Well, I bought a BGN one for $499 on KEH, and decided to pick it up in person. When I first picked it up, I was blown away at how conservative KEH was with their grading (I have bought from them before). It turns out there were a few fungus blooms (or at least the etchings of) just under the front element. They were really nice about it, and the guy who was processing me, showed it to a tech who suggested that it may get worse. So, I returned it. But, I could see marks indicating that internal element had been serviced.
Is that lens still available and did you take any shots? - the images may be fine. As much as I enjoy excellent/mint condition lenses for that price and how much I would (or not) use that lens - sounds like a steal.
I've been accumulating a few of the Contax rings / hoods / caps as I can find them on the cheap - decent system. This PeeblePlace Contax db has most of the Contax associated information and some great reviews on some of the Contax and other lenses.
Thanks very much for the information, mMontag - will keep my eyes open for these parts but will also try the rubber hood if I can find one in the meantime:
Is that lens still available and did you take any shots? - the images may be fine. As much as I enjoy excellent/mint condition lenses for that price and how much I would (or not) use that lens - sounds like a steal.
I did not take any pictures. I brought my camera and realized I had forgotten an adapter.
I am not sure how it would perform, but it was a pretty sizeable spot of fungus. I can't imagine it wouldn't affect the pictures, but I could be wrong. A possibility is that the fungus isn't dead, either.
For the price, it may be a good deal in its current state, I was afraid of getting a $600 lens for $500 and then the fungus gets worse, and in a few months I have a $200 lens (picture quality-wise).
But, they have a 14-day no questions asked return policy. Watch for it to pop up again (the guy said it would take few days to process the return), and give it a try, and return it if you think it is affecting the picture quality.
Thanks - I called them on an UG for $299 and the person mentioned that their UG's should be considered for "parts only" and that image quality would be impaired. The BGN should not impair image.
I have an old 75/1.5 Biogon that was very economical and had several fungus spot - I opened it and cleaned it up - it's not perfect but you can't see any image degradation due to the fungus. No need to inventory primo expensive lenses if they're only going to be on the camera a few times a month or year.
wilco23 wrote:
Before I pull the trigger on VS 100-300mm, I saw old thread here https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/508562 . Is it true that Canon 100-300mm f5.6L is sharper than VS 100-300mm?
wilco23, the Canons may be 'sharper' however one defines it (and I really dislike single indicator measures, being a statistician) but I for one would require much more than a 'film' test that was unspecified and presented no evidence whatsoever, other than hearsay!
The MTF chart for the 100-300 Vario-Sonnar at 100mm is about as good as that of any modern short tele lens Zeiss ZE/ZF made, and it is much stronger than the 80-200/4. It's instructive, for example, to compare the modern MP100/2 at f4 and infinity with the 100-300VS at f8...or the 85/1.4 at f5.6. MTF is not everything of course, but...it sure demonstrates the lens does not lack for 'sharpness'.
That thread you quote was notable for the incredible level of help offered by Son, who incidentally really knows his stuff.
