I'm always amazed by the images in here!
I'm looking for a longer focal length (currently top out with the 24-70GM) but for landscape and cityscape stuff I'm not sure I really need AF as most of that type of thing is done on a tripod, how easy is this lens to handle?
No it's not a easy lens to handhold..Even with focus magnify it can be pretty difficult to hit focus, esp at longer distance and in bad light and stopped down WO... on tripod it is easier .. but it is possible to miss on a tripod also but I think it performs really well when it hits it as it should
Tubes
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
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
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
A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T*by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Ronny Olsson wrote:
No it's not a easy lens to handhold..Even with focus magnify it can be pretty difficult to hit focus, esp at longer distance and in bad light and stopped down WO... on tripod it is easier .. but it is possible to miss on a tripod also but I think it performs really well when it hits it as it should
Thanks Ronny, your landscape stuff is amazing with this lens! Appreciate its probably not easy to handhold!!! I think I'm going to pull the trigger on one of these from Japan!
chrismscotland wrote:
Thanks Ronny, your landscape stuff is amazing with this lens! Appreciate its probably not easy to handhold!!! I think I'm going to pull the trigger on one of these from Japan!
I would say that's the largest flaw of the lens. It's amazing how much more hand holdable and useable the canon 70-300L is. The Canon has separate focus and zoom rings, and the subject can be focused on with ease in the EVF. Like Ronny said, even magnified, the CY 100-300 can be hard to focus, and especially at night. They are virtually the same size, weight and technical IQ is close. The Contax has terrific rendering though, while the Canon has a much more canon and flatter rendering, which is a big deal. It can be used easily without a tripod. And then you'll get exif and better stabilization and weather sealing on the Canon as well, and AF if needed. But you'll also need an expensive adapter. As usual, pick which tradeoffs you like (or dislike least, ha). Ming Thein compared the 2 and said they were neck to neck, but he opted for the Contax on account of rendering, but he's a tripod shooter.
edit: also, MFD is great on the Canon, which is pretty field relevant. After a Batis 35 f2, I'd like to see Zeiss make a modern CY 100-300 4-5.6 through the Batis line.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I would say that's the largest flaw of the lens. It's amazing how much more hand holdable and useable the canon 70-300L is. The Canon has separate focus and zoom rings, and the subject can be focused on with ease in the EVF. Like Ronny said, even magnified, the CY 100-300 can be hard to focus, and especially at night. They are virtually the same size, weight and technical IQ is close. The Contax has terrific rendering though, while the Canon has a much more canon and flatter rendering, which is a big deal. It can be used easily without a tripod. And then you'll get exif and better stabilization and weather sealing on the Canon as well, and AF if needed. But you'll also need an expensive adapter. As usual, pick which tradeoffs you like (or dislike least, ha). Ming Thein compared the 2 and said they were neck to neck, but he opted for the Contax on account of rendering, but he's a tripod shooter.
edit: also, MFD is great on the Canon, which is pretty friend relevant. After a Batis 35 f2, I'd like to see Zeiss make a modern CY 100-300 4-5.6 through the Batis line....Show more →
Thanks, I hadn't considered the Canon 70-300L but will have a look at it, just sold my Canon EF adapter as well (MC-11)!
Don't forget the FE 100-400 GM, guys.
Granted, it is more expensive and a little heavier and bigger than a used C/Y VS 100-300 (If you find a good one).
I sold my VS 100-300 (it had high serial > 81.....) for the GM.
You get AF and exif data, more reach up to 400 mm and IS with the FE.
You get warranty.
No risk of haze coming up suddenly in the rear element after some time.
And the rendering is really VERY competitive and comparable.
Also focusing is a challenge with that VS. IBIS is more or less useless, so your magnified image in the vf does not help very much, and this VS is VERY sensitive on focus.
Look at the images above........
'And the rendering is really VERY competitive and comparable.'
