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: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:21 pm    Post subject: Question wich 200mm'ish walk around lens to get? Reply with quote

I would like to hear your opinions on this. Thing is that i've been using a hexanon 135/3.2 on my Lumix G5, Wich to my mind is a very good combination for a walk around tele-lens. Now I've upped my camera to a fuji X-T1 and are looking for something similar, 300mm'ish equivalent focal length. Problem is get the hexanon features, Sharp, small, light, close focusing'ish, good colour and contrast. So What do i get instead??

I just tried a canon Fdn 200/4 on a mountain trip, and it is really hard to focus right with the short throw between infinity and 20 meters, ad to that, a very light throw.

I find around 300mm equivalent length my limit when shooting handheld. Maybe I should try something shorter??

Suggestions??

Kjell


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

try Olympus Zuiko 200mm/5 . it's smallest 200mm lens i know


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats a good start! How are the other features? Sharpness, colour, etc? I find no reason to go fast on these lenses since I need enough dof to manage to get focus right.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

here you can see samples i made with Olympus e-520 and Olympus E-M5 so judge for yourself
http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-my-lenses-part-37-olympus-200mm-5-t38525,highlight,%2Btesting+%2Blenses.html


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Tele Takumar 5.6/200 is good too, if f5.6 is not an issue


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:
The Tele Takumar 5.6/200 is good too, if f5.6 is not an issue


+1 super sharp


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick1779 wrote:
Aanything wrote:
The Tele Takumar 5.6/200 is good too, if f5.6 is not an issue


+1 super sharp


+1 lightweight, small


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The tamron adaptall 04B 200mm f3.5 is sharp and handles beautifully - great focus action and throw. Not particularly close focussing - 1.7m, larger than the adaptall 70/80-210mm zooms, but not bad. Only caveat - bit prone to PF. No problem getting a mount for pretty much all dslr's. The 300's are also good but this is more than a stop faster and more versatile.

Last edited by marcusBMG on Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

200mm f4 - f5.6 lenses in general all light weight and good enough from any well known vendors, Meyer, Nikon, Takumar, trully no matter all good.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will look a little further with the lenses you propose. I've done a little testing myself before going for the the canon fdn200mm. I tried the hexanon 200/3.5 and 200/4 and a vivitar 200/3.5(komine). The canon was better. Now I now that there is always sample variation that can twist things a little, but have any one compared the suggestions above with the canon?

I sometimes read about the vario-sonnar 100-200mm. Could it be an alternative? i really dont know how big they are.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read a lot about leica 180/3.4 it beeing the ultimate. How big is it? I probably can't afford it, only dream of it. still.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having no experience with them, couldn't really advise on any of the mentioned lenses. The only MF 200 I have is the f/3.5 Sears. I love it but it's clunky and probably inferior to the FD Canon.

Since what I was going to suggest is a bit unorthodox, in order to avoid prejudice, I decided to share a few samples instead of revealing the name in advance. Let me know if these meet your expectations or you're looking for something better:

Canon 60D, 1/250, ISO250 (the results would probably be a bit sharper at ISO100), setting sun as light source on the first two






PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Am I the only fool that thinks a heavy long FL lens is a good thing ?
Steadier to handhold and dampens vibration.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
Am I the only fool that thinks a heavy long FL lens is a good thing ?

No, you are not. I even still like my old Vivitar series 1 (Kiron) for that. Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kjell: After going back and reading your post again, I've concluded that nothing I have would meet those requirements. Of the several 200mm lenses I have, there is fast, short focus, sharp, small, light, and inexpensive, but not a single lens I have is all of that. I can't speak about Canon or Nikon because I haven't had those. However, among the ones I have, I can offer the following...

Vivitar 3/200 Series 1: Fast and my sharpest, very short minimum focus and excellent build quality. Heavy and not real cheap.

Vivitar 3.5/200 Komine; Good lens, but doesn't perform on Series 1 level.

Sankyô Kôki Komura 3.5/200 Preset: Excellent colors; good sharpness; great bokeh; good build quality; heavy, long minimum focus, and not as easy to focus. Prices vary greatly. Many bladed diaphragm.

Meyer Optik Görlitz Orestegor 4/200: Very good sharpness and bokeh; decent build, sexy name, long minimum focus, inexpensive. Many bladed diaphragm.

Minolta MD Rokkor 4/200: 1st MD version. My most recent purchase. Light, good build, sharp from f/4, Minolta colors. Long focus, prices vary.

Kashimura Dianon 4.5/200: Good sharpness, bokeh, and light, but long. Long minimum focus. Rare, but fairly inexpensive. This lens is probably better than I have given credit. Many bladed diaphragm.

Topcon 5.6/200 RE Auto-Topcor: Light, small, well built, a tad sharper at wide open than Rokkor and minimal CA. Has a reputation of being the least impressive among the highly rated Topcors, but in my experience it is better than that. Long focus. Inexpensive. If it were only faster...


