CZ Sonnar 180 f2,8, TeleTessar 300 f4 for C/Y...

[39per1]

Anybody here tested these lenses on an X Fuji?
I'm interested, to have a good lens those 2 or 3 times a year I need a tele-lens...
Thanks for your reply.

 

[GaryLH]

I don't own these lens.. But in general, I have not heard of anyone complaining of any issues w/ lenses designed for slr cameras such as the corner issues that come up for some of the rf designed lenses (IDE angles mostly ymmv).

Good luck
Gary

 

[f16sunshine]

I have the f2.8/180 . Have not tested yet on the Fuji but, on the 5d it is superb.
The tele tessar f4/300 I have tested and then sold. It produced pretty ugly purple and green fringes (CA). Others report better. I may have had a poor copy.
The 3.5/200mm TT was better but, not as good as the 180mm at same apertures.
The f3.5/200 is very compact and I do still carry it at times.
BTW, the OM f2.8/180mm is easily the equal to the Ziess Contax. It's likely a copy and even looks the same and well as is sized nearly identically.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I had the 180/2.8 and 300/4. I found the 300/4 to be extremely sharp with a beautiful drawing style, but it did produce a lot of purple fringing mentioned by f16sunshine. It was also very heavy and difficult to focus handheld. The 180/2.8 has a softer rendering suitable for portraits, and does produce some purple fringing but much less than the 300/4.

 

[39per1]

Thank you!
Tele-Tessar 200 f3,5 seems an affordable choice, for a very low price...

An italian test of both 180 Sonnar & 200 Tele-Tessar by Marco Cavina (on Canon FX) ....if you can't read italian, I hope you can appreciate pics, MTFs and all the rest:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Tele-Tessar_200mm_3,5/00_pag.htm

He has the same opinion of F16sunshine...

A link to the rest of his articles, I think they worth a look, only for images and drawings of Zeiss, Leitz (and others...) rare gear:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_tecnici_fotografici.htm