I'm loving this thread and Ronny's images. Question - has anyone compared this lens with the Canon 100-400L II? I own the Canon and find it to be very high quality in color, sharpness, and rendering. Would this Contax give me better? I'm really considering this 100-300 to add to my other Contax lenses (28/2.8, 135/2.8, 35-70/3.4 VS, and 35-135/3.3-4.5 VS).
mudlake wrote:
I'm loving this thread and Ronny's images. Question - has anyone compared this lens with the Canon 100-400L II? I own the Canon and find it to be very high quality in color, sharpness, and rendering. Would this Contax give me better? I'm really considering this 100-300 to add to my other Contax lenses (28/2.8, 135/2.8, 35-70/3.4 VS, and 35-135/3.3-4.5 VS).
I did that very thing a few weeks ago, after getting my 100-300 from Fred.
The two were very, very similar in most respects. There were minor differences where one has the advantage (wide open, the Contax seems to have a bit of field curvature, whereas the Canon keeps planar subjects sharper overall), but this disappeared upon stopping down. The Contax rendering is a bit cooler.
It was a big benefit to switch to the Contax (for me), because it's so much lighter and smaller. I found that I never carried the Canon due to weight and bulk; now, I always put the Contax into my bag.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I did that very thing a few weeks ago, after getting my 100-300 from Fred.
The two were very, very similar in most respects. There were minor differences where one has the advantage (wide open, the Contax seems to have a bit of field curvature, whereas the Canon keeps planar subjects sharper overall), but this disappeared upon stopping down. The Contax rendering is a bit cooler.
It was a big benefit to switch to the Contax (for me), because it's so much lighter and smaller. I found that I never carried the Canon due to weight and bulk; now, I always put the Contax into my bag....Show more →
Thank you! That is exactly the information I needed. I think owning both would be beneficial. The 100-300 to carry for landscapes and the 100-400L II for when I’m after wildlife and birds. The 100-400 is a stellar lens and I’m glad to hear it keeps up with this amazing Zeiss.
Yes, that would be a good plan. I don't do wildlife*, so I couldn't justify keeping the Canon even though it's a great lens and I was reluctant to let it go.
*I say that I don't do wildlife, although I accidentally found myself about 30 feet from a Great Blue Heron last weekend. Since I had the Contax with me, I couldn't resist taking it out for a few shots of him.
Just picked up one off eBay.
Where can I find the Contax metal lens hood? Do I need anything else to fit the hood to lens front? What I read online is a bit confusing.
Thank you in advance.
PratyushPandya wrote:
Just picked up one off eBay.
Where can I find the Contax metal lens hood? Do I need anything else to fit the hood to lens front? What I read online is a bit confusing.
Thank you in advance.
It's the "Metal Hood 5" and needs a 86-67mm step down ring for the Contax 100-300 Vario-Sonnar.
I sold mine 18 months ago but have been missing it since. My new one just arrived. This and the Minolta 80-200 2.8 are the only telephoto lenses I think of in terms of rendering.
