Johann,
Great grass with that light! Lovely color.
What would you suggest for a NEX? I ask because I find the colors and detail of the Contax to be such a delight. Is there something smaller that could do something like this? Or are you thinking of the Contax 80-200? I really like that extra 300mm of reach, and then with the Mutars.
Bif, very interesting closeups. What are the subjects of the first two?
You really are a myth challenger. I want to acknowledge and thank you for that.
I do not have the CY 100 MP, but have yearned for one. But from your comparison,
I will not go there.
Well you can use the 2x Mutar I on 80-200. That would give you 400 mm F8, plus 1.5 crop of the NEX is 600, much like the 2x Mutar on 100-300 on FF (which then is F11). I haven't tried either combo, but I expect the 80-200 to balance a lot better on a small camera. OTOH, the 100-300 is something really special... if you find an ideal landscape tele zoom for the NEX, keep me posted
inglis wrote:
I do not have the CY 100 MP, but have yearned for one. But from your comparison,
I will not go there.
Don't be desiring f/2.8 then, because you won't get it with the Contax zooms.
I have the MP 100/2.8 and it performs great on my 5D, for macro, landscapes and everything in between, and it has those luscious T* colors. Don't go by just one guy's comparison (consisting of no more than 1 shot taken with the lens).
jotdeh wrote:
Well you can use the 2x Mutar I on 80-200. That would give you 400 mm F8, plus 1.5 crop of the NEX is 600, much like the 2x Mutar on 100-300 on FF (which then is F11). I haven't tried either combo, but I expect the 80-200 to balance a lot better on a small camera. OTOH, the 100-300 is something really special... if you find an ideal landscape tele zoom for the NEX, keep me posted
I have tried Mutar 1,4 III with VS 80-200/4 and 7D/5D2.Results were rather substandard (soft,increased CAs,lower contrast).I sold the Mutar.Guess that with 2x Mutar IQ should be even worse.80-200/4 VS has a poor overall balance on small cameras.It is long and thin with no tripod.Extends while focusing.The bigger camera the better IMO.I never shoot this lens handheld with NEX and smaller Canons like 600D.Too many blurred pictures.Only 5D2/7D are big enough.
BTW - there is one pretty cheap 100-300/4.5-5.6 VS (549 Euro+shipment) on German e-bay,but the seller seems not reliable enough.
rsrsrs wrote:
hi,
the seller is Ok,
i bought cy 35-70 lens there,
and returned it because of loose rubber ring.
was no problem.
r
Being an impatient person I hate returning things and wait till everything is sorted out.Would like to be sure it works 100% as expected.And 25 Euro shipment to and fro may make up for 50 Euro loss.Thanks for the info anyway.
Peire wrote:
... Mutar 1,4 III with VS 80-200/4 and 7D/5D2. Results were rather substandard (soft,increased CAs,lower contrast)...
Yes, the converter magnifies the optical deficiencies of the lens. I have no hands on experience with the 80-200. But according to various sources it is an inferior design. This is supported by the MTF´s. So any multiplying converter will increase the "soft,increased CAs,lower contrast"-problems, but to a lesser extent the better the lens. Of course the reality is more complex than this, but as a rule of thumb it works.
inglis wrote:
Bif, very interesting closeups. What are the subjects of the first two?
You really are a myth challenger. I want to acknowledge and thank you for that.
I do not have the CY 100 MP, but have yearned for one. But from your comparison,
I will not go there.
Thanks, you're too kind.
The first shot is a rocket blower or whatever the generic name is for those rubber dust blowers we use. The second is the spout of a water-pot I use to increase humidity in the winter months - as I use space heaters to heat some rooms in the house. (No central heating here). The last shot is of course the monster that lives in my house and terrorizes the residence.
The C/Y MP 100/2.8 is a great lens. I have one. It's a little different rendering style from the 100-300 and one of the attributes of that style is less sharpness from f/2.8 to f/5.6. I guess I wouldn't recommend getting both for those on a budget. But for me lenses are a fluid commodity. If you're such a person then I wouldn't want to suggest that ownership of one excludes the other.
jotdeh wrote:
Nice ones Bif!
I remember you had this post where you tested all kinds of achromatic doublets for macro. Have you tried one on the 100-300? A 500D should give 1:1 at 300mm if I'm not mistaken...
Thanks!
That would be interesting, yes. All my close-up filters (diopters) are 49 and 52mm. That 100-300 is 67mm I think. So I think mine would vignette too much with that much of a step down ring. I should have tried it tho. I sold the lens now and no longer have access to it.
There's a really good one in a shop I frequent for $900 (after shipping and all) if anyone wants it. It's almost unheard of to find these without zoom-creep! The one I saw has almost none. Less than 1mm per second.
