p.9 #3 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
darrellc wrote:
The images are convincing, aren’t they...
Yes, they are definitely a different rendering in a pleasant way than the modern lenses. Joshua's image using the 100-400 GM of the Parrot has so much detail on the feathers is compelling as well . Plus I shoot Wildlife as well as Landscape
Its a hard call which way to go. Plus I own a Canon 100-400II .I wanna see how it performs on Sony, which I hope to purchase this week .
Also another concern as Fred mentioned, is the possibility of the balsam separation on the 100-300
p.9 #5 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I haven't used the 100-300 at all but my first couple of months with the FE 100-400 GM have yielded these photos from my yard and other familiar locations (on a7rII):
It's not my sharpest lens (that would be the Leica 280/4 APO) but it's quite good and meets my needs quite well. I'm looking forward to using it on my trip to interior Alaska next summer.
p.9 #6 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Does anyone have experience of using TC on the CY 100-300? I'm mainly curious about if the Mutar II is good enough to warrant the cost and risk of element bumping. Although it can be avoided by shooting above 150mm I heard.
p.9 #7 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
You can only use the Mutar II between 200 and 300mm, the IQ at 600mm is nothing to write home about, I would prefer the 100-400 and 1.4x TC if you need the 600mm.
p.9 #8 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
k-h.a.w wrote:
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.
K-H.
Hi K-H,
I'm trying to decide which route to go, I have both an OMD-1 and an A7RII. If I went with the Olympus, would probably upgrade the body to the 2 version. One thing that gets me about the Oly 300 is the weight. As you've got both lenses and systems, would you be able to shed any light on making the choice between the two? I can only afford one.
p.9 #9 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Hi K-H,
I'm trying to decide which route to go, I have oth an OMD-1 and an A7RII. If I went with the Olympus, would probably upgrade the body to the 2 version. One thing that gets me about the Oly 300 is the weight. As you've got both lenses and systems, would you be able to shed any light on making the choice between the two? I can only afford one.
Thanks,
Robert
The weight savings of the Olympus is easily negated by the small size of the M 4/3 sensor. I have seen great results coming off that system if the shooting conditions are great but if your shooting conditions are not the case and most of the time, real life shooting situations are far from ideal, you need to bump up the ISO, that sensor size is limiting in terms of noise and we are not even talking about the limited cropping ability associated with that sensor.
A few of my shooting buddies are using the Olympus system; that's why I know the limitations.
p.9 #10 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
AGeoJO wrote:
The weight savings of the Olympus is easily negated by the small size of the M 4/3 sensor. I have seen great results coming off that system if the shooting conditions are great but if your shooting conditions are not the case and most of the time, real life shooting situations are far from ideal, you need to bump up the ISO, that sensor size is limiting in terms of noise and we are not even talking about the limited cropping ability associated with that sensor.
A few of my shooting buddies are using the Olympus system; that's why I know the limitations.
Hey thanks, any feedback is appreciated. I just can't figure out why Olympus made that lens so heavy. It's heavier than the Canon 300mm F4.0, and that's full frame. And of course there's the price.
p.9 #11 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Cometsoft wrote:
Hey thanks, any feedback is appreciated. I just can't figure out why Olympus made that lens so heavy. It's heavier than the Canon 300mm F4.0, and that's full frame. And of course there's the price.
Probably because they want you to be comparing its weight/size/price to the lenses which have a similar focal length equivalent, so the Canon and Nikon 600/4
p.9 #12 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
The weight savings of the Olympus is easily negated by the small size of the M 4/3 sensor. I have seen great results coming off that system if the shooting conditions are great but if your shooting conditions are not the case and most of the time, real life shooting situations are far from ideal, you need to bump up the ISO, that sensor size is limiting in terms of noise and we are not even talking about the limited cropping ability associated with that sensor.
A few of my shooting buddies are using the Olympus system; that's why I know the limitations.
I find the Olympus 300/4 Pro a stunning optical performer, as I find the same about the Sony FE 100-400.
For me the difference is the Sony A9 as the better camera, in particular its superior EVF and electronic shutter.
In good light both systems can deliver stunning images with good enough IQ for my tastes.
I also have the Olympus FT 300/2.8 SHG lens that extends the applicability of the mFT system.
p.9 #13 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
This summer I am going to be on a cruise to Iceland. I'm torn between the Contax 100-300, the Sony 70-300 or the Batis 135. But I'm wondering if the 135 would be enough reach? I've been telling myself that I need to invest in AF glass, because of my age and some eye issues. On the other hand, my A7RIII does help with manual focusing.
Anyone want to weigh in with advice? I've only got the money to buy one...
p.9 #14 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
partitura wrote:
This summer I am going to be on a cruise to Iceland. I'm torn between the Contax 100-300, the Sony 70-300 or the Batis 135. But I'm wondering if the 135 would be enough reach? I've been telling myself that I need to invest in AF glass, because of my age and some eye issues. On the other hand, my A7RIII does help with manual focusing.
Anyone want to weigh in with advice? I've only got the money to buy one...
As much as I like the CY 100-300, "cruise" to me screams out [1] image stabilization since the boat is moving and [2] zoom since you can't move forwards or backwards off the boat. So for that usage, I'd argue for the Sony zoom.
p.9 #16 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Hello everyone, would dare to buy a 100-300 with only light haze on the rear element? Would it severely hamper IQ anyway in your experience? Like some sort of low contrast veil or something?
p.9 #17 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Avoid haze... There are copies without haze in the back element. They usually have the latest SNs too. You may need to order from Ebay Japan but if you can wait I may be selling mine in the near future.
p.9 #19 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
Impressive!
Thank you for the offer, I'm definitely not in a rush, especially in buying from eBay Japan and pay huge import taxes on top of the already not-so-cheap price in which haze-less exemplaries are currently sold there..
On in all, we are definitely in used Canon 700 F2.8L (non IS) terrritory which, be the VS as beautiful as it is, looks definitely as a more well rounded alternative as a quality mid-tele zoom. So for now I'm stayin g on the fence and just look at all those beautiful pics!
p.9 #20 · Sony FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM vs Contax 100-300/4.5-5.6
I have not decided to sell mine just yet. I am tempted because I am frustrated trying to mount the lense+camera to my monopod for nature type images. If I find a good way to support it I will probably keep it. If I sell it I will be buying a 100-400G. My wife has one that she will not share It is quite good and AF is a big plus with nature work that often involves motion.
