p.8 #2 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I sold my Contax 100-300 a few months back to a fellow FM member but missed it dearly. I just got another one and hope it will be an OK copy. To me, it's one of the best telephoto lenses ever made.
p.8 #3 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I got a copy of the CY 100-300 a few weeks ago. Seems to be an excellent landscape lens. I have only used it for test shots so far - but taking it to Patagonia next month so hopefully get to put it through it's paces there
Here's a few test shots I took to test it's landscape capability. There is significant atmospheric distortion present, especially at 200/300mm which does hurt IQ a bit but once can still easily discern how sharp it is and how much fine detail it produces. These were captured in RAW, and have had zero PP aside from some basic sharpening in LR and some -EV adjustment.
p.8 #5 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I wonder where Sony 70-300 falls in the quality spectrum.
One lens i am really interested to know how it compares with these is the 24-600 zoom of RX10 IV. I know its not relevant here for many reasons but subjectively i feel that lens is extremely sharp.
p.8 #6 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
nandadevieast wrote:
I wonder where Sony 70-300 falls in the quality spectrum.
One lens i am really interested to know how it compares with these is the 24-600 zoom of RX10 IV. I know its not relevant here for many reasons but subjectively i feel that lens is extremely sharp.
I'm also curious. The two lenses are about the same size and weight. I've heard some good things about the Sony FE 70-300, but also some ho-hum reviews. DXO scores it alright, but not as good as the Sony 70-200/4.
Pretty much everything I hear about the Contax 100-300 is stellar/"prime-like", so I'm inclined to think it's better than the FE 70-300. The big downsides to adapting this lens though are lack of AF and difficulty using IBIS (having to adjust it for different focal lengths seems like it'd be kind of useless). On top of that, I suppose you play the haze and/or balsam separation lottery with the Contax, which could start to appear at any time (?).
p.8 #7 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I tested three 70-300Gs. There's some manufacturing variance, I'm sorry to say. It's not quite long enough to be someone's first choice for wildlife, and it's not bright enough for events/portraits, but I think it's a pretty damn useful travel lens -- which is exactly what it's designed for. The G is not exactly small, but it's not large for what it is, and it's nothing like hauling around the weight and bulk of either of the other telephoto GMs. Rendering on the 70-300G is sometimes harsher than the GMs. On the other hand the price is most certainly not. I kept my 70-300G when I got the 100-400GM. If I know I'm principally shooting wildlife I want the GM, but if I'm generally traveling and maybe I'll need a telephoto at some point (but maybe not) I'd rather not be schlepping the GM. If all I shot were landscapes I could consider MF, but no AF in this range is a non-starter for me. It's a good lens for the role it is intended to fill. Horses for courses. My $0.02
p.8 #8 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
grahamgibson wrote:
I'm also curious. The two lenses are about the same size and weight. I've heard some good things about the Sony FE 70-300, but also some ho-hum reviews. DXO scores it alright, but not as good as the Sony 70-200/4.
Pretty much everything I hear about the Contax 100-300 is stellar/"prime-like", so I'm inclined to think it's better than the FE 70-300. The big downsides to adapting this lens though are lack of AF and difficulty using IBIS (having to adjust it for different focal lengths seems like it'd be kind of useless). On top of that, I suppose you play the haze and/or balsam separation lottery with the Contax, which could start to appear at any time (?)....Show more →
IMO, the Contax 100-300 has higher micro-contrast and better color rendering compared to Sony's offerings. The 100-400GM comes close but not quite the same look. I can't say the same for the 70-200/4 and 70-300/4.5-5.6.
The main issue with the Contax is the balsam separation, but it's worth finding a good copy if you have the patience. If AF is essential, the 100-400GM is the best Sony tele so far.
p.8 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Please excuse for off-topic:
Ronny, could you say a few words about your post processing of the above shots? Are these focus-stacked?
Which raw-converter do you use? Can you show a non-processed ooc version to compare?
p.8 #10 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
All I can say is my FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, including the 2 FE TCs, are excellent for birding on the A9 all the way to f/11, using the electronic shutter. Its performance at 400mm matters most to me.
I am using mostly the above combination or the Olympus E-M1.2 with the 300/4.0 Pro and 1.4x TC.
