advice for a 300mm or 400mm f4 on sony apsc

thebbm · Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 295 Location: France montpellier

hello
I'm looking for a nice 300mm or 400mm f4/4.5 ( f5.6 in last ressort ) for sony aps-c

I have a canon fd 400mm f2.8 but very heavy (+- 5kg ), i wish to sell it and get a lens with nice optical quality but half the weigth if possible.
the mount is not a problem as far i can use it full manually.

any advice are welcome
thanks

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1304 Location: Conwy N Wales

This is kind of a regular qq actually, this is a previous thread worth perusing and there are others, includes a couple of images from my FD 400mm f4.5, which IMO is a good sharp 400mm, though I would not expect it to be as good as your 400mm f2.8.

http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-400mm-f4-5-or-300mm-f4-l-t47159,highlight,%2B300mm+%2B400mm.html

Tair 3/300A is often considered to be one of the sharpest of the vintage 300mm. Tamron adaptall 300mm f2.8 (60B is the most common one) is in a much higher price bracket than Tair but ~half the weight (~2kg) of FD 400mm f2.8; and with a good 1.4x tc like the adaptall 014F gives you 420mm f4.

Boris_Akunin · Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 393 Location: Bremen, Germany

I should probably just wait for stevemark to weight in but I think the Canon nFD300/4 L would be a good candidate:

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/canon-fd-300mm-4-l-review/

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I have the Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LDIF and it is probably heavier than thebbm wants to put up with. It's a great lens, but it isn't very practical as a hand-holdable lens. Although I have used mine often hand-held, it isn't the sort of lens one makes a habit of using hand-held.

I used to own the Canon nFD 400mm f/4.5 until it was stolen and I can recommend it highly. It is reasonably light weight, has internal focusing (the later nFD model, that is) and takes wonderfully sharp pictures. It supposedly has one low-dispersion element to help with chromatic aberrations. The Canon 300mm f/4 L is also another great performer. Even though it's a shorter focal length than the 400/4.5 it is just as massive, if not more so. Still, either of these lenses can be hand-held without encountering much fatigue. Another possibility, but it's a heavyweight and it's expensive, is the Canon nFD 50-300mm f/4 L two-ring zoom. When you can find one, they typically go for a lot -- like up to twice what you'd pay for a 400mm f/4.5 or more.

One other zoom worth mentioning -- this is a zoom I personally own and I'm recommending it because it is surprisingly sharp, especially for a zoom, is the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD. This is a one-touch push-pull lens. It's pretty big for a zoom with a big front element -- 77mm, I believe. It's well worth considering, honestly.

I'm sure there are contenders made by other makers, such as Minolta and Nikon, but the above are the ones I know and am familiar with. For example, I'm sure the Nikon 300mm f/4 ED is an outstanding optic.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

My recommendation is the Minolta AF 300mm/F4 APO G HS. It's perfectly usable in MF mode and could even be used as AF lens with the appropriate Sony adapter. It's only 1.4 kg and delivers really excellent picture quality even when used wide open.

Here is my introduction of this lens (both FF and APS-C):
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-af-300mm-f-4-apo-g-hs-t71048.html

Finally you can see how it compares to some other lenses in comparable focus length on APS-C:
http://forum.mflenses.com/300mm-lens-comparison-leitz-minolta-pentax-t76838.html

thebbm · Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 295 Location: France montpellier

thanks for the answers. i get some lectures now Wink

i forget to says that i want to use the lens WO for sport with bokey backgroud and price lower than 300euros / USD.

what about the konica hexanon AR 300mm f4.5 or olympus zuiko om 300mm ?

the canon FD look a good alternative to his faster brother ( f2. Cool

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Sciolist · Expire: 2021-04-16

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1304 Location: Conwy N Wales

The tamron 400mm f6.9, standard and "nestar" variants, from the 1960's is IMO the best of the old "wundertute" telephotos, albeit rather less common than the others. I don't recommend old versions of the generic 400mm f6.3's, too many of them suffer from hazed rear elements and the quality is variable. These are still being made, the smaller more recent ones are normally ok re haze, and are the lightest choice weight wise. However they are consistently inferior to the 9xxxx serial "chrome-eared" soligor 400mm f6.3's, and the (best f6.3 IMO) tokina rmc 400mm f6.3's. Finally the original tokina/tokyo koki 400mm f6.3 from the same era as the tamron can be almost as good too IME, but I have had a couple of lemons (and watch out for ones with a non-standard t-mount, 47mm thread instead of 42mm).

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

Ditto re the old Tamrons.

They are found in importers brands also, in the US often Soligor and Aetna, in its various trademarks such as Coligon.
The giveaway, besides the f/6.9 and distinctive general appearance, is the serial number beginning with a "T".

