Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Cheap tele zoom that's ok wide open
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:11 am    Post subject: Cheap tele zoom that's ok wide open Reply with quote

Hi,
long title... What do I want?
My wife has a Nex 3n with the 16-50 zoom that she seldomly uses. But when we p.E. go to the zoo, she likes to use her camera and take some pictures - only 50mm is a little short for that. I used to lend her my SEL18135. But when I switched to fullframe I sold it...

I could buy her the SEL55210 but it's a a bit much for 3 times a year. She also mainly used manual focus because that was easiest for her (AF never seemed to focus at what she wanted to be in focus). So, she's fine with MF but doesn't want to hassle with different settings and knobs and whatnot. Camera to the eye - click, done.

So I thought about an old MF zoom in the 135 - 200mm range. I'd like to set the camera to 1/250, aperture at it's widest (no IBIS, older APS-C sensor, keep the ISO down...) and let her shoot.

Problem is: cheap and got vintage zooms are abound, but most of them need to be stopped down, at least at the long end. Are there any sleepers in the lower price range (let's say 25 EUR) that are good wide open at the long end? Or do I have to go prime (I have a Minolta MD 135 3.5)? Or should I better have her stick to digital zoom on her 1650?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can find the SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm F4 for cheap and it is sharp wide open.

Mr Crooked by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5 N ai.
It’s cheap and good. Often overlooked because it’s not very fast.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well you should bear in mind that the iq of cheap ie consumer zooms from the MF era always benefits fromthe lens being stopped down a bit. Obviously its easier on a Nex to just leave the lens wide open for focussing, you're operating in stop down aperture priority mode (usually). On my samsung NX20, I have usually had no real difficulty leaving a lens stopped down and focussing, the EVF adjusts the brightness automatically and its a one button hit to get magnified view. IME it's usually better to go down one stop and up the ASA a bit if necessary.

The tamron adaptall 46A 70-210mm is a bit of a sleeper, in the modern photography tests posted on adaptall-2.com it posts ~ =best results for resolution. Lighter and more compact than the classic vivitar series 1's, kiron zoomlock, easily picked up cheaply on ebay. But you will also need to get a mount, unless it comes with one that suits. In any case you can adapt anything pretty much to sony E.
70/80-210mm was such a standard zoom in the market at that time I think it became a pretty well developed lens type optically. Lenses like the compact tokinas - SD 70-210mm, the SZ-X 80-200mm - are also pretty good, albeit slower (f5.6) at the long end (IMO the latter one is a bit overrated on PF..).
If you don't mind the extra size and weight, one of the plum tp zooms of the era is the adaptall 60-300mm 23A now that is a strong recommend for its iq and versatility.
You can check out my tamron vs vivitar (with results for numerous other lenses included) supertest here:

http://www.groupoids.org.uk/photography/TamronVSvivitar/70-210mm.html


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quite often, women seem to prefer smaller lenses. That said, and keeping in mind that you prefer a lens suitable for wide open shooting, I would recommend the Minolta MD 4/75-150mm. It is small, reasonably lightweight, has constant f4, and certainly is an optically excellent lens.

If size doesn't matter, you might also consider lenses such as the Minolta MD / AF 4/70-210mm, the Nikkor AiS 4.5/80-200 or 4/80-200, or the Canon FD / nFD 4/80-200mm. Probably the lighter and newer nFD 4.5/75-200 would work well on APS-C, too, but I've never used it myself.

I would not recommend the faster f3.5 zooms, because usually they are a bit inferior, and often much too heavy.

S


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

caspert79 wrote:
Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5 N ai.
It’s cheap and good. Often overlooked because it’s not very fast.


Outstanding lens. Might be a little on the heavy side for a lady, and the zoom can often be sloppy with what I would call zoom-run, ie much faster slippage than zoom creep. Still, the optics are wonderful.
If you want cheap and light, a straight Canon FDn 200mm f4 prime would be my pick. Also excellent optics and it has internal focusing so doesn't lengthen as it is focused.
Tom

This from the Canon FDn 200
#1


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seek the internally clean one. That is the issue with vintage zooms. Haze or dust layers so common.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm F4 may be even better than the SMC Pentax-M 80-200 f4.5 which I have.
Here is a shot from the SMC Pentax-M 80-200 f4.5

#1


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the replies so far, there are quite some good suggestions. Like 1 small Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
The SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm F4 may be even better than the SMC Pentax-M 80-200 f4.5 which I have.
Here is a shot from the SMC Pentax-M 80-200 f4.5

#


There are two versions of that lens (80-200/4.5) apparently (didn't know until today) One is the same as the Pentax K series version. The second looks just like it but has an improved optical formula. Pentax forums just shows the first version. The first version weighs 555 Grams the second one 615. Weighing mine I found out I have the first version (which is soft wide open at 200mm). The second version was also seen as Takumar Bayonet. Looked up the lens in the serial number database @Pentaxforums and someone says "Version 2 (15m largest distance shown prior to infinity if that is an indication - photo of V1 shows 30m, min focal distance 1.2m (me v1 1.6m). This means I will have to look for v2 now.....

