200mm Lens Comparisons: 4 + a Ringer

[cooltouch]

OK, I stated in the thread I started on the Canon New FD 200/2.8 that I would perform a test on the 200s I own. Those lenses include the aforementioned Canon nFD 200/2.8, a Canon nFD 200/4, a 200/4 Micro-Nikkor, and a Vivitar 200/3.5 (made by Komine). I also decided to toss in a "ringer," namely my Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD, mostly because I bought it when I realized its resolution and contrast numbers very closely corresponded to the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED @ 200mm -- according to the published Modern Photography magazine numbes shown at adaptall-2.org.

It's been raining off-and-on all day today, so I decided to set up my tripod on my front porch, under an awning so the equipment wouldn't get wet. I managed to time things right, however, in that the rain decided to take a break for the test. I chose three subjects: the mailbox at the street in front of our house, a stop sign down the street, and an emblem on a pickup truck parked in the neighbor's driveway. Distance to the mailbox is approximately 8 meters, about 110 meters to the stop sign, and about 10 meters to the pickup truck.

First, I'll show full frame images of the three subjects, followed by combined crops at specified apertures. The camera used was a Sony NEX 7, set to ISO 100. It was tripod mounted for all exposures. The only PP performed on the images was translation from RAW to jpg format. All three of the full frame images were taken with the Canon 200/2.8 set to f/8 and then reduced in size for viewing here.

The three full-frames:




Okay, next I decided to show a few comparisons between the only two 200/2.8s here -- the Canon and the Tamron zoom set to 200mm. These are all 100% crops. The Canon is on the left, the Tamron on the right. In the thread on the Canon nFD 200/2.8 I mentioned how this lens is prone to pronounced CA. Well, here you can see it pretty clearly in the first shot especially. Gobs of the stuff. Note also how well controlled the Tamron is by comparison -- it's LD element is performing well. It's showing just a bit of blue fringing. To my eye, sharpness and contrast is just about identical with the two lenses.





Next, we have comparisons showing all five optics together, all crops at 100%. I took these shots at f/4, f/8, and f/22 only.

At f/4, except the Vivitar, which I shot at f/3.5 by mistake, and was too lazy to go back and fix things.


At f/8:


At f/22:


Comments:

At f/2.8, the Canon and Tamron behave equivalently in terms of sharpness and contrast. The Tamron does show better control of CA than the Canon. Wide open, the Canon shows pronounced purple fringing, whereas the Tamron shoes blue fringing, but it's much less. It bears mentioning as well, that every subject I chose here was just about guaranteed to produce CA with any lens that tends toward it. Hard, contrasty lines, separating light and dark areas are the worst, I've found.

At f/4, all lenses except for the Vivitar are approximately equivalent in image appearance. The Vivitar reveals very strong blue CA and it was much softer at f/4 (well, f/3.5 actually) than the others. The Nikkor showed a trace of red CA, whereas the Canon 200/4 showed quite a bit of purple CA. The Canon 200/2.8 also showed some purple CA, but it was well-controlled. The Tamron showed a hint of blue fringing.

At f/8, there are differences, but they're more subtle. Again, the Vivitar is the standout. It still isn't as sharp as the others, but it exhibits much better color saturation than the others do. Regarding saturation, the Nikkor and Canon 200/2.8 are approximately equal with the next best saturation, followed by the Tamron, and trailed by the Canon 200/4. Regarding CA, I examined the border of the stop sign. The Vivitar shows a pronounced amount of green fringing and the Canon 200/2.8 also shows traces. The other three show negligible amounts, IMO. Sharpness is very close with all four lenses, but I'd have to give a slight edge to the Canon 200/4, followed by the Tamron 80-200/2.8, with the Nikkor 200 and Canon 200/2.8 bringing up the rear. The differences are very slight, however.

And finally at f/22, softness due to diffraction is becoming evident, except for -- surprise, surprise -- the Vivitar. Its sharpness is equal to that of the Micro-Nikkor 200mm, which one would expect to retain a good deal of sharpness even at small apertures, it being a macro lens and all. It appears that I got a bit of camera shake with the Canon 200/4, and I'd have to say that the Tamron zoom just edges out the Canon 200/2.8 at f/22. Really, I'm splitting hairs between all of them, they're all so close. I can detect no CA at this aperture.

So, my final judgements are that, at f/4 and beyond, with the exception of the Vivitar, the other four optics are essentially on par with each other. The differences are very minor. But here's the thing: I performed no post processing to these images of any sort. So with a bit of regular enhancement, I would be able to use any of those four lenses with excellent results. So I guess the bottom line is, if money is a concern, go for the nFD Canon 200/4 -- or equivalent. Chances are the Nikon 200/4, Minolta 200/4, Pentax 200/4, or Oly 200/4 will be just as good. But if you're shooting mirrorless and you're looking for something lightweight and compact, then I'd definitely give the nod to the Canon nFD. It's probably the smallest, lightest 200mm you're gonna find.

[calvin83]

The result is pretty much expected. If you can don't need the DOF and extra stop of light, slower lenses just works as good as the faster one.

P.S. The Tamron is a very well performer, it just works as good as the primes.