Mamiya sold a rebranded version of the Tokina 400/6.3 in fixed M42 mount, its worth looking for.

A couple of rather good f/5.6 300mm's that go for cheap -

The old Adaptamatic Tamron 300/5.6, often also seen rebranded and in fixed mounts, and later versions in the original Adaptall mounts (not Adaptall 2).
The Tokina made 300/5.5 preset lens, usually a T-mount (but note marcusBMG's warning about those weirdo 47mm adapters). Very long minimum focus unfortunately.

Pablo0105 · Joined: 19 Apr 2014 Posts: 13 Location: Liverpool, England

I have a Sigma 300mm f4 Tele macro which is a very good lens. It also has the added bonus of focusing down to about 1.5m, which makes it good for almost macro work.

A lot of people online compare it to the Canon 300m f4L in image quality. I cant say i have any complaints (especially since I only paid £90!). I use it on the Sony A7 in manual focus,so can so cant speak for the Autofocus, but i would expect it to be reasonable.

Here is a sample pic of a robin. Dont think it was cropped.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/64378612@N06/33323951254/

There is currently one for sale in Sony A mount on IceGroup for £199.
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Sigma-AF-300mm-f4-APO-Tele-Macro-Sony-A-Mount_186471.html
:

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1304 Location: Conwy N Wales

I didn't have any luck with the sigma APO 300mm f4.5 I tried.

http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-apo-300mm-f4-5-doesnt-like-lumix-g1-m-43-t77395.html

But if you can acquire a good one you should be well set I think, the "APO"'s are normally good - the pro or "prosumer" lenses of their time. And if it's minolta A mount isn't there an "A" to "E" adapter inc autofocus connect?

Pablo0105 · Joined: 19 Apr 2014 Posts: 13 Location: Liverpool, England

The sigma APO 300mm f4.5 is optically different from the 300mm f4 APO Tele Macro. The Tele Macro was produced later, it contained two SLD elements to reduce chromatic aberrations (It also has autofocus)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=129

I ended up researching virtually every 300mm lens before purchasing!! It was between the Sigma and Canon FD 300mm L

thebbm · Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 295 Location: France montpellier

thanks you every body

Pablo0105 the bird shoot is very nice, very sharp and color !

i will hunt for a bargain '300mm f4 APO Tele Macro' ( so absolutly not the f4.5 version ) or canon 300mm f4L , is the L version better ?
or a "Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300mm/F4.5 IF"

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

Since i happen to have the nFD 2.8/400mm L as well, i may be able to give some useful information.

1) If you intend to use the 300mm / 400mm lens for portraits and/or animals, central sharpness is more important than (missing) lateral CAs.
2) if you intend to use it for landscapes, the lens should have as little CAs as possible.

Canon: They have the 4/300mm, the 4/300mm L, the 2.8/300mm Fluorite, the 2.8/300mm L, the 2.8/400mm L and the 4.5/400mm. I know all of them from personal experience. All of them often suffer more or less from "wobbling" focusing due to worn out guide rollers => precise fast focusing may be difficult
The two worst lenses are the nFD 4/300mm and the (n)FD 4.5/400mm; both are useful for animal & portrait, but longitudinal CAs may disturb you, eg when the white hairs of a cat are reddish in front of and greenish behind the actual focus point. Relatively lightweight; fast IF focusing.
The nFD 300mm L has as little CAs as the nFD2.8/400 L or the FD 2.8/300 Fluorite, but detail resolution is inferior to the nFD 2.8/400mm which is fantastic in this respect. The best of the bunch is the nFD 2.8/300mm L. Nearly no CAs, excellent detail resolution over the entire image, even at f2.8.

Konica: I have the AR 4.5/300mm and the AR 4.5/400mm. My 4.5/300mm, albeit perfect from outside, has a "foggy" glass element. CAs are average to good (i would say slightly better than the FD 4/300mm), corner resolution seems to be good as well. The AR 4.5/400mm is huge and heavy (as heavy as the Nikkor 3.5/400mm ED!!), and performance is comparable to the Canon FD 4.5/400mm; center resolution of the Canon may be a bit better.

Mamiya: the rare Sekor CS and Sekor E 4/300mm are extremely lightweight (around 750g), but have CAs as all non-ED Tele lenses. Performance very similar to Canon nFD 4/300mm.