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Kjell: After going back and reading your post again, I've concluded that nothing I have would meet those requirements. Of the several 200mm lenses I have, there is fast, short focus, sharp, small, light, and inexpensive, but not a single lens I have is all of that. I can't speak about Canon or Nikon because I haven't had those. However, among the ones I have, I can offer the following...

Vivitar 3/200 Series 1: Fast and my sharpest, very short minimum focus and excellent build quality. Heavy and not real cheap.

Vivitar 3.5/200 Komine; Good lens, but doesn't perform on Series 1 level.

Sankyô Kôki Komura 3.5/200 Preset: Excellent colors; good sharpness; great bokeh; good build quality; heavy, long minimum focus, and not as easy to focus. Prices vary greatly. Many bladed diaphragm.

Meyer Optik Görlitz Orestegor 4/200: Very good sharpness and bokeh; decent build, sexy name, long minimum focus, inexpensive. Many bladed diaphragm.

Minolta MD Rokkor 4/200: 1st MD version. My most recent purchase. Light, good build, sharp from f/4, Minolta colors. Long focus, prices vary.

Kashimura Dianon 4.5/200: Good sharpness, bokeh, and light, but long. Long minimum focus. Rare, but fairly inexpensive. This lens is probably better than I have given credit. Many bladed diaphragm.

Topcon 5.6/200 RE Auto-Topcor: Light, small, well built, a tad sharper at wide open than Rokkor and minimal CA. Has a reputation of being the least impressive among the highly rated Topcors, but in my experience it is better than that. Long focus. Inexpensive. If it were only faster...


If we are taking about f4 and slower, I think we should also include any zooms that have similar size and or as good IQ.
Like the FDn 80-200/4L which has picked up some popularity thanks to [url=" Phillip Reeve"]http://www.flickr.com/photos/birnenbaumgarten/sets/72157629349634442/[/url]

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.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Lightshow wrote:


I just received 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.

My Topcor R 135/3.5 is my favorite 135mm lens, it's razor sharp wide open, so it will be what I compare the 200 & 300 to.
I was shooting handheld and I was a bit shaky today, but I could tell it wasn't up to the same level as the R 135/3.5 wide open, just how much? I will have to get back to you on that, and it was getting too dark to stop it down much. It felt like it was sharp, but didn't have the resolution the 135 has, oh well, I'll have to revisit the 300.
The R 200/4 was what I was hoping for, immediately I could tell it was as good as the 135, which is to say that it is very sharp from wide open, it will hard not to want it if I need 200mm.

Every time I use my better Topcor lenses, I always get a little sad, Topcon walked away from the camera business, and they were easily one of the top lens makers in the business, as good as Leica and Zeiss.
I really would have liked to have seen what they could do with multi-coated lenses and a modern bayonet mount like Minolta's MC/MD.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
woodrim wrote:
Lightshow wrote:


I just received 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.

My Topcor R 135/3.5 is my favorite 135mm lens, it's razor sharp wide open, so it will be what I compare the 200 & 300 to.
I was shooting handheld and I was a bit shaky today, but I could tell it wasn't up to the same level as the R 135/3.5 wide open, just how much? I will have to get back to you on that, and it was getting too dark to stop it down much. It felt like it was sharp, but didn't have the resolution the 135 has, oh well, I'll have to revisit the 300.
The R 200/4 was what I was hoping for, immediately I could tell it was as good as the 135, which is to say that it is very sharp from wide open, it will hard not to want it if I need 200mm.

Every time I use my better Topcor lenses, I always get a little sad, Topcon walked away from the camera business, and they were easily one of the top lens makers in the business, as good as Leica and Zeiss.
I really would have liked to have seen what they could do with multi-coated lenses and a modern bayonet mount like Minolta's MC/MD.

Hi, James. How is your Topcor 85? It will be nice to see your photos before I try my own copy.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jupiter 21M may be good for you, not very heavy and sharp wide open, the IQ is about 80-90% of my Canon EF 200/2.8 L. The only limitation is the f4, so normally I can't use this lens right before the sunset. Other choices are FD 80-200 f4L if you don't mind zoom lens. This lens actually changed my impression with zoom lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
Am I the only fool that thinks a heavy long FL lens is a good thing ?
Steadier to handhold and dampens vibration.


No, I am with you on that one. I had the Rokkor 250/5.6 mirror lens but sold it to fund another lens, reason beeing it became to unstable to
shoot handheld.

Thanks Woodrim, I did have the vivitar komine 200/4 and found it a bit lack luster. Seems to me I should try the topcor.

And how about these 80 - 200mm zooms. If I understand it correct they become bigger but minimum focus distance is shorter.
The canon FL is suggested. Anyone tested the vario-sonnar?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Texsport