Which lens @ 180/2.8 in C/Y Mount?

[barryreid]

OK, I'm nearly done with assembling my MF lens kit but I still want to add three more. Two of these are settled - an FDn 20-35L and 135/2 - but the third is open to question and I'd like some opinions. I want a fast medium-long telephoto and I'm pondering 3 candidates -

Option 1 is a Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 in C/Y fit which is highly rated and keeps my primary kit all Zeiss.

Option 2 is the Tamron 180/2.5 which is also a lens of high repute, but how does it compare with the Zeiss?

Option 3 would be a the Tamron #30A 80-200/2.8 zoom, which seems to be far better than the equivalent Tokina, based on the ion for on Adaptall-2.org. This option would give me the most flexibility but I'm wary of vintage zooms, particularly the Tamron as I don't really like the amount of blue fringing my #19AH 70-210/3.5 gives on my A7r - to the extent that I'll probably sell it and the 28-80 - would the 80-200 be noticeably better in this regard?

So, if anyone with experience of the above lenses has an opinion I'd value your thoughts!

PS. The obvious Option 4 - the Angenieux 180/2.3 - is too expensive for my wallet.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Sonnar 2.8/180, the C/Y T* version preferably although the later MC Jena versions are damn good too.

[vlousada]

Option 1: Contax 180mm (I do have MMJ version) is a very good lens. A bit long but well balanced for 800g .. Comfortable to handle both and Nex and dSRL. Sharp and good contrast.. Has some CA wide open, but acceptable.

Option 2: good reputation and hard to find. Have no experience with it. I expected due design to be more heavy than contax but not true (contax 815g vs tamron 800g).

Option 3: A good and the best versatility to your set, yet it is very heavy (1360g). Do you really need that fast aperture??

Final notes:
I do have the contax 2.8/180mm and canon fd 2/135mm. Considering only focal lengths: it is NOT a big difference between... I do use the Canon WAY MORE OFTEN than Contax, so if one have to choose I certainly keep the FD..
If you do not need the fast aperture, I would recommend for your set the FDn 80-200 f/4 L or the Contax 80-200 F/4 which are very very good ones and way lighter than Option 3

[Kei]

Used to love my tamron 180mm f2.5. Superb performance even wide open, IF you can manage to focus it accurately. That part was the challenge as I tended to find it quite difficult to focus. Purple fringing is minimal, slight signs wide open along with some LoCA all gone by f4. I tend to prefer using my mamiya 150 f2.8 or nikon 80-200 f2.8 now as the mamiya has smoother bokeh and is super easy to focus and the nikon focuses itself.

Here are the few shots from it that I've uploaded.

[CBokeh]

[cooltouch]

Barry, a few years ago, I was faced with the same situation. For me, however, I wasn't having to worry about Contax/Yashica, but Nikon, so I was considering whether to get a 180 ED Nikkor or if perhaps one of the aus Jena lenses might have worked as well. Several years ago, I owned a 180/2.8 ED Nikkor and I loved it, but I was trying to consider all possibilities.

I was also spending a fair amount of time over at adaptall-2.org. And then I noticed something -- it was like the old Yogi Berra saying -- seeing deja vu all over again. I felt that, as I was looking at the Modern Photo ratings for one lens, it seemed familiar somehow, like I'd just looked at it, but it wasn't that lens. And then I spotted what it was. It was the Nikon 180/2.8 ED that was being compared against the Tamron 180/2.5 LD -- its resolution and contrast numbers were almost identical to the resolution and contrast numbers for the 80-200/2.8 LD Tamron @ 200mm. Well, now, wasn't that interesting, I thought. Especially since I had such fond feelings for the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED. So immediately I set out to see what sort of deals I could find on that big, fast Tamron zoom. And I found one over at KEH: $250, in BGN condition. The only thing about it that made it BGN was the zoom collar slipped slightly. Big deal! And $250 was about $100 cheaper than the best deals I could find on the AIs 180/2.8 ED Nikkor at the time. So I bought the zoom. And I'm really glad I did. Yes, it's big and heavy, but no, I don't mind the size and weight. Besides, it has a tripod mount, whereas the Tamron and Nikkor 180s don't.

Obviously, one really great thing about the Tamron zoom is you have all the favorite portrait focal lengths covered with a reasonably fast optic and one that is an excellent performer, no less. And being able to shoot at f/2.8 at 200mm, well the bokeh rendered at f/2.8 are just plain nice. And the lens doesn't give up much in resolution or contrast at that aperture setting, either. In fact, I've been quite happy with the Tamron's performance when shooting with it wide open.

[barryreid]

Thanks for the comments folks, I think I'm going to rule out the Tamron 180 as it is the priciest option.

@vlousada, Thanks for the detailed response. I agree that these lenses are all bulkier than the 80-200/4 zooms, but I already have three lenses in that range - Zeiss 80-200/4, FDn 70-210, Tamron SP 70-210/3.5 (listed in order of quality with the Zeiss highest) and while I don't need the speed really, I just want it!

@Kei, thanks for the link, it does look like the Tamron is a very capable lens.

@Michael, It's exactly the stuff about the Tamron 80-200 on Adaptall-2.org which has me interested in the lens, so your experience is of great interest to me. It's also a lens that I missed out on a few years back when I travelled to buy one but was just too late getting there, so it feel a bit like unfinished business.

Quite a wide spread of opinion from the mf lenses hive-mind then. I guess they are all worthy lenses and it's going to come down to budget, opportunity and timing!

[Attila]

I had all , I kept Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8 .

[barryreid]

OK, debate over decided to stick with Zeiss and have pulled the trigger on a late serial MMJ Sonnar, just waiting for it to arrive now!!!