jim_rais Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 I ordered a mint Zeiss Tele Tessar 4/200mm from a reputable shop in Germany the other day, but amazed myself by the fact that when I tested this Carl Zeiss lens I found out that the further I stopped down the lens, the worse its brilliance became - so much that f/8 and f/11 are not usable for serious photo work. I have never seen such thing in my entire photo life. The shop took the lens back for a refund but could not explain it, either.<P> Can someone explain what kind of optic/lens construction fault is this? I can't imagine that this is the "default" quality of the Tele Tessar 4/200mm. Thanks.<P> <LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim Rais</A></LI><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Do you mean the viewfinder image? Or the photos? And what lens mount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Was a tripod used in the test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_rais Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 Not the viewfinder image, but the results of the photos are lacking brilliance at f/8 and f/11. In a way, they are some kind of 'foggy' in comparison to the photos of f/4 and f/5.6. The lens was coupled through c/y - eos adapter on a Canon 300D. This combination c/y - eos has been tested with other CZ lenses in my possession and not one has this strange effect. The daylight condition allowed me not to use a tripod and this was also not a matter of blurry pictures. The lines were sharp, but totally it lacked contrast/brilliance.<P> <LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim Rais</A></LI><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dermot_conlan4 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Jim let me ask you why a Zeiss 200 f4 over a Canon EF200 f2.8? The Canon is a very very good lens, Contax made some great lenses the 200 is not one of them. The longer Cotanx primes 180/200/300 do not match up to Canon's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmueller Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Could you post some example pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_rais Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 The sample photo is <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/3233460&size=lg" TARGET="_blank">here</A>. As reference I used the Planar 1.7/50mm which is on the lower row.<P> <LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim Rais</A></LI><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_krantz Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 From the pictures it looks like an exposure problem. I could see an issue with resolution or contrast but the fact that the images look over-exposed .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 I think you are better off by sticking to the wides (distagons and biogons) from Zeiss. Tele-Tessar has some severe limitations on a DSLR. I have a 350mm f/5.6 Tele Tessar for use with my D70. Stopping down much does not help. Lenses that are great for film, sometimes do very badly on digital. I have a 75-150mm f/3.5 E-series zoom. This is one of the greatest lenses I have for my DSLR. Many of the high resolution lenses (for film) do not do all that well. I can stop down my E-series zoom or my 50-300 f/4.5 zoom all the way down with no loss of details or brilliance. This does not happen with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiblanke Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Jim, <p> I am perfectly happy with my 200/3.5 Tele-Tessar. Some say it is better than the later (and smaller) f4 version, some say the contrary. Zeiss is in general not the best producer of tele lenses, but up to 200mm they should be on par with everybody else. My 200/3.5 is probably my best Zeiss lens (and I have a 35/2.8 Distagon, 50/1.7 Planar and the 85 Sonnar which are very good either) and I have not yet been disappointed; I prefer shooting wide open and only shot with it at f16 a few times, but was not yet able to find problems with this lens. The 200/4 should not be worse in this case, but as all tele lenses it may suffer from chromatic aberration from f11 on - these can be intensified by the digital sensor in some cases, which seems to be the case with you. <p> I cannot guarantee that a 200/3.5 is better (and cheaper as an AE lens only), but it is definitely worth a try in my eyes - there are some pictures in my folder. If you happen to be in germany / switzerland, contact me offline and I can lend you mine for a test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_rais Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 Since I was very curious about what's the reason of the lens fault and to learn to understand about it, it's a bit disappointing that up to now there is still no clear and satisfying explanation of this phenomenon. Where art thou, o optics Professors? :)<P> Anyway, thanks to everyone who had tried to give a clearance, especially Kai Blanke's and Vivek Iyer's plausible explanation about the effect of <I>some</I> Zeiss lens constructions in relation to digital sensor must be taken into my consideration, included Kai's generous offer to try his 3.5/200mm.<P> <LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim Rais</A></LI><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now