What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Zeiss Tele lenses Tele zooms

Could someone explain the difference between very good and better. We're talking about the best lenses available, I would rate all of them Excellent as they all outperform the films we all use.

I think we're splitting hairs here.
 
"I think we're splitting hairs here."

Of course....

To be serious. I signed my post "BOC the luddite"
this is because I prefer the "look" of older lenses, especially Zeiss (ahh OK Leica as well...)

I use the 180/2.8 EDAF and the 80-200 EDAF Nikons at work, and I own the 180/2.8 Sonnar and the 100/2 planar. There is no question that the Nikon 180 is sharper than the Zeiss 180. But even so I still prefer to use the Sonnar, or better still try to brain zoom so that I can use the 100/2. If I HAD to try I'd talk rubbish about the 3d effect, or the sharpness all over the field, but it just comes down to the fact that I LIKE it

I put a roll of film through a 159 body with a the 100-300 attached at the store. The 100-300 is great, but it reminds me of the Nikon lenses.

Ahhh I think I'll break out my contax IIa and pretend its the 1930s

BOC the Luddite.
 
"but it just comes down to the fact that I LIKE it"

I know exacly what you mean. I used the Nik 180/2.8 for a year and liked neither the results nor the handling. I prefer the Zeiss even though it's, more expensive, heavier, larger etc. etc. etc....

Like EVERYTHING else in photography...it's a personal thing.
 
Hi Melvin,

I agree with you that despite some negative comments I've read about the 300/4, it really is a very good lens. I've always been happy with the slides taken with this lens. They are very sharp and contrasty with nice color. However, the Zeiss 100-300 zoom is even better with a real "snap" to the images it produces at 300mm. One of the main advantages of the 300/4 is the built in tripod mount. Unfortunately it is a little flimsy. I found that a tripod mount made by Tamron for their old 300/5.6 SP lens fits the 100-300 perfectly and feels much more solid and rigid than the built in tripod mount of the 300/4. It's a pity Contax didn't design a more solid tripod mount for the 300/4. If you don't need the extra speed, I would suggest that the 100-300 may be the better choice. Optically I think it is one of the very best of the Contax line.

Jason
 
Re: Tripod Mount

Jason

Which Tamron 300 5.6 lens has a tripod mount, or are you talking about a third party accessory?

Gary
 
Anyone have any experience with the 80-200mm zoom?
if so what do you think? and will it work on an Aria

Jim
 
The 80-200 is a beautiful lens. I use it on Aria. The Aria and 80-200 work very well together.
 
> [The 80-200 is a superb lens! With the 28-85 and my 28PC lens, it is all I need for travel with an RX and Aria. No balance problems and sharp as a prime!]
 
Stan and Craig,

Thanks for the information on the 80-200mm zoom. Any problems with camera shake without a tripod?

Jim
 
No real problems without a tripod. the 80-200 is a relatively small and light lens. So no more weight or shake than a telephoto of 180 or so. It depends on what you are shooting, what film and what kind of light you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top