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

Help with 300mm
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Top, Tamron 300 / 5.6
Bottom. Chinon MC 300 / 5.6. A very under rated lens



PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Antoine on Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:14 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).


PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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:


PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting comparisons, stevemark and gerald


PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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