If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
I have a 80-200/f4. I found out that 200mm is not enough for shooting my son's baseball game, especially when he is playing outfielding. Any suggestions that I should purchase a tele lens (300 or 500) or a teleconverter for 80-200/f4?
I have tried a few teleconverters, and the quality has been uniformly average-to-mediocre. There seems little point to me in choosing to invest in Zeiss glass only to waste its technical and aesthetic advantage by reducing it to the lowest common denominator of some third party producer. It's only a personal view, of course, but when you arrive at Zeiss, it's because you have realised you won't tolerate 'average' any longer.
Occasionally I use a Mutar III along with the VS 80-200. Before I bought the Mutar, I contacted Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen, Germany, to know if there would be any major optical or mechanical drawbacks resulting from this combination. I talked at the time to Kornelius Fleischer, who told me that they recently had performed some tests of these two optics together which turned out amazingly well, although the Mutar III had originally not been designed for use with the Zoom.
I bought the Mutar and just can confirm his statement. If used on a tripod and stopped down to f 8, the picture quality is still within the range of what other Zeiss optics are delivering.
I had a Kenko 2X convertor many years ago. Having tried 3 or 4 times with 50mm f1.7. The image quality of photo taken with that convertor was downgraded to unacceptable level. I decided to leave it alone. I bought a Mutar II 2 years ago. I always bring it along with me now. It works very well together with my 85 f1.4 and 70-210 f3.5. It explains the difference. So don't save the bit money and destroy the Zeiss quality. Otherwise, why Zeiss ?
> > > > Hi, I also got the 200/2 Apo-Sonnar but regret not being using it often > enough. My solution is not using the mutar at all, I crop the film and enlarge > only the portion I need and to be it is still excellent quality that way. And > I still keep my speed and boken of the lens. Brgds/kaisern > > >
Hi -- I own a 28mm, a 50mm and an 85mm, and will eventually get a 135. I think the Mutar will work with my lenses, but what about a Mutar III? Or are the II and III intended only for telephoto lenses? I like the saved f/stop that the Mutar III affords.
You can use only Mutar I with 28mm, 50mm and 85mm lens. The other Mutars wonÂ´t fit mechanically because of protruding lens element.
135mm + Mutar I has some vignetting, may be a problem with slides. 135mm + Mutar III or II work better.
P 2/135 ("soft" sharpness)
My experience with 2.8/135, 4/300 and 4/80-200 is that it works fine wide open with the 135 and zoom, but 4/300 + Mutar III is very soft wide open. At the other Contax mailing list some reported that you can use M III even with VS 100-300. And I think it can be used with Mirotar 8/500, but IÂ´m not sure.