Yes the 100-300 is 67mm. It doesn't seem like there are achromatic diopters available in this size, but one needs to go up to 77 I think.
What are you using now for you tele work, Bif? The 125 is of course good, but it's "just" 125 - or is that sufficient on MFT for what you do?
Seeing the examples with the Mutars I don't think this is a route I would actually go.
The 80-200 extends during focusing, but zooms internally, so it's not that bad.
If it didn't have to be a zoom I would want to try the Oly 200/5. Seems the best size for such a system, even if the IQ isn't on par with other, larger glass.
I knew this from the ever reliable MTF charts for both lenses but people don't want to hear that some old fin de siecle slow zoom pasted their prime lens!
It is a very fine lens indeed and has held a good price for a good reason.
hint: it does the same to the 100MP out to 17mm image height - f8 versus f4.
They don't make them like they used to. In fact they no longer make them as slow zooms are like, so yesterday. Unless you are interested more in flexible shot-making over a very useful focal length range, with the Zeiss signature look.
jotdeh wrote:
What are you using now for you tele work, Bif? The 125 is of course good, but it's "just" 125 - or is that sufficient on MFT for what you do?
For what I do? Well all I'm doing is having fun so I guess that's relative. But the mention of µ4/3 to me brings up the need to compensate poor sensors with everything possible: Lighting where possible and great lenses. With both in play images are almost up to snuff along side FF'ers and some of the better APS-C models. The 125 (I guess you mean the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125/2.5 macro) is probably the best lens on the planet in the 100 to 150 range imo so it's pretty awesome yes. It's got a pretty awesome price-tag that comes along with it too tho - Around $2.4k ~ $2.7k normally and over $3k for the Nikon mount WOW! If I were a working professional in photography I wouldn't even think twice about acquiring it as a permanent resident but I'm not so if/when I get one it's gotta be a transient guest even tho a well respected one.
Seeing the examples with the Mutars I don't think this is a route I would actually go.
The 80-200 extends during focusing, but zooms internally, so it's not that bad.
If it didn't have to be a zoom I would want to try the Oly 200/5. Seems the best size for such a system, even if the IQ isn't on par with other, larger glass.
Yeah TCs reduce a lens's power to resolve detail and also darken things up a bunch. What are those Mutars, a stop and a half and two stops or something?
Since I don't really have a purpose besides fun (and some education where I can get it) then I use all kinds of long lenses. Including lots of zooms. Here's just the zooms from the Sony/Minolta mount part of my little family:
I think there are 11 lenses there which reach 300mm and one notable one that is the Minolta 100-200mm. So if you ask me what I'm doing for teles with anything over 100mm in mind my answer is just too long.
In the 90 to 150 range I hope the lens also does macro tho! And of those three come to mind immediately. The Nikkor 105/2.8 (any version), the Zeiss 100mm set (there's like 4 or 5 of them in total but only the 100/2-N and the 100/2.8-C/Y do 1:1 afaik. And the Tamron SP 90/2.5. The Tamron's working distance isn't long enough tho. The Nikkor is only about 15cm so better but not much better. The Zeiss is the best I've used in this regard. It's about the same WD as the Nikkor actually but the lens at MFD is so long that it puts your body and face back from the subject enough to make a difference when shooting nervous bugs and stuff.
100 to 200mm on µ4.3 is great for very candid people shooting but I don't do a lot of that myself. I like birding a whole bunch tho! For that 300 to 600mm on µ4/3 is about right and preferably on the longer side of that. I have a couple of zooms that do 500mm. The Tamron LD 200-400mm 5.6 Constant Aperture [75DN] is notably good and reasonable too! So is the Tokina 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 AT-X but at the long end of that length I'm sure IBIS would seise to be advantageous and I'm usually shooting fast little flitty subjects anyway so therein is prescribed the need for fast primes. Of those I like the Sigma APO 500/4.5 I just got and also the Canon 300/2.8L - both monster lenses (which I don't mind a bit!). I'm sure there are many Nikon ED, Pentax APO, Canon L, Tamron SP, and Sigma long fast primes which would amaze me but most of them are very expensive. I guess if I lived near a bird sanctuary or something I would be seeking those out more actively. Japan is a great place for birding but I just don't go often enough. This may change now that I finally got a gimbal head tho. We'll see.
Those windows come to life Johann! Enchanting, like stained glass, but different.
Philip, what mm were you using for the temple shot? You must have been some distance away. I clicked on your web page where you have so much wonderful work. Where do these shots end up? Is it educational or research oriented?
Bif, I don't mean to derail this thread, but how do you like the Sigma 500mm? I'm assuming it's the manual focus version? I just picked one up on a whim in OM mount. I didn't even know it existed until yesterday. Looking forward to testing it out, but I just wanted to get your thoughts. Also picked up the budget gimbal that you posted a link to.
