Been considering the CY100-300 for a while. I've shot my fair shake of lenses and it's such an impressive lens. First night out with it. It's really sings in the A7rIi
Has anyone done a direct comparison of this lens with a Canon 100-400 II ? I was on the verge of buying a Contax from an Ebay seller in Japan, when I decided it might not be the best plan in case I wasn't pleased for one reason or another, in addition to the need to have it Leitaxed.
I decided to try the Canon and was surprised that it's as good as it is (years ago, I had the Mark 1 version and hated it)...and of course I can't help but wonder if I made the right choice. Thanks.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Has anyone done a direct comparison of this lens with a Canon 100-400 II ? I was on the verge of buying a Contax from an Ebay seller in Japan, when I decided it might not be the best plan in case I wasn't pleased for one reason or another, in addition to the need to have it Leitaxed.
I decided to try the Canon and was surprised that it's as good as it is (years ago, I had the Mark 1 version and hated it)...and of course I can't help but wonder if I made the right choice. Thanks.
I haven't done the comparison. But maybe it would help you to know that Ming Thein thought the Contax 100-300 and Canon 70-300 L were pretty neck to neck optically. I think you can easily find comparisons between the 70-300 L and the 100-400 L MII ... I know it's not direct, but I found it hard to find the kind of info I wanted on the CY 100-300, but that did help me. Obviously you get a smaller package, slightly less FL, MF and tons of Zeiss-ness with the CY, but you get other things with the Canon. Really just depends on your shooting style and preferences Not sure if that helps.
I sold my Contax 100-300 MMJ in 2013, because I often shoot handheld, and the lack of IS was an issue for me. At the time I used the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS and 100-400L IS (both Mk I). It's quite likely that the CZ would have bested those zooms for tripod shooting. Now I use Mk II versions of those zooms, and I think they're probably about even, for controlled shooting. For handheld shooting, the new Mk II zooms are remarkable.
My only notes that I can find on tested, relative performance the CZ 100-300 are (for tripod shooting):
"CZ VSonnar 100-300 at f/8 vs
CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 at f/8 - very close, Sonnar 100mm slightly better
Oly 200/4 OM at f/8 - Oly noticably better
Tamron SP 300/5.6 at f/8- VSonnar significantly better"
For comparison, in more recent tests, the CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 is slightly better than the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS (at f/8 on tripod), and both are noticeably better than the 100-400L IS II (but the latter is still extremely good).
None is with tripod but I lean on something in most cases. Motorbike is probably without any support.
The A7II does have IBIS. But even with that, good light, F/5.6 etc pure hand holding at 300mm is not an easy task. I note that a lot of images with top sharpness is at 1/250 and some 1/125 which I interpret as IBIS is really helpful to keep ISO down. (ISO 100-200 in most shots from these days).
EDIT: If one accept higher ISO and get 1/500 or faster it is possible to do more pure hand held without any support. Problem then is to set perfect focus as the image is shaky in the monitor/viewfinder even with IBIS. In my experience, absolute perfect focus requires fine barrel adjustments of less than a millimeter.
EDIT II: I did a fair share of shooting with Canon lenses such as 70-200L on 5D2 several years ago. In my experience Canons IS in such a lens is more effective than the A7 IBIS for longer focal lengths (viewfinder calmer/less shaky). For shorter focal lengths I recon IBIS is as effective.
Somebody using Mutar III 1.4x converter? Mine VS 100-300 is on it´s way from eBay seller. I read that Mutar III 1.4x can be used, but only with mounting the TC on lens with focal lenght set more than 200mm. Combo with 1.4x TC should have better IQ than 2x TC?
@aCIDfire, Mutars II and III cannot be used on the VS100-300! The prohibition is mentioned in the old Contax FAQ. One user from the old Contax mailing list claims successful usage between 150-300mm. I expect the remaining range is covered in the FAQ called "Scarring your lens elements". Given the tendency of one-touch zooms to creep, you should avoid these Mutar pairings.
rico wrote:
@aCIDfire@, Mutars II and III cannot be used on the VS100-300! The prohibition is mentioned in the old Contax FAQ. One user from the old Contax mailing list claims successful usage between 150-300mm. I expect the remaining range is covered in the FAQ called "Scarring your lens elements". Given the tendency of one-touch zooms to creep, you should avoid these Mutar pairings.
Thank you for you reply, yesterday I was looking through several forums and I found users with 100-300 using
Mutar I and II. I think those limitations with risky possible touch of lens/TC elements are with Mutar II ? I was looking for 1.4 III for lower image quality drop than 2x TC. If I´d mount Mutar III on 100-300 zoomed over 200mm the elements wont touch. Other mechanical problem shouldn´t be there?
@aCIDfire, the FAQ is quite clear in saying that Mutars II and III are not to be used with VS100-300. I don't own the zoom but the front element of these Mutars project forward of the mount, and look equally exposed. The danger, to reiterate, is crashing the rear element of an incompatible lens with the front element of the Mutar. Even the front cap is specific to these Mutars, being deeper than an ordinary Contax body cap. The Mutar I (which I don't own) is mechanically compatible with all lenses, so I imagine that the forward element is recessed.
I enjoy the Mutar III, and was using it earlier today. While it better retains image quality, as you mentioned, expensive glass damage is a risk I would decline.
rico wrote:
@aCIDfire@, the FAQ is quite clear in saying that Mutars II and III are not to be used with VS100-300. I don't own the zoom but the front element of these Mutars project forward of the mount, and look equally exposed. The danger, to reiterate, is crashing the rear element of an incompatible lens with the front element of the Mutar. Even the front cap is specific to these Mutars, being deeper than an ordinary Contax body cap. The Mutar I (which I don't own) is mechanically compatible with all lenses, so I imagine that the forward element is recessed.
I enjoy the Mutar III, and was using it earlier today. While it better retains image quality, as you mentioned, expensive glass damage is a risk I would decline....Show more →
I look at pictures. Mutar I is safe with recessed front element, Mutar II and III - both have similar protruded front element and some people use Mutar II with 100-300 on longer end, so IMO Mutar III with similar protrusion can be usable but with risk with mounting it on the lens as you wrote. Still not sure which one I ´am going to buy.
^^ fwiw I'm looking at the back of the Mutar II here and there is a tiny lip above the element. Also the rear element of the 100-300 that moves is narrower. So I dont think there is any danger of element damage unless you are pounding the thing. Also fwiw, the Mutar I's IQ sucks
Thanks.
