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

Question wich 200mm'ish walk around lens to get?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Topcon RE Auto Topcor 5.6/200. Stunning lens, sharp as a laser, supremely well built.


5.6 oder 4.0 ?, because i found only the 4.0 with my search.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want something compact , I can recommend you the Super Takumar 150/4 . It fits good even small cameras and focusing is a joy.
I have also the Rokkor MD 200/4 version 2 which is quite light . I think less than 500g. It performs well too though focusing is stiff compared to the Takumar. I think that for those long tele lenses the easiness of focusing is an important criterium of choice.

About the Jupiter 21 , it is a very good lens indeed ...certainly made with the same steel used for soviet armoured vehicules.
Almost 1kg ! My Tak 3,5 which is big , weights "only "750g. Focusing is also very long with this soviet beast.

Most of those lenses require some CA correction in PP.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you want something long, heavy and 180mm ?
Try a Sonnar 180mm f2.8 or better a Jupiter-6 180mm f2.8... Very Happy


Else, Soligor 200 f3.5 or Orestegor 200


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Lightshow wrote:


I just recieved my Topcor R 200/4 & 300/5.6 lenses and am going to try them out.
I really like my Topcor R 135/3.5 as a walk around lens, no sharpness issues.


I'll be interested in seeing the Topcor 5.6/300 shots, and also hearing your opinion on it. I have one and have not fallen in love with it.

I shot it again today, handheld and full support, it's nowhere near as good as my other Topcor lenses, stopping down didn't improve anything. Sad I'll up the best picture.

calvin83 wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
I haven't used it a bunch, other than to check it after getting it back from the CLA.
Yeah, it's typical Topcor, very sharp wide open, and some CA, much like the RE 58/1.4.
I will get some pics up soon.

I see. Look forward to your photos with the 85.

I also brought the RE 85 with me, easily my best 85, I really should use it more. Pics to come.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Belcanto wrote:
Thanks for all the Suggestions.

Are there 180mm alternatives??

Kjell



How about the CV APO-Lanthar 180.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about Mamiya Sekor C 210mm F4 (Medium Format Lens). It is sharper than my other Mamiya Sekor Auto 200mm F3.5 (M42) on DX sensor but the focusing is better on M42 lens.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

another small, cheap and very good option: the Soligor 3.5/180 (you can also find it as Hanimex)

http://forum.mflenses.com/soligorkomine-180-3-5-t7998.html


PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wolfhansen wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Topcon RE Auto Topcor 5.6/200. Stunning lens, sharp as a laser, supremely well built.


5.6 oder 4.0 ?, because i found only the 4.0 with my search.



Ian's was a Topcor "RE" 200/5.6 which was known to be really nice.
Lightshow's was a Topcor "R" 200/4 which was quite scarce.
The one you found was probably a Topcor "UV" 200/4 which was mostly useless on digital. Sad


Back to the topic, currently my favourite 200ish lens is the Sigma APO Macro 180/5.6. Very good if you are ok with the plastic construction.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tao wrote:
wolfhansen wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Topcon RE Auto Topcor 5.6/200. Stunning lens, sharp as a laser, supremely well built.


5.6 oder 4.0 ?, because i found only the 4.0 with my search.



Ian's was a Topcor "RE" 200/5.6 which was known to be really nice.
Lightshow's was a Topcor "R" 200/4 which was quite scarce.
The one you found was probably a Topcor "UV" 200/4 which was mostly useless on digital. Sad


Back to the topic, currently my favourite 200ish lens is the Sigma APO Macro 180/5.6. Very good if you are ok with the plastic construction.


I agree, that was probably the UV model - stay away. An RE Auto Topcor 5.6/200 can be had cheap if you're patient enough. I'd love to try the R 4/200, but don't see them show up.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

texsport wrote:
Vivitar Series 1 200/3 is a good, compact choice.

Texsport


I reported on this but didn't recommend it since it didn't meet the UP requirements as I understood them. I wouldn't consider it a compact due to its rather large diameter and weight. However, nothing I've used ha equaled it in performance.

Here's a wide open from last evening in setting sun. NEX-5N and Series 1 3/200:


PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will agree with woodrim on the Vivitar 3/200.
It must be one of the closest focusing 200mm lenses around at 1.2m.
But it is not small or light (c800g)
It is however hard to find and is expensive as it is much sought after.
IMHO there is an alternative for image quality if you don't mind the weight (c750g) and the fact that it does not focus so closely (MFD <8feet)
I am suggesting the Mamiya Sekor 645 4/210. Of course you will also need an adapter.
BUT the lens is very very cheap, and for the IQ it gives - unbeatable value.
Here is one example
OH




PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding the size and weight of the Vivitar 200/3, I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Since I regularly walk around with 3 cameras strapped to me, often with big teles, and even medium format cameras - I consider the 200/3 smallish.

