Skip to content

Contax Vario Sonnar 80-200mm

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.

Vario Sonnar 80 200 032 Four Billion Years
Sony A7S – ISO 10000

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.

I seem to end many of my posts the same way – get one while you still can!

 

26 Comments

  1. Malik Minhaj Malik Minhaj

    Wow! That’s a lovely review. I also love the new look of the website.
    Would you recommend this lends for use with a Sony A6000?

    • Thank you Malik. On an A6000 it would give you a 120-300mm equivalent focal length. If you use those focal lengths I can’t think of any better choice, especially for the price. It is a remarkable lens.

      Still working on some final details on the new website design. Do you find that the black on white text is easier to read?

      Take care

      Alberto

      • Malik Minhaj Malik Minhaj

        Thanks for the reply.

        Yes, the text is easier to read, and the addition of white space eases the strain on the eyes. The website looks much slicker now.

        I would also suggest you to try a sans serif font, the serif font you are using is a bit difficult to read, and not as pleasing as a sans serif font would be when viewed on a screen.

        Looking forward to more informative reviews, and enlightening essays.

        Malik

      • Matt Matt

        I have used this lens on my A6000 for the past several months, and it is wonderful. It is certainly up to the high pixel density of that camera, and the color rendition is a little bit magical. With the caveat that I am just a hobbyist (a new one at that), I uploaded a couple pictures if you want an idea of what it can do on APS-C without any postprocessing here: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHDEP6q

        The only negative is that using it handheld at 200mm zoom it can be very difficult to stay still enough to get a sharp in-focus shot, so you might need a tripod in darker conditions. That will undoubtedly be true of any very long telephoto lens since the A6000 doesn’t have in-body stabilization.

        Hopefully it’s helpful, Malik.

        As for the site, Alberto, I think it looks very sharp and more modern now. I like it both ways, though.

        • Malik Minhaj Malik Minhaj

          Hello Matt,

          Thanks for taking the time to reply. Appreciate it.
          I will be using a tripod for the longer end of the zoom range for sure.

          What other vintage zooms or primes do you think are worth owning?

          P.S. I think the new look of the site is growing on me. 🙂

          • Matt Matt

            I only have a dozen or so lenses, so I’m no expert. I think the most important thing (besides knowing your budget) is to keep in mind the type of photography that you like. I’ve found I take a lot of very close, near macro photography, as well as portraits, so my favorites right now are a Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm f/2.5 and a Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f/2.4. But if you love landscape and architecture photography, they might not be right for that.

            If you’re on a tighter budget (those two lenses above might run about $200 give or take), there are some <$100 lenses that are worth trying. The Pentax SMC 28mm f/3.5 is remarkably sharp, and the Minolta 55mm f/1.7 makes a great portrait lens.

            For expert opinions with thorough reviews, in addition to Alberto's fantastic reviews here, I'd recommend you look around on https://phillipreeve.net/blog/ (I hope it's ok with you to post a different site here, Alberto). But whenever you read other reviews, never forget what it is about photography that you like — a great lens for someone else might be a waste of money for you if it doesn't match your style.

          • Matt, yes, it is absolutely fine to post links, especially to really good sites like phillipreeve.net. I may also suggest https://lensqaworks.com/ and artaphot.ch Both are “Minolta Centric”, but there are also other lenses and a lot of high quality detailed content. Artaphot is mostly in German, but google takes care of that. Lensqaworks has a unique style that gets a bit to get used to, but it is excellent.
            I fully agree that a really important consideration is that the lens works for you, your style and photographic interests. And in my experience there is no substitute to trying, keeping what you like and selling what you don’t.

      • Aditya Raj Aditya Raj

        I need to ask a question…U haven’t tested any portrait shots ….Isn’t it good enough for Fashion / portrait Photography??

