Supahmario wrote: reviving an old thread. Poilu, I wrote it clearly that I was kidding, and I added TWO smilies to make it 100% clear. La resa, secondo i test MTF forniti dalla stessa Zeiss ? sempre uguale o superiore ai corrispondenti Zeiss a focale fissa The f/4 version was also a very good lens, but vignettes wide open (something that the f/3.5 does not, or just imperceptibely)Ĭan you translate this in English, it is for my zoom The later version at f/4 was a tentative to make the lens smaller, lighter, and more clearly differentiate it from the Sonnar. Still, the 3.5/200 remains an excellent lens (as the article reports), and it's a pity that it was practically in direct competition with the Sonnar. So many people preferred to fork out the extra 75 and buy the Sonnar. The fate of the Tele-Tessars was quite signed by the fact that the Sonnar 2.8/180 only costed about 75 of today's Euros more than the Tele-Tessar 3.5/200, with a clear quality margin over it. We should also remember that both Tele-Tessars were the "affordable" (so to say, as they were still quite expensive) offerings in the Contax lineup, while the Apotessar was the rich people lens. It confirms what I already knew: zooms suck (just kidding), and the TT 3.5/200 is optically a better performer than the later TT 4/200. Here is a small review of 200mm Contax lenses : My Tele-Tessar is AE as all aperture ring numbers are white and I can see no way to let the body choose itself an aperture on the lens. Rumoured to have been changed, but without official confirmation:įlor27 wrote: Orio, you are right. I know the sure ones to have been changed are: Where did you read about the Tele-Tessar having been changed for MM? I have never heard of this. You can tell an AE from a MM easily by looking at the last number on the aperture ring: if it's white, it's AE, if it's green, it's MM. Some start earlier, but not much earlier.
CONTAX 645 APO TESSAR SERIAL
With that serial number, your lens must be AEįor most Contax lenses, the first two numbers of MM production are usually 68 I guess my lens is MM version (how can I recognise that ? I haven't found any thing on Google), made in West Germany, serial n. I've read that this lens has also evolved between MM to AE version. It could also be some digital artifact (like pixel bleeding).įlor27 wrote: I guess my lens is MM version (how can I recognise that ? I haven't found any thing on Google), made in West Germany, serial n. What aperture did you take your sample at?Īctually at second thought I am not even sure that what you display is CA. Mine is AE version, made in West Germany, serial n.
Orio wrote: I never noticed such horrendous CA from my copy. Switching from M42 to Minolta MD & Contax/Yashica Sub-Minature: Pentax Auto 110, 18mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8.įlor27 wrote: This lens does some purple frindging (100% crop) and a little bit of chromatic abheration : Other: Asahi Super Takumar 55 mm f2 (M42) ,Tamron 300mm f5.6 SP, Tamron 500mm f8 SP.ĭSLR: Nikon D700. Soviet Nikon Mount: Zenitar 16mm f2.8, Arsat/arax/photex 85mm T&S f2.8. It's not quite up there with the 180 (I fully agree with your assessment of it's character) but it's still a great lens.
Richard_D wrote: I think I commented in the Majorette set - I like the performance of this lens. Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive! Here's some samples from Sunday, all taken with the 400D: Mind, we are still talking of excellent lenses here - the differences being minimal and largely on the subjective plane. I think the Tele-Tessar can be a very good general purpose tele, useable at all apertures, but having the choice with the Sonnar, I am not sure I would use it again for portrait work, as far as my personal taste is concerned. Although very detailed, the images appear flatter to me than those of the 2.8/180. The lens does not, however, have the "sparkle" of the 2.8/180 Sonnar, nor it's remarkable 3Dness. The bokeh is very nice, with unobtrusive OOF highlights. It confirmed the impression I had with landscapes - the lens delivers plenty of contrast and saturation, perhaps even too much of them, so that in a few cases I had to tone them down a bit. Orio wrote: Sunday I could try this lens at human portraiture - previously I used it only for landscapes.
Posted: Tue 1:36 pm Post subject: Contax Tele-Tessar 3.5/200
0 kommentar(er)
