View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
D1N0 wrote: |
But what is the best affordable 200mm lens? |
Most probably the Minolta MD 200mm/F4, particularly in the latest MD II or MD III versions. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla
Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 378
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
D1N0 wrote: |
But what is the best affordable 200mm lens? |
Most probably the Minolta MD 200mm/F4, particularly in the latest MD II or MD III versions. |
but put it in the category "affordable best 200mm lens". I have the somewhat heavier MD I, I paid 45 Euro excl. 7 Euro postage. _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
padam wrote: |
Minolta MD 200/4 (last version) is a very sharp lens, also very very light so great to handle.
OM 200/4 is also very good (not quite as sharp, but warmer colors and softer blur)
There are dozens of good ones out there (like Konica 200/3.5), we are splitting hairs here. |
The Minolta MC/MD 4/200mm in its first version (larger and heavier than the last version) is visibly better than most contemporary 4/200mm lenses i know, including the second (last) Minolta MD 4/200mm. Not only has it very little CAs, but also an incredible detail resolution, even in the Full Frame corners at f4.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3693 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
I bet you can make three Japan 4/200mm lenses out of Jupiter 21M glass. See design: http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_160.html
It is true Sonnar and obvious choice in category under 50 EUR. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I've shot with several vintage 200mm lenses, and I was most pleased with the results (and handling and build quiality) of the Takumar 200/3.5. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
I've shot with several vintage 200mm lenses, and I was most pleased with the results (and handling and build quiality) of the Takumar 200/3.5. |
+1 on that.
Canon FDn 4/200 is also a great lens and much much lighter, but the Takumar is truly a beaut.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1301 Location: Conwy N Wales
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
I have the tak 200mm f3.5, and the meyer optik gorlitz orestogor 200mm f4, both are good lenses. I have also just acquired and cleaned a pentax smc 200mm f4 (1st gen K mount), this is also clearly an excellent lens, sharp from f4, very little fringing. But limited focus range relative to other 200's that focus much closer than 2m.
It's interesting that the tak 200mm f3.5 is 4 element while the tak 200mm f4 is 5 element, the latter's optical schema looks the same as this K 200mm f4, however the spec isn't quite the same this lens has closer focus (2m vs 2.5m) than the tak.
Test pics pentax k3 (24MPx), consistent settings (default) export from LR3.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
_________________ 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 |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
So, after allÃ, which affordable lens is best? I would rank the one that's got a hood, if it's incorporated with the body,much better |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
So, after allÃ, which affordable lens is best? I would rank the one that's got a hood, if it's incorporated with the body,much better |
Maybe the question should be .... Which good lens is affordable?
The Canon FDn is still very cheap but not as cheap as it was a year ago.
I got mine for $15 which was about the going rate at the time - sellers couldn't give them away.
Of course very nice images have started to appear from mirrorless cameras and this lens so the price has risen somewhat, but that has happened with most lenses.
You have plenty of suggestions in this thread - search for sales of these and see what you can find
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Posts: 705 Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
I've always been partial to the Nikkor 200mm. It can be got pretty cheaply if you spend some time at it. I've got one sitting on my desk as I type this waiting for me to dismantle and clean up. A couple of shots with my Ai version.
_________________ "Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 400, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 25-50, 28-50, 28-70, 28-80, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
gaeger wrote: |
I've always been partial to the Nikkor 200mm. It can be got pretty cheaply if you spend some time at it. I've got one sitting on my desk as I type this waiting for me to dismantle and clean up. A couple of shots with my Ai version.
|
Yeah, Nikkors are usually pretty solid performers. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
So, after allÃ, which affordable lens is best? I would rank the one that's got a hood, if it's incorporated with the body,much better |
Lenses such as the Canon FD 4/200mm, the Konica Hexanon AR 4/200mm, the Minolta MC 3.5 and 4.5/200mm, the Minolta MD 4/200mm (second computation), the Nikkor Ai/AiS 4/200mm, and the Pentax M 4/200mm perform nearly identically.
Other lenses such as the Hexanon AR 3.5/200mm and the Canon new FD 4/200mm IF have slightly different image characteristics (e. g. more yellow/blueish CAs in the case of the Hexanon 3.5/200mm, instead of the common reddish/green CAs), but otherwise are comparable in detail resolution.
Visibly better (less CAs, better corner resolution at f4 and f5.6) is the first computation of the Minolta 4/200mm in both its MC and MD versions.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KEO
Joined: 27 Sep 2018 Posts: 756 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KEO wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
caspert79 wrote: |
I've shot with several vintage 200mm lenses, and I was most pleased with the results (and handling and build quiality) of the Takumar 200/3.5. |
+1 on that.
