If there was a way to measure the ratio of quality to price of a photographic lens, then the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200 mm would almost certainly come out on top, and by a wide margin. About three years ago I got a virtually unused example for $150, and they are still abundant in the $200 price range. But don’t be fooled by the price nor by how plentiful they are. This lens is an absolute stunner at any price. I don’t think that it is any less sharp than the other two Contax zooms that I own (the 35-70mm, discussed here, and the 28-85mm that I hope to write about in the near future). It is surprisingly light (though not small). Its minimum focusing distance of 1 meter allows for some great closeups. And its rendition – that ineffable combination of color, contrast and sharpness – screams Zeiss. Why this lens is not more widely sought I can’t really understand. Perhaps it is that its form factor makes it look and feel like a cheap third party lens from the days of Hair Metal? Thus, people don’t go for it, the price stays low and people don’t realize how extraordinary this lens is. But, if it is cheap it is probably not all that good, right? Back to square one. Once you pick up the lens, however, any misconception about it being a cheap knock-off is immediately dispelled. Feel the silky focusing and zooming actions, and those buttery-yet-German aperture clicks that are a trademark of Contax lenses. And let the image quality speak for itself. There certainly are noteworthy examples of the opposite trend – lenses that are expensive for no good reason. For instance, I don’t understand why anybody would pay more for a Trioplan than, say, for an 85mm f/1.7 Rokkor. In fact, I once tried a Trioplan and can’t understand why anybody would pay anything for it. Luckily I appear to be in the minority, and I managed to resell it at a profit. But that is a story for another day. Here I will try to show with a few images how remarkable the 80-200mm Zeiss. If I had to pick a weakness in it, it would be that it tends to flare rather easily, though probably no more than other great vintage lenses tend to do. And, unless you are shooting almost directly into the sun, flare can be controlled quite effectively by a long hood or, better yet, by a strategically placed hand or baseball cap. I know that some will object to its push-pull, prone-to-creep design. To me this is a non issue. I value the optical quality of a lens above all else, and will happily put up with minor inconveniences if the results warrant it, as is the case with Contax zooms. With the exception of the relatively little-known Minolta 75-150mm I don’t own any other tele zooms, so I cannot offer any first person comparisons with other highly regarded lenses, such as the much more expensive Vario Elmar 80-200mm f/4, or perhaps some vintage zooms from Nikon or Canon that I am not familiar with. The only other 80-200mm zoom that I tried and that merits a few words is the Hexanon UC 80-200mm, which is an excellent lens, but is the equal of neither the Vario Sonnar nor the 75-150 Minolta. If I had to explain why, I would simply say that whereas there is certainly nothing bad about the Hexanon, it is an excellent lens that is also antiseptic. It is not in the same league as the legendary Hexanon primes. The Zeiss and the Minolta zooms, in contrast, are loaded with the distinct personalities of those two illustrious optical traditions. The Hexanon does beat the Contax in terms of close focusing capability (down to about 50cm if I remember right), and it is certainly a very sharp lens. If close focus photography is your main interest you will certainly not be disappointed by the Konica lens, which is even cheaper than the Zeiss, even if harder to find.  I have read that the more modern Vario Sonnar 100-300mm is sharper and better corrected than the 80-200mm. At some point I was tempted to try to get one but decided not to. Besides being quite expensive, especially given how little I use such long focal lengths, I have noticed that many of the ones on offer are described as having haze. This makes me wonder whether the design incorporates elements glued with a type of resin that degrades faster than expected. I have seen this issue in a number of other vintage lenses, both famous brands and third party lenses, and know that the condition is terminal. But also, how much better than the 80-200 can it possibly be? Take a look at some images and judge for yourself. As always, shot with Sony full frame (of various types) and processed in Capture One. I will start with a picture of Ajax, my avatar, which I believe illustrates several points. First, the sharpness and somewhat “cinematographic” bokeh of the lens can be appreciated in this image. But what, to me, makes this even more remarkable is that I shot this photo on the A7S at ISO 10000! I applied as little noise reduction as possible, and although some noise can be detected in the out of focus areas, I feel that it is not distracting and that it certainly takes away nothing from the quality of the lens. I also think that it is possible to discern in this image some of that “medium-format” look that the Sony A7S is reputed to be able to deliver, thanks to its huge pixels. The Vario Sonnar 80-200mm and the Sony A7S are certainly very well matched, which makes me wonder, how did we shoot 200mm f/4 lenses on ISO 200 film? How many photo opportunities that we take for granted today were impossible only ten or fifteen years ago? Why are there those who still choose film over digital? If you have followed my blog you probably realize that I am no friend of technology for the sake of technology – I only use vintage manual focus lenses after all. But I am also not averse to technology when it provides a clear advantage. And in the case of film, the argument is, as far as I am concerned, over. The close-focusing ability of this lens, combined with its exceptional micro contrast, make it a joy to use when trying to extract the fine detail of a subject. The three images below of bristlecone pine bark show that accurately rendering a texture is not simply a matter of sharpness, but also of the ability of a lens (and sensor, in this case the base 24Mpx A7) to capture minute tonality and color nuances. The barrel cactus and the cat’s nose are perhaps better at showing the fine detail that the Vario Sonnar is capable of. By the way, this cat is not Ajax, he is Marx. Note that the markings are quite different. A few medium-distance shots that exemplify the versatility of this lens, in terms of being able to exploit different depths of field as well as selective illumination. The latter is, I believe, a characteristic of Contax lenses in general. I believe that the secret is that they are optimized for a rather “gentle” overall contrast, which allows for plenty of detail in the shadows while keeping the highlights under control. In other words, they reinforce the already excellent dynamic range of Sony sensors. Tele zooms are not what one uses most frequently in landscape photography, but there are situations in which they can work well. So I will finish with some examples of how this lens performs in the far field. |