Minolta: The old (non-IF) MC 4.5/300mm was the best 300mm in 1968 (according to Modern Photography), but todyay i would say corner resoultion is low and CAs are pronounced. Inferior to the nFD 4/300mm non-L. The later MD 4.5/300mm IF is very light (around 780g). Focusing is fast and precise (better than the corresponding Canon!!). Monochromatic aberrations are controlled very well, but CAs are comparable to all other non-ED lenses. Annoyingly, the performance doesn't increase when stopping down to f8 or f11. Strange behaviour, but seems to be real (two lenses tested). Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO: On par with the FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite, slightly inferior to the nFD 2.8/300mm L. Minolta 4.5/400mm APO: Truly excellent lens, precise manual focusing possible (IF!), better that the Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO.

Nikon: I don't know the numerous MF 300mm and 400mm ED-Nikkors, but i assume the to be as good as the Canon ED lenses (and slightly inferior to the Canon Fluorite lenses such as 2.8/300mm L and 4.5/500mm L). I would check the AiS 4.5/300mm IF-ED, the 2.8/300mm IF-ED, the 4.5/400mm IF-ED and possibly even the 3.5/400mm IF-ED (at 2.8kg about half the weight of your FD 2.8/400mm L!!). For manual focusing, i would not recommend the first generation ED-AF Nikkors (too much play!!).

Olympus: The Olympus Zuiko 4.5/300mm has clearly a better correction than most non-ED lenses. Detail resolution in the corners is excellent, and CAs are less pronounced than with a FD 4/300mm. Best of the non-ED 300mm lenses.

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 2.8/300mm IF: ED lens, CAs well corrected; lower contrast than FD 2.8/300mm or Minolta AF 2.8/300mm
Adaptall-2 SP 4/400mm IF: ED lens; CAs very well corrected, detail resolution very good; contrast visibly lower than with Minolta AS 4.5/400mm or Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L

I have a few of the cheap 400mm / 500mm "Wundert�te" lenses from different manufacturers. They are OK if you want to collect first experiences with long tele lenses, but in your case i certainly would not recommend any of them.

With exception of the Nikkors, all my writing above is based on personal experience with these lenses (several real-world tests).

Stephan

EDIT: here are a few crops from the Canon FD 4.5/400mm (at f 8!!) and the Canon 2.8/400mm (at f2.8!!). The difference is annoyingly clear.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

My thinking on 300's is - a light and easy to use lens is well worth a stop or two of speed over a heavy lens. The case in point being the lovely Tair 300 / 4.5, which is famously sharp, but so heavy it's impossible to use.
I've got the Tamron SP670AU 300 / 5.6 which is very nearly as sharp as the Tair but so much lighter and easier to hand hold, it beats the Tair every time. There's also a very good Chinon 300 / 5.6 that is very light and easy to use, and cheap.

They aren't fast, but the ease of handling is worth that lost stop.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I'm writing this note in response to the comments Stevemark made regarding the Canon 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/4.5. First of all, I agree completely with Steve's conclusions regarding the 300/4. I recall that, when I first tried out my brand new 300/4 how disappointed I was with many of the slides I got back. The CA was severe when hard lines against an evenly lit background occurred. Very pronounced green and magenta fringing was present in these slides, rendering most of them unusable. I was bummed, and quickly learned what I could and couldn't photograph with that lens.

But my copy of the Canon nFD 400mm f/4.5 was quite different from what Steve describes. I found it to be very sharp and that, while some CA was evident in some photos, it was very well controlled -- and could be removed easily in post.

Here are a few images that I shot with the 400/4.5. The first two of roses, I can find no CA and sharpness is high.

This photo of a dove shows great sharpness, and if you look very closely you can spot some red CA along the top of the bird's beak and some very slight green CA along the bottom of the beak. Still, it can be removed in post if one finds it objectionable.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

John Shriver · Joined: 24 Dec 2009 Posts: 192

Consider the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 300mm f/5.6 lens, model 54B. It's a macro lens, with a fixed rear element (doesn't move when focusing) that serves as a floating element to keep it sharp when focusing closely. Very light, good handling. Not common, but usually not expensive.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

If you want light, very sharp and apo, but cheap there is one solution - a repro lens mounted on a tube with a helicoid or bellows on the back to focus.

There are lots of them of all kinds of focal lengths, Schneider G-Clarons, Rodenstock APO-Gerogons and APO-Ronars, Fujinon, Nikkors, Minolta Rokkors, even older ones like Ross Xpres and Wray APO-Lustrars.

All of them are extremely sharp as they have to reproduce very fine detail for repro work and they have true apochromatic correction, not the semi-apo correction you get with most consumer lenses labelled apo.

Here's an old Wollensak Apochromatic Raptar 11/540 that I have mounted with tube and bellows for long range work. Cost me 20 quid years ago an I doubt a multi-thousand pound Canonikon modern lens has better IQ, other than in contrast as the Raptar is single coated.

100% crop: