Hello, I am a newbie on this site and I've been overwhelmed at the wealth of great Contax information rushing towards me in the few hours I've spent trying to absorb it all. There's lots of good stuff here and I thank you all for posting your thoughts. However, I have a dilemma that I hoped some of you might weigh in on. I own an RTS II body that I've used with great results for years, mostly with a 70-210mm f3.5 zoom. I also carry a TVS to cover the wide angle to normal range, so I have never felt the need to own a lot of prime lenses. Sadly, the RTS II died last year and I've had a hellish time (6 months and counting) getting it repaired locally (Philadelphia). With no usable SLR, I panicked and purchased an excellent used RX on eBay. I'm a little intimidated by all the features but I'm struggling to learn them. Recently I learned that I have a chance to visit Alaska this summer and I hope to do some wildlife photography there. I don't think the 70-210 zoom will be up to the task, so I've been thinking about purchasing a 180mm f2.8 and a Mutar II to add some distance to my lens selection. Does anyone have experience with this or other mid-length telephotos/Mutar combinations? I really don't want to spring for the really long lenses (300mm+) because I just don't see myself using them much outside of Alaska. Any suggestions?
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is 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. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Need advice on telephoto lens selection
- Thread starter asteelone
- Start date
Oops. Forgot one last thing. Does anyone have experience using a Mutar I with the 70-210mm zoom? I know this is not an ideal combination, but according to the CZ web site it is possible with optical limitations. What the heck are the limitations they are warning about? Is there any possibility that this combination could do the trick for me? Help! I'm not an optical engineer.
There are a lot of 180 2.8 around in the second hand market. I did have it for a while but sold it years ago. My experience with this lens is negative. The one you have 70-210 is a much better lens.
Do follow the guidlines from Zeiss. Optical limitations means poor image quality.
At the moment, I am using 200 f2 with Mutar II. I will post some results later.
Do follow the guidlines from Zeiss. Optical limitations means poor image quality.
At the moment, I am using 200 f2 with Mutar II. I will post some results later.
I bought them recently and didn't use them much yet, but one frame is here. This is the 180/2.8 at f4 with Mutar I conected to my RTS III. It's shot against the sun, but it doesn't matter. Basically, I like this lense very much. Mutar seems to be OK too. I provided 100% crops (center and left bottom corner) from original 6415x4194 scan. This is Velvia 100.
biggles3
Well-Known Member
Hi Alan,
I use a combination of 180 and 300 lenses with a MutarII (picked up recently on ebay for under $200). I have attempted to attach 3 pics taken an hour ago on an E-1 - with a 50 1.4 to show the scene, and then the 180+Mutar at full distance and mid-distance from the centre of the 50mm image. The pics are heavily compressed for this site but with the minimum of work in Photoshop or PSP, the originals are very acceptable. Why is it always a dull day when I shoot at home? Try NOT to use the MutarI with the zoom - not only will the sharpness degrade but you will probably get some vignetting too. Cheers.Graham
I use a combination of 180 and 300 lenses with a MutarII (picked up recently on ebay for under $200). I have attempted to attach 3 pics taken an hour ago on an E-1 - with a 50 1.4 to show the scene, and then the 180+Mutar at full distance and mid-distance from the centre of the 50mm image. The pics are heavily compressed for this site but with the minimum of work in Photoshop or PSP, the originals are very acceptable. Why is it always a dull day when I shoot at home? Try NOT to use the MutarI with the zoom - not only will the sharpness degrade but you will probably get some vignetting too. Cheers.Graham
Wow! Thanks, fellas, for all the great input while I've been busy sleeping. You have all made some good points. I particularly appreciate Graham's caution against using a Mutar with my 70-210 zoom. All the photos that were posted are revelatory and make a convincing argument for the 180 f2.8 + Mutar II combination. Still, I'm curious why Wang was disappointed with the 180? Of course, if he can afford to own and schlep the 200 f2.0 he's in a league that I'll never play in. Does anyone think that my zoom will be adequate for some good shots of a large bear taken at a respectful distance from a gently rolling boat or a float plane?
