View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7776 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Top, Tamron 300 / 5.6
Bottom. Chinon MC 300 / 5.6. A very under rated lens
_________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
Well, I have for my A6000 the :
- Minolta MD 300 mm 4.5 (less than 100€ if you are patient and mine is mint) only weighs 700g and internal focus makes it stays compact focuses down to 3 m. Good quality but CA. Best focusing experience (smooth and precise).
- A cheap 300 mm mirror (Elicar) very very compact and circa 100 € . Rather poor contrast and not very good in contre jour but fine otherwise. . Average focusing experience
- Minolta 200 mm f/4 very very cheap with 2*300 s (not very cheap) gives you 400 mm f8 for about 700 g min focus 2.5 meter. Good quality but CA, limited light and focus (+ a bit hard)
- Minolta 200 mm f 2.8, not cheap (200€) with 2*300 s (>50€) will weight a bit more (700g plus 2*300s) but still less than 1 kg, focuses down to 1.8 meter (but a bit hard) and yields a 400mm 5.6. Good quality but CA
Quality wise, Elicar inferior. Happy with the 3 other Minolta combinations.
300 mm 4.5 is the most comfortable and compact option (balance and focus), 200mm 2.8 plus 300 s (400mm f 5.6)the most flexible combination. These have 72mm filter so same relationship light focal length (200 mm f4is 55 mm filter). 300 mm more compact (same weight/length as 200 mm f 2.8 )
Note I am not pixel-obsessed _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8
Last edited by Antoine on Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:14 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1301 Location: Conwy N Wales
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
Lloydy's first 300mm is the version 1 tamron adaptall, reckoned to be optically the same as its adaptamatic predecessor. It has a TM and a 62mm filter. The chinon is actually derived from that lenses successor the adaptall CT300, no TM and 58mm filter - so actually a tamron in disguise.
There are threads on these lenses here on mflenses (try search, but quite often I have better luck finding threads just using google). _________________ pentax ME super (retired)
Pentax K3-ii; pentax K-S2; Samsung NX 20; Lumix G1 + adapters;
Adaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4.
Primes: takumar 55mm; smc 28mm, 50mm; kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro; Jupiter 11A; CZJ 135mm.
A classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Here's a quick test of the
* Minolta MD 4.5/300mm IF
* Pentax M* 4/300mm (three large ED lenses!)
* Tamron SP 5,6/60-300mm
These are 100% crops from the extreme corners of a 24MP Full Frame image.
Surprisingly, the very high-tech Pentax (with three large ED lenses and one lens made of glass similar to the famous "Noctilux" glass) is not better than the Minolta 4.5/300mm IF. The Minolta incorporates a lens made of "new special glass" as well, according to contemporary German literature. This might well be one lens out of the Minolta AD glass. This early Minolta AD glass has a refractive index of 1.495 and an abbe number of 79.74, slightly less than the corresponding Nikon ED glass (about 81). Later Minolta AD glass, used in the Minolta Af 2.8/200 APO, has a refractive index of 1.493 and an high abbe number of 83.55.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Thanks for the link, Marcus. I've bookmarked it. I appreciate your having gone to the trouble of tabulating the different mount sizes. Dunno if I'll want to effect a more or less permanent spacing as you've done, since I would like to be able to use that mount with more than one lens. They are cheap enough, however. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Macaluan
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Posts: 5
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Macaluan wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Here's a quick test of the
* Minolta MD 4.5/300mm IF
* Pentax M* 4/300mm (three large ED lenses!)
* Tamron SP 5,6/60-300mm
These are 100% crops from the extreme corners of a 24MP Full Frame image.
Surprisingly, the very high-tech Pentax (with three large ED lenses and one lens made of glass similar to the famous "Noctilux" glass) is not better than the Minolta 4.5/300mm IF. The Minolta incorporates a lens made of "new special glass" as well, according to contemporary German literature. This might well be one lens out of the Minolta AD glass. This early Minolta AD glass has a refractive index of 1.495 and an abbe number of 79.74, slightly less than the corresponding Nikon ED glass (about 81). Later Minolta AD glass, used in the Minolta Af 2.8/200 APO, has a refractive index of 1.493 and an high abbe number of 83.55.
