Figured I'd see if this board can talk me out of it... put my 100-300 up for sale. Happened to try a EF 70-200 f/4 L out at the same time. Doesn't have the bite of the Contax, but it doesn't lag a lot to my eyes. Bokeh also seems smoother, though both are nice. But from a handling perspective I find the EF, with a smart adapter and not fiddling with IBIS settings to be more friendly. Also find MF less touchy, with the option for AF (but need a better adapter.) So am I completely crazy? i know the CY is a legend, but the 70-200/4 has a great reputation in it's own right...
Mathieu18 wrote:
Figured I'd see if this board can talk me out of it... put my 100-300 up for sale. Happened to try a EF 70-200 f/4 L out at the same time. Doesn't have the bite of the Contax, but it doesn't lag a lot to my eyes. Bokeh also seems smoother, though both are nice. But from a handling perspective I find the EF, with a smart adapter and not fiddling with IBIS settings to be more friendly. Also find MF less touchy, with the option for AF (but need a better adapter.) So am I completely crazy? i know the CY is a legend, but the 70-200/4 has a great reputation in it's own right......Show more →
I have a Canon 70-300L right now, and a CY 100-300. I am selling the CY 100-300 though. The CY images are vastly preferable to me, but it's more of a tripod lens, worse IBIS, older and with fungus issues. You'll always miss the CY 100-300 probably (especially when you are shooting the 70-200) but you also never be quite happy if you have it
Collecting lenses/developing particular taste puts us in this impossible position where many of the lenses we want become more impractical/difficult to own as time goes one, but it doesn't make them any less attractive.
Somehow I don't own my two favorite lenses ever, but own other lenses in the same class. It's weird.
Please pardon my etiquette, I should have started by saying your shots make a very stong case for keeping it, but then I know it's much more the photographer.
---------------------------------------------
Ha, succinctly put!
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
You'll be sorry!
---------------------------------------------
Well put. I suppose it's generally true and probably something to just live with and not fret over. Lenses come and go...
Also fair point about favorites you don't own. I prefer 35's and have two or three I'd like, yet I have none of them and have other lenses I'm likely to buy first...
Maybe I'll just list both and keep which ever doesn't sell. Let fate decide for me.
Thanks
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I have a Canon 70-300L right now, and a CY 100-300. I am selling the CY 100-300 though. The CY images are vastly preferable to me, but it's more of a tripod lens, worse IBIS, older and with fungus issues. You'll always miss the CY 100-300 probably (especially when you are shooting the 70-200) but you also never be quite happy if you have it
Collecting lenses/developing particular taste puts us in this inmpossible position where many of the lenses we want become more impractical/difficult to own as time goes one, but it doesn't make them any less attractive.
Somehow I don't own my two favorite lenses ever, but own other lenses in the same class. It's weird.
Picked up an excellent condition copy of this lens on eBay recently from a Japanese seller. Really impressed with the IQ of this lens, although I had high expectations going in based on this thread.
At 100mm it's perfect corner-to-corner at 5.6; at 200mm it's close enough to perfect corner-to-corner at 5.6. 300mm is definitely weaker, and unfortunately my copy suffers from some moderate decentering at 300mm - but if I focus on the right hand side (the weak side) and stop down to f8 I still get an excellent image across the frame, but it lacks the "bite" of 100 and 200mm.
I bought this for landscape so it seems to be the perfect lens for my needs. In tandem with a Novoflex adapter and ASTAT-NEX tripod collar it is a wonderful combo.
Honestly I've never taken that close a look at the lens's performance. I just enjoy it. Its light, its not white, and its images have something to them.
Still looking at picking one of these up although due to the difficulty in sourcing in from the UK or even Europe I'm also having a look at the Canon 70-300L, tried the Sony 100-400 GM and wasn't blown away considering the £2500 cost!!!
However if I was to "Leitax" it can anyone confirm what size of tripod collar I'd be after?
I got mine on ebay from a guy in Thailand. Included the lens shade and 67/86mm filter adapter. I use a cheap chinese "contax 100-300" tripod ring off of ebay as well.
I do pretty well handheld but also use a Fotga DP500 II rail system and a random fitness beanbag on top to steady everything. Also the Mutar II teleconverter is a nice addition and better than the Mutar I.
chrismscotland wrote:
Still looking at picking one of these up although due to the difficulty in sourcing in from the UK or even Europe I'm also having a look at the Canon 70-300L, tried the Sony 100-400 GM and wasn't blown away considering the £2500 cost!!!
However if I was to "Leitax" it can anyone confirm what size of tripod collar I'd be after?