Many may have to disagree on that one, these are two very different optics. One is twice the complexity of the other, and the full images may look like chalk and cheese. My comments from this great comparo by Fred:
"Both do very well. Surprising to see how well the Vario Sonnar did WO and at f5.6 in the extreme edge at 100mm. The MTF shows a little midfield curvature at 100mm/WO and this shows up in the mid-zone here. I prefer the color transitions provided by the VS's advanced glass formulations and the already very good 1996 coatings. Sony's new zooms can show slightly blue-tinged, saturated greens at the expense of near tones, with resulting subdued yellow and oranges - to my vision at least. You see this most strongly here in outer frames, as the definition declines.
The 3D is very real, results from the combination of the glass, color transitions and micro-contrast; when definition falls off the organic color saves the day. I shoot in very clear air (vis 50-80kms) with this VS 100-300, and often see a pleasant smoothness to the image, despite the definition.
This CY lens is a 12/7 design against a 22/16 design, separated by 21 years, 450 grams and $1500."
PEKA62 wrote:
Don't forget the FE 100-400 GM, guys.
Granted, it is more expensive and a little heavier and bigger than a used C/Y VS 100-300 (If you find a good one).
I sold my VS 100-300 (it had high serial > 81.....) for the GM.
You get AF and exif data, more reach up to 400 mm and IS with the FE.
You get warranty.
No risk of haze coming up suddenly in the rear element after some time.
And the rendering is really VERY competitive and comparable.
Also focusing is a challenge with that VS. IBIS is more or less useless, so your magnified image in the vf does not help very much, and this VS is VERY sensitive on focus.
Look at the images above...........Show more →
Hi Peka
what I understood there is always a risk of haze on older lenses .. not fun to get it though.. Hope I don't get it
Focus is not easy and it's a shooting zoom ..
Ibis I think is pretty efficient so I don't really agree with you there
It is possible to handhold at lower shutter times .. but sure .keepers is not high in %
Compare with GM 100-400 which is a new and more expensive Lens
In Sweden costs GM 100-400 approx 2800 euros... I gave a lot less for C/Y 100-300 approx 650 euros ... I agree with you about warranty .. exif data, more reach up to 400 mm and IS and surely GM is a better lens but we talking a completely different price range as well
Handheld 1/5 iso 6400 IBIS set 300mm @5.6
Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T*
A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Handheld 1/80 and Iso 1250 WO at 250-300mm
Sony A7R II + Contax 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar T* by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Ronny, Phillip,
believe me Ronny, I know and have seen all your pictures with VS 100-300 you offered here and looked @ them closely. You do master this lens exceptionally. Really good. No need to show some examples, I know them all, they are all outstanding ...
When I tried to become friend with mine lens, I soon learned that IBIS is difficult to use. If you nail focus, the lens really shines, BUT... zooming in or out needs adjusting IBIS. Very annoying.
Philip, I understand what you mean. The pictures from this lens have something 'special' that I liked, too. But hitting focus without AF was too difficult for me.
And then there was a retired engineer from kyocera, with in depth knowledge of this lens and it's construction I could contact a few months ago.
He told me, that Zeiss (20 years ago) could not always get the glass they wanted from Scott (who regularly made it for them) and had to take what they could get. Refractive indices of the used lens elements were not consistent, and the glue between lens elements had to be changed, That's what I was told, and that was a reason to step back. Many of these lenses get hazy over time, due to the glue used.
If your lens is fine, be proud and keep the pictures coming in.
Keep in mind, haze in the rear element can start any time.
What I've seen previously is that, according to Zeiss, the elements can't be separated without destroying them, and they no longer have replacement stock. There was also talk that they tried different types of glue during production; some (most) develop haze, but some apparently don't.
This all makes me want to list mine ASAP, as if it’s going to appear tomorrow! Still, if anyone has a hazy one they should reach out. Zeiss isn’t in the business of separating lenses, John is, who knows?
Even if separating lenses is possible, problem is to re-glue them properly. You need to have glue with refractive index according to the indices of the glass elements you want to glue. And these elements were not made of the same glass over time.
but I think it performs really well when it hits it as it should