biggles3
Well-Known Member
Alan, the great thing is that you're starting with one of the finest zooms ever made. Using a very fine grade emulsion and decent shutter speed even when fully opened, the 70-210 is excellent and will produce a sharp image capable of being scanned to quite a size. However, a fast, top quality prime lens of between 300 and 500 would be best if you are going to be some distance away. As you're going in the summer, you can afford to stop a fast lens down to f5.6/8 which should help. You could certainly think about the little Zeiss Mirotar 500 f8. I have one I use occasionally - it's light, sharp and will certainly isolate your bear from the surroundings. They can be had new-in-box for less money than a s/h 180 2.8 and Mutar if you look around. And that Tamron 300 2.8 appears to be highly regarded too. Cheers.
Thanks for the benefit of your advice, Graham. I will certainly check out the options you propose. I'm a bit leery of the Mirotar and outside of this trip probably wouldn't have much use for it, so the shorter prime lenses with a teleconverter are looking more attractive. Since several of you have proposed the Tamron lens, I will be certain to check it out.
Every lens has its own fans. 180 2.8 is no exception.
If you have a collection of lenses, you might wish to shoot them and see if you like them more or less. I shot my ex180 2.8 with 100 2.8 or 100 2. I know they have different angles of view but I could certainly compare their sharpness, contrast and degree of astigmatism. For the 100s, if you stop down to f4 or smaller, you get excellent sharpness and contrast. The images are well balanced with no astigmatism. I also tried these lenses with studio flash. I am sorry to say that 180 2.8 no matter how I stopped down is well behind the 100s of Zeiss.
I tried it with Leica R135 2.8 ,well, Leica is still better.
When you wish to decide whether you are going to keep the lens, you probably look at the collection of photos and see if you like them or not. I have to say I don't like the photos from my ex180 2.8.
If you have 70-210, why bother with 180 2.8 ? 70-210 performs better at 180 than 180 2.8. In the past of this forum, many people talks about 70-210 but not 180.
Although many people emphasize looking at large prints as the most important to decide the standard of lenses, looking at the MTF is also important and most of the time accurate enough to give you an insight in the performance. At 5.6, 70-210 do better than 180 2.8
There are previous posts in this forum saying that Zeiss 200 f2 are not as good as the Canon and Leica counterpart. Well, I am a Zeiss fan and there is no way that I will get the Canon 200 1.8 or Leica 180 f2. Because of this shot I am keeping my Zeiss 200 f2. I must admit that it gives you a backache after a while but it certainly worth it.
A few years ago, I never dreamt about getting this lens.
Taken by 200 f2 tripod Kodak VC160 scanned with 3600dpi TIFF converted to JPEG for web.
If you have a collection of lenses, you might wish to shoot them and see if you like them more or less. I shot my ex180 2.8 with 100 2.8 or 100 2. I know they have different angles of view but I could certainly compare their sharpness, contrast and degree of astigmatism. For the 100s, if you stop down to f4 or smaller, you get excellent sharpness and contrast. The images are well balanced with no astigmatism. I also tried these lenses with studio flash. I am sorry to say that 180 2.8 no matter how I stopped down is well behind the 100s of Zeiss.
I tried it with Leica R135 2.8 ,well, Leica is still better.
When you wish to decide whether you are going to keep the lens, you probably look at the collection of photos and see if you like them or not. I have to say I don't like the photos from my ex180 2.8.
If you have 70-210, why bother with 180 2.8 ? 70-210 performs better at 180 than 180 2.8. In the past of this forum, many people talks about 70-210 but not 180.
Although many people emphasize looking at large prints as the most important to decide the standard of lenses, looking at the MTF is also important and most of the time accurate enough to give you an insight in the performance. At 5.6, 70-210 do better than 180 2.8
There are previous posts in this forum saying that Zeiss 200 f2 are not as good as the Canon and Leica counterpart. Well, I am a Zeiss fan and there is no way that I will get the Canon 200 1.8 or Leica 180 f2. Because of this shot I am keeping my Zeiss 200 f2. I must admit that it gives you a backache after a while but it certainly worth it.
A few years ago, I never dreamt about getting this lens.
Taken by 200 f2 tripod Kodak VC160 scanned with 3600dpi TIFF converted to JPEG for web.