        • I can’t help with that, sorry. I don’t do portrait/fashion – I am incapable of photographing the human form, my fault.
          Best

  2. Matteo Matteo

    hello! this is one of the best reviews i’ve seen and certainly helps in my choice of purchasing this lens. with regard to the choice of film vs digital, one forgets that photography is an art as well as a science. if all we are after is the best possible technical output , then clearly we need the latest digital camera. (but then, it does not make sense to use vintage lenses).
    on the other hand, if we take pleasure in using lovely crafted mechanical machines , rather than today’s plastic garbage, we understand why some still enjoy shooting film, as well as listen to vinyl records, cassette tapes, and so on!
    after all, its not the result that matters – its the process 🙂

    • Hi Matteo,

      Thanks for your visit! I understand your points about film (and vinyl records), even if I don’t completely agree. The “old” media certainly give you a different rendering of what you are trying to capture, be it light or sound, which some may find more pleasing. But it is not more accurate. I would say that a modern digital sensor (though perhaps not one from 15 years ago), or a high sampling rate modern digital sound recording (but perhaps not an early CD from 1980), can reproduce the original signal much more faithfully than film or vinyl. And then, once you have your raw file, you are free to modify it to make it look or sound as film or vinyl if you wish. Note that I am 67, so my opinion does not come from being a youngster who shuns old technology just for the sake of it being old. Rather, I would say that I “suffered” through decades of film and vinyl and prefer the modern substitutes. But I fully understand why you may feel differently – after all, I only drive cars with manual transmissions, if it does not have a clutch pedal it is a golf cart, not a car!! As you say, “its not the result that matters – its the process”: anybody can do 0-100 km/h in 3 seconds by simply squeezing the right pedal, I pity those who miss on the thrill of doing 0-100 km/h in 5 seconds by changing gears!!!

      Regarding old lenses, I would say that the situation here is different. Modern lenses are not a new technology, but rather a different way of building the same kind of devices that have been around since the latter part of the nineteenth century. And in this case, mass manufacturing and mass marketing have largely killed the art and engineering of lens making. And you will love the Vario Sonnar, words (or other person’s pictures) cannot describe how outstanding this lens is.

      Great conversation Matteo – keep in touch!

      Alberto

  3. MATTEO RIZZI MATTEO RIZZI

    Hi Alberto thank you for the kind response! And how did I forget to mention that your pictures are absolutely amazing. I’ve always been a fan of using telephoto for landscape and wider angles for portrait so I really enjoy your style.
    Couldn’t agree more with regard to vintage cars and manual transmission!
    I’m not a youngster / hipster either, in my 40’s and received my first camera when i was 8 – so I grew up enjoying slide film.
    20 years later, moved to digital. After a while I found I was not enjoying photography any longer as my workflow had changed (shoot faster, shoot more, fix problems with photoshop).

    Recently I picked up an old film camera of mine again and rediscovered the pleasure of slow photography. I guess that is what i had meant in my previous post. All the best from Australia.

  4. Christoph Christoph

    Hello Alberto, thank you very much for your great site! I hope you are well and thriving – for some months there were no updates here… Especially I would like an article about the Contax-Zeiss 28-85 which in my opinion is a real character lens and has some of the greatest out-of-focus background rendering ever at the long end – not “vintage” with quirks but simply sooo smooth. Are you planning future updates?

    • Hello Christoph,

      Thank you for your visit and good wishes. Yes, I am fine thank you, just too busy with a forthcoming move across the country, to beautiful New Mexico. I agree about the Vario Sonnar 28-85mm, an absolutely stellar lens. I will be posting a write-up on it, but it may be a few weeks before I can get to it.
      Stay well and stay connected!!

  5. Sebastian G Sebastian G

    Alberto,

    Does your Zeiss Contax 80-200 have any zoom creep?

    Thanks,
    Sebastian

    • Yes, it does. But it is such a great lens that I put up with it. In fact, it is the only zoom with a 200mm reach that I own, and I don’t think that I will ever get any other.

      Take care!

