Zeiss Tele lenses Tele zooms

[Guest]

Does anyone use TeleApotessar 300mm/f2.8 or TeleTessar 300mm/f4? any comparisons?
How about Mirotar 500mm/f4.5 or /f8? Does anyone use those tele lenses?

 

[Guest]

Dear Peter,

I use a 300/4 tele tessar. It is a brilliant lens, quite sharp as well. I was able to publish slides taken with this lens in a Dutch quality nature magazine. So the lens is good enough. But my slides taken with other zeiss lenses are sharper. This is also because the shutter and mirror causes camera vibration which is multiplied by the 300mm lens. Use at least a very sturdy tripod and a fast exposure time. The German Magazine Colorphoto tested several 300mm lenses and it came out quite well, as a good lens (similar in quality as the 300/4 from nikon and canon)
Slides taken with my 300/4 can be found at my website: http://www.planet.nl/~melvinredeker

Melvin

 

[Guest]

Hello everyone,
I cannot decide on which contax tele lens to go for. I am torn between the 180 f2.8 and the 100-300 variable aperture lens. I find it a little hard to believe but reviews seem to indicate that although the 100-300 lens is a zoom lens it is optically superior to the 180mm f2.8 prime lens. If it weren't for the somewhat better reviews for this lens my preference would lean heavily towards the 180mm lens because it is a much brighter lens. As reference, I am not interested in sports photography. Could someone please give me some good advice? Thanks,

Suk Jung Choo.

 

[Guest]

Hi Suk Jung Choo,
Zoom lenses are v.good these days thanks to computer aided design. The deciding factor has now become more of are you going to carry it around, weight? I presume its a lot bigger than the 180 as well.Lastly cost versus usage.
If you don't mind the added weight and size I'd go for the zoom. Personally I rarely need 180 let alone 300.
Happy shopping,
Phil

 

[Guest]

Sorry, I forgot the maximum aperature difference. That depends on what you need said lens for and that is the prime lenses advantage.
Phil.

 

[Guest]

Phil thanks for your comment. It still bothers me that the 100-300 zoom is a relatively dark lens but going on your advice and the favorable reviews out their I will go for the zoom lens.

 

[Guest]

>I would go to 100-300mm tele lens if I were you. I have a 80-200mm/f4. I feel that the focus distance is not long enough. I should get 100-300mm. Peter >

 

[Guest]

Hi, Melvin,

Thank you for your advice. I'll look into this tele lens.

Peter

 

[Guest]

The 100-300 manual focus zoom is really an outstanding lens and very sharp and contrasty even wide open. Although I like the brighter viewfinder image with the 180/2.8 and with the 300/4, I find I tend to use my 100-300 zoom more. The image quality with the 180/2.8 and 300/4 are very good but the 100-300 is better. Probably a bigger consideration for me however is that it is lighter and more compact than the two fixed lenses combined. I do use a tripod with the 100-300 as often as possible. One drawback of the lens is that it does not have a built in tripod mount. However, I was able to find a Tamron tripod mount designed for use with the Tamron 300/5.6 SP lens. It fits the 100-300 zoom perfectly but you give up a little zoom range in the close end making the lens an approx 115-300mm lens. I also use the Contax lens hood combination recommended. It really makes the lens look a lot larger but is quite effective in reducing flare.

One last comment is that I find the 100-300 zoom easier to focus than I would expect for a lens of its relatively slow speed. I suspect this is because the contrast is quite good wide open.

Jason

 

[Guest]

"The image quality with the 180/2.8 and 300/4 are very good but the 100-300 is better. "

Huh! not in my universe.... maybe in bizaro world.

I've never taken a shoot with a zoom that I haven't wished I used the 180/2.8 for.

FWIW buy the 180/2.8 and use your brain to do the zooming.

BOC the Luddite.