So the Sony system gives a max reach of 400, 560, and 800mm.
The Olympus system a 135 film equivalent reach of 600 and 840mm.
Both systems are capable of excellent results.
p.8 #11 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I just came back from a wildlife trip to Costa Rica. There, I put my GM 100-400mm into action numerous times although I relied on my Canon prime lenses for longer reach. I anticipated for the the GM 100-400 to be a great performer AF-wise for sure, but its optical quality surprised me in a pleasant way, even with the combination with the 1.4X TC. Check these two images out and they were taken at wide open at the longest end, too... FYI, both images were cropped and not the entire frame, in other words.
I dare the Contax 100-300mm to match this performance. Just kidding, just kidding...
p.8 #12 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
AGeoJO wrote:
I just came back from a wildlife trip to Costa Rica. There I put my GM 100-400mm into action numerous time although I relied on my Canon prime lenses for longer reach. I anticipated for the the GM 100-400 to be a great performer AF-wise for sure, but its optical quality surprised me in a pleasant way, even with the combination with the 14X TC. Check these two images out and they were taken at wide open at the longest end, too... FYI, both images were cropped and not the entire frame, in other words.
I dare the Contax 100-300mm to match this performance. Just kidding, just kidding... ...Show more →
p.8 #13 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
PEKA62 wrote:
Please excuse for off-topic:
Ronny, could you say a few words about your post processing of the above shots? Are these focus-stacked?
Which raw-converter do you use? Can you show a non-processed ooc version to compare?
Hi Peka
I use adobe lightroom classic
The shots are not focus-stacked
I have pulled quite a lot in the controls
enhanced colors a lot and increased contrast, sharpen etc .. but fairly general adjustments
I think I used the color efex pro also which I put on some tonal contrast
can certainly show an example
Is it autumn pictures you want to see in original ?
On first image I have used Analog Efex Pro and some adjustments in LR
p.8 #14 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Joshua. Fabulous shots!
K-H.
Thank you, K-H.!
The 2 images above were taken in combo with the FE 1.4X TC. On the same trip, I used the lens without the TC and here is one of those images. The image was cropped slightl for compositional reasons and for illustrative purposes, I enlarged a section of that image and posted the crop here. Please note that Sony A9, a 24-MP camera, was used for that image. Since I know what this lens is capable of, I normally used it at wide open aperture. And generally, I prefer a lower ISO setting over a smaller aperture. I must have nudged the aperture wheel by accident, and at ⅔-stop is not the setting I would normally choose. Although I managed to use tripod as much as I could but this is one of the few rare occasions that made me handhold the camera/lens. Thank you!
p.8 #15 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
AGeoJO wrote:
Thank you, K-H.!
The 2 images above were taken in combo with the FE 1.4X TC. On the same trip, I used the lens without the TC and here is one of those images. The image was cropped slightl for compositional reasons and for illustrative purposes, I enlarged a section of that image and posted the crop here. Please note that Sony A9, a 24-MP camera, was used for that image. Since I know what this lens is capable of, I normally used it at wide open aperture. And generally, I prefer a lower ISO setting over a smaller aperture. I must have nudged the aperture wheel by accident, and at ⅔-stop is not the setting I would normally choose. Although I managed to use tripod as much as I could but this is one of the few rare occasions that made me handhold the camera/lens. Thank you!...Show more →
Thanks Joshua.
Another stunning shot from Costa Rica.
ISO 640 is actually a good way to shoot.
Sometimes I fix SS and ISO and let f float.
p.8 #16 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I first tried the 100-400 at B&H when we were in NYC in Feb. That was a treat, to finally get to B&H but in trying the 100-400 and viewing it at 100%, is a blown away. So I finally ordered one, hoping it would hold up and there wan't copy variation. The copy I got is just as sharp. I then got the 1.4 and that as well has held true. Cross country for my work I carry the 100-400 and when needed, it does a great job and meets all expectations.
Something I shot for myself with the lens. These little buggers don't stay still long. lol I sharpen less than most people, I don't like the effect also I notice that when I upload an image, I always lose sharpness.
560mm with the 1.4 of course, 1200 and maybe f8 or 11.
!
