
p.3 #16 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
AGeoJO wrote:
Douglas, like Fred mentioned, in general you may want to get the MMJ version, that's the newer version. The smallest aperture marking, f/22, is painted in green to separate that from the older version. You can get AF only up to 90mm though with the TAP. While I set my Contax 135mm f/2.8 for that FL for the 3-axis IBIS to work. But for landscape, where you mostly use tripod, a non-AF adapter will do just fine. Another word of caution, the front of the lens rotates if you turn the focusing ring. It can be a pain in the you know where if you use a polarizer with it....Show more →
I remember TAP giving AF for the entire range of the VS 100-300.
The below images where at 300mm using TAP for AF. The first gives an idea of how smooth OOF rendering is and the second showcases the "3d".
p.3 #18 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I have not gotten a chance to shoot all that much with my 100-300. I do have lenses in the range that outperform the Zeiss, but they are primes. I did find the GM 100 STF better at 100 even at infinity, but it is a very close comparison. The Leica 180/2.8 apo and 280/4 apo are better (the latter significantly so) but are much heavier and pricier. Horses for courses. The Zeiss 100-300 is a fine optic with great rendering in a small size. Here is one humble contribution to the thread and resulted from me doing comparisons for myself of rendering when shooting flowers comparing the STF to the Zeiss. This is Zeiss 100-300:
p.3 #19 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
BTW: I just updated all the crops, tweaking exposure lightly so histograms are better matched. I also applied a small amount of "haze" correction for both lenses. (same setting)
The results are the same but smaller differences between the lenses are easier to see now.
Best,
Fred
p.3 #20 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Thanks guys
In fact, it is remarkable that C / Y 100-300 is doing so well in this test
And actually shows on some focal lengths and different apertures even better ... an older lens that performs so well on 42MP against today's Zeiss and Sony lenes designed for today's camera... that is cool
Thanks Fred for spending time on this and let others know
Sony A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
