Zeiss TeleTessar 200mm f3.5

[mikel]

I'm not sure if that's the right section to post this question, but here it is anyway. There is an auction on Ebay for "Contax Carl Zeiss 200mm f3.5 Tele-Tessar T* manual focus lens made in W. Germany" right now. Since this lens has been discontinued such a long time ago, I couldn't find much info about it. Does anyone know where can I find old MTF sheets (if available) for this lens? And how does it compare to Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 ? Is it worth buying at all and if so, at what price?


Thanks,
Mike.

 

[pkipnis]

>try

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as they have some of that information. The 3.5 lens is much heavier that the 4.0 lens for a very small speed advantage, unlike the 1.4-2.8 differences of other lenses like the 35, 85, etc. Also I found my 200 slightly but noticeably soft until I got to 6.3, so I sold it, but lenses do vary. Because of the weight I found it very difficult to hand hold it at less than 1/500 which brought out my trusty SLIK monopod. good shooting

 

[mpocar]

> I don't agree that much. Although I never tried the 200/4 (and neither the 80-200/4 which is heavier), i manage to use the 200/3.5 at 1/125 without particular difficulty. Actually the heavier weight is an advantage to hand hold the lens without mono- or tripod (vibrations are less than with lighter lenses). An easy pitfall is to use to the automatic shutter release to avoid movements due to pressing the button (better if you stop breathing for a few seconds). I use this lens to take animal pictures going aroud the Alps (I am not a pro). I agree that wide open the lens is a bit soft. Also the focusing ring is very "long", and thus "precise but cumbersome".

 

[coyot]

> I have a 200 3.5 Tessar and have completely switched to the N mount. The condition is very good to excellant. I would consider selling it for $400.00 U.S.

Michael.

 

[mikel]

Okay, I see. Judging from MTF sheets that I found on this site, it's not so much different from Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 wide open. And I was actually wondering how it compares to Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 rather than Tele-Tessar 200mm f/4.0. Because I'm sure that Tele-Tessar 200mm f/3.5 will be much cheaper than Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. The question is only which one is better (overall) ?

Mike.

 

[jgban]

In general (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) over the years Zeiss has introduced better lenses to replace older ones. So "overall" the 180 should be "better" than previous 200mm (whatever that means). It is half a stop faster and 10% shorter, and I would bet no one can tell apart pictures taken with it from pictures taken with either 200mm. I think the question is more: is it worth spending twice the money for 1/2 stop?

Juan

 

[mikel]

Juan,

Actually, in this case it's not that simple. Tele-Tessar 200mm f/3.5 is AE lens and also cannot be used with Mutar II or Mutar III. Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 is MM lens and can be used with Mutar II and Mutar III. Additionally, from MTF sheets, Tele-Tessar seems to be perform better when wide open (although ther is 1/2 stop difference between the two, so the comparison isn't exactly fair), while Sonnar beats Tele-Tessar in terms of lower distortion and better illuminance across the frame.

Considering the latter factor (beter illuminance), it might also mean that Sonnar handles front light better and reflections are reduced as well. Thus, it may very well be that Sonnar is truly worth twice as much, but not because it is 1/2 stop faster than Tele-Tessar.


Mike.

 

[jgban]

I am sure you are right Mike, but this only goes back to my previous post: in general, when Zeiss replaces a lens the new one is beter overall.

And your point about the Mutars is very important.

I still wonder if the differences are truly noticeable. Also, I must be confused with the way I look at the MTFs, because I thought the T-T's l(at 3.5 and 8) looked better than the Sonnar's (at 2.8 and 5.6).

My tendency is to go always for the faster lens, even if it is a worse performer at some apertures. I think a faster lens makes you more free (i.e., it allows you to take some shots you could not take otherwise), and I am willing to pay some price in other departments (within reason): size, weight, light fall-off, flare and so on.
I should also mention the difference in price is definitely less than double on eBay (a 180mm recently went for $415, not much more than the $323 the 200 3.5 earlier today...)

Juan