      • Sebastian Sebastian

        Alberto,

        That is what I would have expected. I got lucky with a copy that I just picked up. It has no zoom creep. Very tight actually. I was astonished. I never had a lens this old of its size that was a push pull and didn’t creep. It must have not gotten much use and is almost brand new. It’s not perfect though. On the front element there are a few cleaning marks. They call them cleaning marks but they are very shallow scratches. They should have zero impact on IQ. They aren’t visible to the naked eye and even with a flashlight shining through you have to really look to see them. Coatings are still in excellent condition. These lenses have gotten stupid cheap. This zoom may be the best Zeiss Contax deal out there today.

        Thanks,
        Sebastian

        • Hi Sebastian,

          Yes, the price of this lens is silly. I don’t get it. Do you have any experience with the Leica 80-200 that costs about 5 times more? The “true” Leica, not one of the rebadged Minoltas (which are not bad, especially when you can buy the Minolta for 20-30 bucks!!).
          Regarding glass defects, in my experience the only issue that one needs to worry about is haze. I’ve never seen small defects like the ones you describe have any effect on image quality.

          Cheers!

          Alberto

          • Sebastian Sebastian

            Hi Alberto,

            I do not. I am considering buying some Leica zooms. Hence why I was asking about your experience with them compared to the Vario Sonnar’s in another blog post.

            I am going to guess the Leica 80-200 F4 is going to be the better performer. It was designed a decade later and looking at the MTF chart it looks be on another level.

            This needs to be verified but I heard the same person designed the 80-200 zooms for Zeiss and Leica. He first worked for Zeiss then Leica. I heard the same for the Contax 35-70. First designed for Zeiss then Leica hired him for the Vario Elmar 35-70 F4. If he is the same man that designed both the 35-70 and 80-200 I do not know. If true, then it looks like all the great zooms were designed by one man and built by kyocera.

            Sebastian

  6. ty ty

    Hi Alberto,

    Thank you again for this great review. I was looking into this lens as the focal range is perfect for my zeiss collection but I saw this review by Luca Bono on YT and he mentions that it is not good on the high-density sensor when he has tested it on a Sony APS-C camera, I am wondering if it is more to do with an APS-C sensor that this lens produces lots of CA but if you have for example full-frame 47mp camera would it produce the same CA issues?

  7. Ty Ty

    Wondered, if you had any issues with CA on your A7R using the CZ/CY 80-200/4 at low f stops from f4 to f5.6?

    • Hello Ty,

      The sensor resolution or pixel density should make no difference on the CA of the lens. All Sonnars have a bit of CA wide open, but I have never seen this to be a problem. In any event, if you shoot raw it is very easy to get rid of during editing. I have never noticed any CA on this lens at f/5.6, and very rarely at f/4. But then, I am not a pixel peeper, I seldom shoot this lens wide open, and prefer to judge a lens on the balance of all of its qualities. You will be hard pressed to find a lens in this focal length range that is better than this one, and when you factor in the ridiculously low price the deal is even better.

      I hope this helps!

  8. Ty Ty

    Hi Alberto,

    Thanks for the reply. I pull the trigger on this lens and can’t wait to get my hands on it. Very excited.

    Ty

  9. I really enjoyed reading your “about” section on your site. I too feel I was born maybe too late and detest mass tourism. I recently picked up the same lens to pair with my CONTAX RX and S2b. I’m looking forward to shooting with it soon. I love it’s 35-70mm/3.4f sibling. If I can get similar results then I will be very happy.

    All the best,

    ECJ

    • Hello Eric, thank you for your visit. I am fairly certain that you will not be disappointed by the humble 80-200mm.

      Best,

      Alberto

  10. David David

    I took a few photos in the yard after receiving this wonderful lens this afternoon. It is extraordinary. Real 3D rendering, great micro contrast; it seems to be every bit as good as my Contax C/Y 35-70. Thanks for your review – I ordered after reading this a few days ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.