Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss C/Y 80-200mm f/4 VS. Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bulle wrote:
By the way! None of the lenses I ordered includes hood. What hoods do you use? Genuine hoods for cz c/y are hard to find and are really expensive (Half of the lenses price!)


I use the genuine hoods. They usually require a step-up ring which adds to the cost. I found good deals at keh.com and just once on eBay. Patience pays off. Check here to identify step rings and hoods to use on the various lenses: http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/slr/slrmanlenses.html


PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:46 am    Post subject: sonnar T 80-200mm F4 Reply with quote
You pick the topic. I have a favorite Minolta 75-150 mm F4. Wanted to know there is something better in this focal length range ?, for example sonnar T 80-200mm F4 ?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are quite a few (early) Zeiss CY lenses which are not better than the equal lenses fromCaNiMinolta. The Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is a rather late computation, its development was done by Kölsch (later at Leica), and it is a very good zoom.

I do own the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm, as well as the late Nikkor AiS 4/80-200 and 70-210, and several others (including Minolta and Leica 4/70-210mm). I would go for the Zeiss, clearly better than the Leitz/Minolta and still better than the Nikon.

Stephan

PS: Compare the lens section of the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm and the legendary Leica 2.8/180mm ... extremely similar, since both were developped by Lothar Kölsch.

EDIT: the "PS" above shoud read Compare the lens section of the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm and the legendary Leica 2.8/70-180mm ... extremely similar, since both were developped by Lothar Kölsch.

Last edited by stevemark on Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
There are quite a few (early) Zeiss CY lenses which are not better than the equal lenses fromCaNiMinolta.


Name them because I'm very skeptical you are correct.

stevemark wrote:
Compare the lens section of the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm and the legendary Leica 2.8/180mm ... extremely similar, since both were developped by Lothar Kölsch.


What? Here is the schema for the Zeiss 4/80-200:



And here are the Leica 2.8/180s:



Where is this similarity you talk about? I can't see any.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Obviously for some reasons a "70-" was lost in my previous posting, causing headaches to some Wink

Here are the two lens sections of the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm (first) and the Leica R 2.8/70-180mm APO (second):




The later Leica R 4/80-200mm was a slightly simplified CY 4/80-200mm (master lens group with only four elements instead of five):




All these designs (and many others such as the Minolta MD&AF 4/70-210mm, the Leica R 4/70-210mm, the Nikkor 4/80-200mm, the Nikon E 4/70-210mm, and many Konica and Tokina designs) were based on the groundbreaking Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm (2nd version, patented 1977): It was the first to introduce the simple, yet powerful [4/4] master lens group later used in nearly all following tele zooms with similar specs.

I hope this clarifies my mistake made in the earlier posting.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good to know these are based on the Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have one of these 2nd version Nikkors. Sloppy zoom action aside, it's always been one of my favorites. Its pics just have that real McCoy authentic look about them.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I have one of these 2nd version Nikkors. Sloppy zoom action aside,

According to contemporary Nikon advertising this was a feature, supporting smooth zooming while the shutter was open (to get those images with a "zoom effect", quite en vogue back then).


cooltouch wrote:
it's always been one of my favorites. Its pics just have that real McCoy authentic look about them.

It's certainly one of the good vintage zooms in the 80-200mm range!

BTW what do you mean by the real McCoy authentic look ...?
I found quite a few McCoy entries in wikipedia, but couldn't figure out what you mean Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

cooltouch wrote:
it's always been one of my favorites. Its pics just have that real McCoy authentic look about them.

It's certainly one of the good vintage zooms in the 80-200mm range!

BTW what do you mean by the real McCoy authentic look ...?
I found quite a few McCoy entries in wikipedia, but couldn't figure out what you mean Wink

Stephan


I suppose he used the expression "the real McCoy" as:

""The real McCoy" is an idiom and metaphor used in much of the English-speaking world to mean "the real thing" or "the genuine article", e.g. "he's the real McCoy". The phrase has been the subject of numerous false etymologies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_real_McCoy


PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
stevemark wrote:

cooltouch wrote:
it's always been one of my favorites. Its pics just have that real McCoy authentic look about them.

It's certainly one of the good vintage zooms in the 80-200mm range!

BTW what do you mean by the real McCoy authentic look ...?
I found quite a few McCoy entries in wikipedia, but couldn't figure out what you mean Wink

Stephan


I suppose he used the expression "the real McCoy" as:

""The real McCoy" is an idiom and metaphor used in much of the English-speaking world to mean "the real thing" or "the genuine article", e.g. "he's the real McCoy". The phrase has been the subject of numerous false etymologies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_real_McCoy


Made more popular https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_McCoys


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 12:05 am    Post subject: Hood for 4/80-200 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar? Reply with quote
It's been a minute or two since I last visited. This afternoon I was looking for a hood for my 80-200mm f/4 Vario-Sonnar and this entry turned up.

Has anyone experimented with hoods for this lens? I find that it loses contrast readily if bright light hits the front element. Otherwise it produces nice images.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
as deep as you can get away with without it vignetting too much @80mm


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
as deep as you can get away with without it vignetting too much @80mm


Thank you and I do appreciate a response, but was hoping for something a little more quantitative. (No sarcasm intended!)