Canon FDn 4/200 is also a great lens and much much lighter, but the Takumar is truly a beaut.
Tom |
I've got a few 200s, but the main ones I use are the Orestegor 200/4 and the Takumar 200/3.5. I love the Orestegor, and it's the sharper of the two I think, but that Takumar 200/3.5 is something special. For some reason shooting with it is a joy, and I'm always looking forward to the next time I'll be using it.
It's probably my favorite Takumar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
I've found a 200mm Group test (in Dutch). Focus magazine March 1973:
Interestingly the Konica Hexanon AR 200 3.5 also seems to be a Sonnar. It is the heaviest in the test. All major camera brand options are very good. Nikon and Olympus (OM-1 variant) seems very impressive. The Nikon is the most expensive lens in the test. Another interesting fact is that the CFD of the Tamron (which was used as a reference lens in the test seems to be 1.5 meters. Much shorter than all the rest of them. (I've got a newer adaptamatic 200 3.5 that focusses up to two meters). _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
Thank you so much, this very valuable material . I've only own the Pentacon 200mm f4 in M42 , which i consider Sharp enough for portraits, for landscape, probably others listed previously,would do better. I wonder if you would have the Pentacon renderings to compare with others... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
Thank you so much, this very valuable material . I've only own the Pentacon 200mm f4 in M42 , which i consider Sharp enough for portraits, for landscape, probably others listed previously,would do better. I wonder if you would have the Pentacon renderings to compare with others... |
I have one but don't like it very much. Too soft and rendering seems unnatural. But it's coatings are in poor condition, very flaked of. I will probably need another copy :p _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
@D1NO: thanks man, this is gold! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
I have one but don't like it very much. Too soft and rendering seems unnatural. But it's coatings are in poor condition, very flaked of. I will probably need another copy :p[/quote]
Well,mine came with plenty of haze and rust on couple of blades,which cleaned pretty well (not like new,as it left some black colour in the blade,which doesn't botter me); i've noticed ,with haze was less sharp ,being my only 200mm ,I wouldn't know how to compare it , so ,using it in portraits ,and seeing details, it's enough for me to say it's sharp enough for my needs . It's focus it isn't it's best,so ,to be a pleasure to use,would need some relube. These GDR and Russian lens , have pretty much same issue of relube helical ,well my Minolta MD it's the same. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
After I've seen the good lens it is the Olympus OM200mm ,with less weight and among the best of the range in sharpness,I wonder how would you compare de olympus 300 from the same times . Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix
Joined: 30 Apr 2017 Posts: 292
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix wrote:
It's interesting that they show a 20cm F4 Nikkor-Q, the original formulation of the lens. The formula was changed early on, the Nikkor-QC 200/4 is better. I prefer the newer 5-element 200/4 Ai. I have all three. I also have the AF-Micro-Nikkor 200/4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
fiftyonepointsix wrote: |
It's interesting that they show a 20cm F4 Nikkor-Q, the original formulation of the lens. The formula was changed early on, the Nikkor-QC 200/4 is better. I prefer the newer 5-element 200/4 Ai. I have all three. I also have the AF-Micro-Nikkor 200/4. |
Which one you used most, having all.of these nikkors? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix
Joined: 30 Apr 2017 Posts: 292
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix wrote:
I use the compact 200/4 Nikkor most often. It's small and light, especially for a 200. It is as sharp as I ever need. If I need close-in work, the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 comes out. I have a lot of manual focus Nikon lenses, started buying them over 40 years ago.
That Auto-Vivitar 200/3.5 brings back memories- I had one in High School, took it when I saw Elvis Presley. I bought the lens and a Vivitar 283 for the concert. I took my High-School Girl Friend AND her Mom to it. Her Mom was a big fan of Elvis. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frenched
Joined: 16 Feb 2013 Posts: 394 Location: MD USA
Expire: 2014-06-17
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Mamiya sekor 200/3.5 sharpest 200mm is it? |
|
|
frenched wrote:
dr.volkan wrote: |
Today i use my old mamiya sekor 200/3.5
With my samsung nx3000 |
That's some very impressive IQ. Like it! _________________ "Lenses are to be looked through, not looked at."
--Carl Zess Technical Support
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
Did anyone take apart the gen III of this sx version? Recently got one with bented filter ring , and I suspect the whole inner ring would remove the front group , but I'm not sure ,besides it might be glued just as the 105mm 2.8 sx version. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1435 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
I own really a lot of 200mm lenses. Once I put all of them into the trial at infinity. Two of them were well ahead of all others:
Nikon 200mm f/4 AI-s Micro-NIKKOR
Contax Carl Zeiss Tele Tessar 200mm f/4 *T _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|