Confused MTF ratings Contax 80-200 and 100-300

RemcoR · Joined: 30 Dec 2014 Posts: 71 Location: Netherlands

Hi,

The MTF figures of the old Contax 80-200 and the Contax 100-300 confuse me. It is a common judgement the 100-300 is sharper/better by some margin. Looking at the MTF scores, I wonder if this is in fact the case. Could the cheap old 80-200mm F4 in its range be as good, (even a little better) knowing the 100-300 does less well above 200mm ?

Focal lenght= 133 mm CONTAX 100-300mm F4.5/5.6 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar

Aperture ------- MTF -------
setting Center(*) Border(*)
---------------------------------------
4.5 8.6 7.0
5.6 8.4 7.0
8 8.0 7.8
11 7.7 7.6
16 7.3 7.2

Focal lenght= 175 mm CONTAX 100-300mm F4.5/5.6 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar

Aperture ------- MTF -------
setting Center(*) Border(*)
----------------------------------------
4.5 8.2 7.1
5.6 8.3 7.3
8 8.0 7.4
11 7.9 7.3
16 7.3 6.9

Focal lenght= 118 mm CONTAX 80-200mm F4 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar

Aperture ------- MTF -------
setting Center(*) Border(*)
------------------------------------------------------
4 7.8 7.6
5.6 8.2 7.8
8 8.4 8.0
11 8.2 8.0
16 7.6 7.3

Focal lenght= 153 mm CONTAX 80-200mm F4 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar

Aperture ------- MTF -------
setting Center(*) Border(*)
------------------------------------------
4 7.9 7.4
5.6 8.2 7.7
8 8.4 8.2
11 8.2 7.8
16 7.5 7.3

Focal lenght= 202 mm

Aperture ------- MTF -------
setting Center(*) Border(*)
-----------------------------------------
4 7.6 7.3
5.6 8.0 7.5
8 8.4 8.0
11 8.2 7.5
16 7.6 7.0

RemcoR

cyrano · Expire: 2016-12-30

Is there any real importance in these graphs and tables? I just lok at the result and decide if I like it or not. Any doubts or questions are generally answered or reassured by asking on a site like this one. There's a wealth of real time user knowledge out there.

RemcoR · Joined: 30 Dec 2014 Posts: 71 Location: Netherlands

I agree real world use and pictures are most important, but MTF is -for me- also an important starting point in my choice for the 100-300, the 80-200 or staying with my current lens. Can't buy both to find out. The difference in MTF ratings of the Contax 50/1.7 and the Contax 35-70/3.4 I both have, conform my real life experience with them.

RemcoR

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

Where do you get these MTF data? I think it is better check the official MTF in the link below.
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Both are very sharp, but the 100-300 has far less CA Smile

RemcoR · Joined: 30 Dec 2014 Posts: 71 Location: Netherlands

frenched · Expire: 2014-06-17

At least Zeiss reports MTF numbers from actual measurements, not theoretical ones like all other manufacturers. That said, I don't care a whit about MTF charts. It's all about what you want and can do with it. Do you want to display it on a shelf or actually use it?

I've actively shot the 80-200 and it's a stellar lens. The 100-300 is exceptional. But at 4X the price thanks to collector inflation? I dunno, don't see the returns. But it's your call.