After a bit more searching, I found an old website that has long been abandoned (like 20 years). However, I then found an instance in the Wayback Machine that I will post here for the next sad bloke who comes along looking for something on the topic. Hopefully, this link will not go dead.

See: https://web.archive.org/web/20030304012944/http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/czhoods.html

Although the data were developed by an enthusiast and cannot be considered canonical, this information is best available at the time of this writing. After some additional searching, I was able to locate the Number 4 and 5 hoods and adapters at not too unreasonable of a price. They are ordered and should arrive late this week.

I plan to do some testing and measurements and will add to this thread once complete. A sample image from my instance is attached. This capture was subject to some light editing, contrast and sharpening being the primary adjustments. She's subject to some motion blur, the the lens is sharp. Camera was a Sony A7iii.

I also have an instance of the Contax 50mm f/1.7 in my collection. It also produces nice images although I think I might want the f/1.4 version instead. It also appears that a 55mm f/1.2 lens was produced, but I have no data on it (yet).

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, these lenses were produced by Tomioka, which was eventually absorbed by Kyocera. The Tomioka designer(s) and production facilities have an excellent reputation. I might have to write more on this topic (Contax lenses) on my weblog.

Enjoy!

#1


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drdbthompson wrote:

Has anyone experimented with hoods for this lens? I find that it loses contrast readily if bright light hits the front element. Otherwise it produces nice images.


The basic construction of most vintage 4/80-200, 4.5/80-200, and 4/70-210mm lenses from the early 1980s is very similar to that of the Zeiss CY Vario Sonnar 4/80-200mm. Therefore any hood with a thread og 55mm and similar dimensions as the one for the Minolta 4.5/75-200mm can be used (length 45mm, diameter 72mm).



drdbthompson wrote:

I also have an instance of the Contax 50mm f/1.7 in my collection. It also produces nice images although I think I might want the f/1.4 version instead. It also appears that a 55mm f/1.2 lens was produced, but I have no data on it (yet).

The Zeiss Planar CY 1.7/50mm has a lousy mechanical construction (compared to other Zeiss lenses), but a nice [7/6] optical construction which - at least on paper - should be superior to the then common [6/5] constructions for 1.7/50mm lenses. My two samples of the Zeiss don't really confirm this assumption, though.

The 1.2/55mm Planar for CY mount was a special lens manufactured in low quantities (1000 pcs as far as I remember) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Planar. Details can be found here:
https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-1255-en.pdf

S


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]
drdbthompson wrote:

drdbthompson wrote:

I also have an instance of the Contax 50mm f/1.7 in my collection. It also produces nice images although I think I might want the f/1.4 version instead. It also appears that a 55mm f/1.2 lens was produced, but I have no data on it (yet).

The Zeiss Planar CY 1.7/50mm has a lousy mechanical construction (compared to other Zeiss lenses), but a nice [7/6] optical construction which - at least on paper - should be superior to the then common [6/5] constructions for 1.7/50mm lenses. My two samples of the Zeiss don't really confirm this assumption, though.


I'm sort of glad to hear that. I doubted several times if I should buy the CY 50/1.7, but never seemed to find a good reason to do so.
And I doubt if it's much better than let's say a Pentax-M 50/1.7.

Back on topic: now that I've owned both the Nikkor and the C/Y Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4, I can say with confidence I prefer the Zeiss. It's my favorite zoom in this range (combination of optics, low weight, great mechanical quality, close focusing ability). They often go at very low prices now and it's just a very well though out piece of glass.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:


Back on topic: now that I've owned both the Nikkor and the C/Y Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4, I can say with confidence I prefer the Zeiss. It's my favorite zoom in this range (combination of optics, low weight, great mechanical quality, close focusing ability). They often go at very low prices now and it's just a very well though out piece of glass.


It depends on which version of the Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 that you have. (There were 3).
The final version with the rectangle baffle over the rear element was quite an improvement.
I still have mine in very beater condition, and use it about once every 16 months or so.
It is a lens that I like a lot, despite the lack of modern conveniences on it (eg: minimum focus distance on it is a bit on the long side).

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:

It depends on which version of the Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 that you have. (There were 3).
The final version with the rectangle baffle over the rear element was quite an improvement.

-D.S.


I have several samples of that last version, along with samples of the two earlier versions. The newest [12/9] construction is pretty good indeed, but the Zeiss CY Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200mm has a few distinctive advantages:

* better performance wide open (especially at 200mm focal length) than the Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm "new" (Zeiss is very sharp even in the corners, but more CAs than the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L which has fluorite and UD lenses)
* MFD of 1.0 m (Zeiss) vs 1.8m (Nikkor Ai "new")
* Zeiss has better mechanics (no zoom creep, unlike the Nikkor)

S


EDIT the weather is pretty bad here - thick fog! - so I can't really provide any test images. But here are the two lenses at their longest 200mm focal length (left image) and at theri 80mm position (right):

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2