Already bought one. They are dirt cheap in Japan. The second version also doesn't have the silver ring on the focus/zoomring:


Last edited by D1N0 on Thu Nov 12, 2020 12:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:02 am    Post subject: Canon EF-s 55-250mm IS STM + Metabones IV or another adapt Reply with quote

Sure, not manual but AF though I use it manually (electronic) from time to time. Image stabilisation in the lens. I guess lens + adapter secondhand might cost you $300. My MC-11 adapter did not work with it to an A7RII (rear of the lens shaved for that use) but the secondhand Metabones IV did. Latest firmware on all components. I also use it with an FF version Kenko 1.4x tele converter to fill the FF frame, without the teleconverter a near 24x24mm sensor area fill is possible.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/64541956/660d5f188636474d8a0f15f7367769be

Someone who uses it with an A6000: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64476083


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marcusBMG wrote:
..........
If you don't mind the extra size and weight, one of the plum tp zooms of the era is the adaptall 60-300mm 23A now that is a strong recommend ......


Very interesting lens. Seems to be useful from 60 to 300 mm....nice zoom.
I shall look for one


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Tamron 23A really is an exceptional lens in every aspect, comes very close to stack-of-primes-with-macro. But it's also very heavy!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big R wrote:
The Tamron 23A really is an exceptional lens in every aspect, comes very close to stack-of-primes-with-macro. But it's also very heavy!


Thank you Big R, very much.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Big R wrote:
The Tamron 23A really is an exceptional lens in every aspect, comes very close to stack-of-primes-with-macro. But it's also very heavy!


Thank you Big R, very much.


I would say "large" and somewhat "long" and "awkward" but not heavy for it's size...


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
papasito wrote:
Big R wrote:
The Tamron 23A really is an exceptional lens in every aspect, comes very close to stack-of-primes-with-macro. But it's also very heavy!


Thank you Big R, very much.


I would say "large" and somewhat "long" and "awkward" but not heavy for it's size...


Near 800 gr.
Saw some pics taken with it and I like them.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The two best vintage telezooms in the affordable range are the Contax-Zeiss 80-200 f4 and the Minolta 75-150 f4.

If money plays no role, there is also the Contax-Zeiss 100-300, the apex of all vintage telezooms.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Prakticar 70-210mm 4:5.6 That is nice and compact. Never used it because it is PB mount. I think it is really a Sigma. Those mid eighties zoom By Sigma, Tokina, Cosina can be Ok I guess and they are small.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasenbein wrote:
The two best vintage telezooms in the affordable range are the Contax-Zeiss 80-200 f4 and the Minolta 75-150 ....


The minolta 70/150 f4 MD III and the AF render in the same way? Any of them is better?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
hasenbein wrote:
The two best vintage telezooms in the affordable range are the Contax-Zeiss 80-200 f4 and the Minolta 75-150 ....


The minolta 70/150 f4 MD III and the AF render in the same way? Any of them is better?


There's no Minolta AF 70-150mm ... or do you mean the AF 4/70-210mm?

S


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to have a Minolta MD 75-150 and a MD 70-210 f4 (AFAIK identical to the AF 70-210). The 70-210 is good (needs some stopping down at the long end), but the 75-150 is not only better in every way, it's also a good deal more lightweight and compact. Unfortunately I sold it... Embarassed

As it's reputation has spread it's become quite the expensive item.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the Minolta 75-150 is a lovely and convenient lens.

Unfortunately the Contax-Zeiss 80-200 f4 is even better (I have both).

If you don't find a Minolta, simply buy the Zeiss. It's only drawback is its length which is sometimes a bit impractical in the bag. But when shooting it's no problem because the lens is fairly light. Totally unproblematic to use.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:
hasenbein wrote:
The two best vintage telezooms in the affordable range are the Contax-Zeiss 80-200 f4 and the Minolta 75-150 ....


The minolta 70/150 f4 MD III and the AF render in the same way? Any of them is better?


There's no Minolta AF 70-150mm ... or do you mean the AF 4/70-210mm?

S


Yes, 70/210. Thx.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nikkor 80/200 f/4 - f/4,5 or AF ED 80/200 F/2,8?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have always used the Cosina made 28-200 on my A6000 or A7. Its a really sharp lens and better than the Sony 24-240 lens by far