I picked one up from a dealer in Japan Five Star Camera, they are on Ebay. The lens was in exceptionally good shape. In respect to the adapeter I went with the Leitax solution, it's really rock solid once installed. They also sell a spacer kit for the Canon 70-200 Lens collar that can be used on the Contax, I didn't purchase the authentic Canon collar, I went with the Vello clone which was significantly les expensive and a Wimberley ARCA plate.
Tough decision for me, I want the 100-300 for the rendering of Landscapes./Cityscapes and the 100-400G + 1.4 TC for wildlife... Decisions, Decision > I shoot both about equal
IndyFab wrote:
Tough decision for me, I want the 100-300 for the rendering of Landscapes./Cityscapes and the 100-400G + 1.4 TC for wildlife... Decisions, Decision > I shoot both about equal
If you can't have both lens then I think it's a no brainer - you really need AF for wildlife. The CYZ 100-300 is VERY touchy on MF.
dbehrens wrote:
If you can't have both lens then I think it's a no brainer - you really need AF for wildlife. The CYZ 100-300 is VERY touchy on MF.
After posting I was thinking I should just save my Canon long lenses for wildlife and shoot wildlife with my Canon Gear,
So no need for the 100-400G
Just use Sony for Landscape.. I think thats the route I'll go.
I did see you mention you went with Oly 100-400 +1.4 and get 800. Thats sounds interesting, what Oly camera are you using that gives you that crop factor ?
IndyFab wrote:
After posting I was thing I should just save my Canon long lenses for wildlife and shoot wildlife with my Canon Gear,
So no need for the 100-400G
Just use Sony for Landscape.. I think thats the route I'll go.
I did see you mention you went with Oly 100-400 +1.4 and get 800. Thats sounds interesting, what Oly camera are you using that gives you that crop factor ?
I have also been holding on to my Canon gear (500/4 & 100-400). For me the big question is whether to sell or hold on to my 500 f/4 as it seems like adapting is now becoming more of a viable option. However, I hated lugging that heavy gear through airports and as carry on luggage on aircraft.
When Fuji came out with their 100-400 and matched 1.4x I decided to give them a try. Their glass is simply stellar with razor sharp IQ and with their 5-stop image stabilization I'm now hand-holding everything - which simply blows my mind. And Fuji body/lens is weatherproof.
All that to say I'm at least going to sell my 1D Mk4 and 100-400 and will probably say goodbye to my beloved 500. The Fuji crop factor equivalent is 152mm-609mm and 213-853mm with the 1.4x - and I'm not seeing any appreciable IQ degradation using the 1.4.
I was speaking to a shooting buddy this weekend who has the Oly set up you have, and I see you have Fuji. Fuji colors are great BTW He explained it has a 2X crop factor unlike the 1.6 Canon has. So it sounds like the Fuji does the same. What Fuji do you have and what is the MP count. I thought Fuji was for street shooters.. BTW how well does it vs your 1DIV and 500. Does it keep up ?
Dont blame you for dumping the 500, if it's the V1 , VII is definitely much liter
Sorry for getting off topic about the Contax 100-300
IndyFab wrote:
I was speaking to a shooting buddy this weekend who has the Oly set up you have, and I see you have Fuji. Fuji colors are great BTW He explained it has a 2X crop factor unlike the 1.6 Canon has. So it sounds like the Fuji does the same. What Fuji do you have and what is the MP count. I thought Fuji was for street shooters.. BTW how well does it vs your 1DIV and 500. Does it keep up ?
Dont blame you for dumping the 500, if it's the V1 , VII is definitely much liter
Sorry for getting off topic about the Contax 100-300 ...Show more →
The Fuji crop factor is not the same as Cannon. Fuji has a slightly larger sensor with a CF equivalent for 100-400 of 152mm-609mm and 213-853mm with the 1.4x - and I'm not seeing any appreciable IQ degradation using the 1.4.
What Fuji I have? XT-1, which was the flagship camera at the time when I went Fuji, and it tends to wander on AF. It also has the identical number of pixels as the 1D Mk4. However I do not recommend the XT-1 and will soon be upgrading to either the XT-2 or XH-1, both which have massively better AF.
As for the 1D Mk4 performance with 500 f/4 - professional in every way. It is a very polished system with very quick/accurate AF and IQ. However, don't try handholding and anything above ISO 800 starts to deteriorate. The Fuji shoots much cleaner high ISO's.
Since this is a CYZ 100-300 thread that lens has stellar IQ but with no IS and it has a very short-throw touchy MF.