Stephan |
Thanks all of you again for this information. It's really helps to take a decision.
Stephan, could you give a recommendation about 200mm? as you said before, if could be a better option price/quality. And i could use a x2 adapter to have a 400mm.
Thank you again guys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bychance
Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 345 Location: Kent, England
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bychance wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Here's a quick test of the
* Minolta MD 4.5/300mm IF
* Pentax M* 4/300mm (three large ED lenses!)
* Tamron SP 5,6/60-300mm
These are 100% crops from the extreme corners of a 24MP Full Frame image.
Surprisingly, the very high-tech Pentax (with three large ED lenses and one lens made of glass similar to the famous "Noctilux" glass) is not better than the Minolta 4.5/300mm IF. The Minolta incorporates a lens made of "new special glass" as well, according to contemporary German literature. This might well be one lens out of the Minolta AD glass. This early Minolta AD glass has a refractive index of 1.495 and an abbe number of 79.74, slightly less than the corresponding Nikon ED glass (about 81). Later Minolta AD glass, used in the Minolta Af 2.8/200 APO, has a refractive index of 1.493 and an high abbe number of 83.55.
Stephan |
http://forum.mflenses.com/fringe-obsession-and-looking-4-signs-of-uncorrected-aberra-t78423.html
Hows the thinking going here Steve.? _________________ I got where I am by avoiding where I was going.
Now where was I? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
I have just one 300mm lens, a Super Takumar, but I'd like to make a few comments about correcting chromatic aberration of telephoto lenses. In my understanding, when a lens manufacturer claims apochromatic correction, he means that he made an extra effort to correct the longitudinal chromatic aberration and other monochromatic aberrations. The lateral chromatic aberration, on the other hand, probably underwent considerable correction, but not necessarily to the point where this aberration becomes negligible.
Interestingly, there are lenses that are definitely not apochromatically corrected, but nonetheless have negligible lateral chromatic aberration. This is the case of symmetrical or almost symmetric lenses such as those using the Double-Gauss scheme.
To show what I'm saying, I took some photos with my 300m Super Takumar and two other lenses which have focal lengths closer enough to 300mm. One such lens is the CZJ Biometar 120mm F2.8 working in conjunction with a 2x teleconverter, so the effective focal length becomes 240mm. The Biometar is a 5-element Double Gauss lens with reasonable overall aberration correction and a very high intrinsic correction of lateral chromatic aberration. However, due to the use of the teleconverter, the overall image quality in the corners is rather poor, but the chromatic aberration remains practically negligible.
The Super Takumar is of a conventional design and the lateral chromatic aberration is quite visible, but the overal image quality is still quite good, mainly because the opening was closed by two stops.
The Sigma APO produces a picture of excellent quality even wide open, but it is still possible to notice some lateral chromatic aberration.
The camera was a FF 24MP Sony and except for exposure, no other PP corrections were made.
CZJ Biometar 120mm F2.8 at F5.6 plus Komura MC7 II - upper left corner - 100% crop:
Super Takumar 300mm F4 at F11- upper left corner - 100% crop:
APO Sigma 400mm F5.6 wide open- upper left corner - 100% crop:
_________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1301 Location: Conwy N Wales
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
Interesting comparisons, stevemark and gerald _________________ pentax ME super (retired)
Pentax K3-ii; pentax K-S2; Samsung NX 20; Lumix G1 + adapters;
Adaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4.
Primes: takumar 55mm; smc 28mm, 50mm; kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro; Jupiter 11A; CZJ 135mm.
A classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
thanks @ Gerald!
I was aware about the APO definition of "three colors being focused at the same focal plane", but i was not aware that this doesn't mean necessarily "good correction of lateral CAs" as well.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|