It's my favorite compact lens attached to an OM- D for baseball games, where new security regulations limit the length of the lens you can bring.

Texsport


PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it's relative.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
I will agree with woodrim on the Vivitar 3/200.
It must be one of the closest focusing 200mm lenses around at 1.2m.
But it is not small or light (c800g)
It is however hard to find and is expensive as it is much sought after.
IMHO there is an alternative for image quality if you don't mind the weight (c750g) and the fact that it does not focus so closely (MFD <8feet)
I am suggesting the Mamiya Sekor 645 4/210. Of course you will also need an adapter.
BUT the lens is very very cheap, and for the IQ it gives - unbeatable value.
Here is one example
OH




OH, I presume you have the 3/200? I'm wondering how the Mamiya does at f/4 in comparison. I recently tried a highly regarded Rokkor 4/200, but found it to be not as sharp as the 3/200 Series 1.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just purchased a Soligor 2.8/200. Not small or light. I couldn't resist the price, but don't expect it to match my 3/200 S1.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
I just purchased a Soligor 2.8/200. Not small or light. I couldn't resist the price, but don't expect it to match my 3/200 S1.


Yes, I have the Vivitar and it is as good as you say.
I should do a comparison I suppose with the Mamiya.
I can't recall the aperture for the sample shot that I posted, but it may well have been at f4
Here is one at full aperture from the Vivitar.
Despite their quality, I don't think that these lenses are what the OP is after.
They both miss out in the small and light stakes. Very Happy
OH



PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice one.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally like Tamron SP 19AH 70-210mm F3.5. It is slightly large for my A7 but matches well with most of the SLRs.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice timing OH.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful!!
I think i'm getting more and more confused. Problem with getting a larger sensor in this case is getting smaller dof, wich is a nice thing to have when trying to do manual focussing. Otherwise most normal 200 have got a closest focus distance of 2.5m. All 2.8 weigh aboout 8oograms. There is CA lurking everywhere.
And it seems that lenses with internal focussing has a very short throw at the long end. And that includes most zoom lenses? Nikons throw is going the wrong way. Wink And the best one's are very expensive....

The cannon fd 200mm f4 SSC has 1.5m mfd. Haven't read a lot about it though.
The super takumar 150mm haven't escaped yet.

This might take time....


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meyer Optik Görlitz Orestegor 4/200 is a nice little lens weighting 594gr and having 16 blades iris.

The closest range in my 200mm lenses is the Jupiter-21 M with 1,80m.
Really a bargain.

Among the zoom lenses, Angenieux 3.5/70-210mm is a great lens. Min focusing distance is 1.00m, lens diameter is 62mm, weight 768gr.
Great but not cheap...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
Nice timing OH.


Thanks everyone for the kind words.
I wish I could say that I caught this leaf as it was falling, but my reflexes and focusing ability are nowhere near that good.
It was hanging by a single spider thread - trouble was it wouldn't stop spinning Very Happy
OH


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Nice timing OH.


Thanks everyone for the kind words.
I wish I could say that I caught this leaf as it was falling, but my reflexes and focusing ability are nowhere near that good.
It was hanging by a single spider thread - trouble was it wouldn't stop spinning Very Happy
OH


I don't see the spider thread...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RAART wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Nice timing OH.


Thanks everyone for the kind words.
I wish I could say that I caught this leaf as it was falling, but my reflexes and focusing ability are nowhere near that good.
It was hanging by a single spider thread - trouble was it wouldn't stop spinning Very Happy
OH


I don't see the spider thread...


Yes I was pleased that it didn't show, as it gives the leaf the illusion of falling.
OH


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
RAART wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Nice timing OH.


Thanks everyone for the kind words.
I wish I could say that I caught this leaf as it was falling, but my reflexes and focusing ability are nowhere near that good.
It was hanging by a single spider thread - trouble was it wouldn't stop spinning Very Happy
OH


I don't see the spider thread...


Yes I was pleased that it didn't show, as it gives the leaf the illusion of falling.
OH


Yes, it does please the photo but not the lens. The lens should resolve the spider thread... Just saying.