[TrueLoveOne]

I am a bit surprised about how well the Tamron performs against some highly regarded optics! That is a good lens.

Nice test, thanks for sharing!

Cheers, René.

[anktonio]

Great comparison and comments. I like more these real life comparative than the DxOMark.
Thank you very much for sharing.
Happy shots!

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

Thanks for you feedback, Stephan. You have a nice selection of premium 200mm lenses! It's good to see that your results essentially agree with mine.

Because I was using an APS-C cropy body camera, I did not comment on corner sharpness, since it wouldn't be appropriate. Other than your comment that the Minolta was the best vis a vis corner sharpness, how would you say that most of the lenses you tested performed in this regard? Was there a lot of variability, or not?

[stevemark]

There are differences in corner sharpness on 24MP FF.

The MC/MD 4/200 (1st version) clearly has more details than all the others mentioned here (only the AF 2.8/200 APO being visibly better). But before saying more, i'd have to check the original test images again, otherwise i might spread some nonsense

Stephan

[iangreenhalgh1]

[stevemark]

[uhoh7]

Michael, I can never tell a thing at that range. It's amazing how you can really sort long lenses with an infinity shot.

Here's my nikkor 180/2.8 AIS ED:

North Wind by unoh7, on Flickr

It was windy, so not perfect, but if you peep a shot like this the smallest variations in performance are pretty easy to see.

[cooltouch]

Hey uhoh, if you're referring to the stop sign shot as an infinity shot, I'd have to say "not quite." I used both the NEX's focus peaking and 11.7x magnification to insure best focus with each lens.

That's a magnificent shot you took with your Nikkor 180 ED. I really like that little tuft of snow flurry clearly visible on the crest. I would have loved to include a Nikkor 180 ED in this comparison, but I don't own one anymore. Plus, as mentioned previously, I included the Tamron zoom since its MP numbers @200mm so closely matched those of the Nikkor 180. I wouldn't mind, though, for my own personal edification, doing a head to head test against those two lenses, just to see if those MP numbers really hold up.

I've posted this image before, but I can't resist doing it again, probably my favorite image taken with h my old Nikkor 180 ED:



That shot was taken with an F2 and Fujichrome 100 film back in about 1992. Now, what I've always liked so much about that shot, besides Garfield of course, is the fact that you can count the rivets in that A6's canopy and fuselage and practically read the fine print on the ejection seats. A film shot that rivals a good digital one, in my view.

[Koen Nhz]

Thank you cooltouch for this very informative test!
You got me kind of 'scared' though, I had just won a local auction for the FD 200mm 1:2.8 S.S.C. when you posted this, and I already had an FD 80-200 1:4 S.S.C. (non-L), so I thought this new lens wouldn't stay very long..
But i have to say that I think I like it a lot after my first test, I admit, the (nowadays) very cheap 80-200 also has much less CA than the prime, but the prime seems much sharper to me (but the €19 zoom might have a problem at 200mm, it's very very sharp at 80-135mm imo)

Small album withe the 80-200 f/4: https://flic.kr/s/aHskw4K5Yi

These are 2 full resolution unedited (except for the copyright) ooc jpg's from the 200mm f/2.8 prime, first wide open, second f/4:


24Mp: DSC00533_f28_copyright by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr


24 Mp: DSC00534__f4_copyright by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

You can see the CA, it clears up a bit on stopping down, but not all of it, this lens seems to have LoCA and LaCA at the same time wich seem to amplify each other in some situations, but most of the time it seems just fine to me with a lovely rendering and great contrast, resolution and bokeh.

A small album from the first day with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHskwi7Tgi

And a couple of samples (#5 is stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6, the rest is wide open I think):







#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9 this one is with the Canon FD extender 2x-B and I think the lens was wide open

[WNG555]

Remarkably good FD 200 f/2.8. The shot of the workers has a lot of 'pop'. I wish my AT-X 80-200 f/2.8 SD could do so well.

[Koen Nhz]

Thank you!
I think this lens is best at longer focus distances, where it can give great pop indeed, it seems to give quite good "3D" feeling to me which I find one of the most important things in rendering.
At MFD, which isn't very close at 1.8m anyway, the CA gets a bit worse and sharpness is reduced a bit too.

[Gerald]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Koen Nhz]

[Gerald]

[cooltouch]

Koen and Gerald, thanks very much for adding photos and commentary to this thread. Koen, it looks like that 200 SSC is a keeper. Fantastic sharpness. About your 80-200 -- yours is the 2-ring zoom, right? You know, back in the day, that was a very expensive zoom. When Canon came out with the nFD 70-210/4 in the 80s, they continued to produce the 2-ring 80-200/4, but it sold for something like twice as much as the 70-210. So yours is far from being a cheap zoom. Heh. I just had a look on US eBay though and wow! Quite a few of them selling for cheap. I'm so tempted!

Gerald, your comments and photos have rekindled my interest in the CZJ 200/2.8 Sonnars. They were on my list of considerations when I ultimately decided on a Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 LD instead of just a straight 200mm or 180mm. I've really enjoyed the Tamron -- and the tests I showed here give a good idea why. But still, I feel that familiar LBA calling again. BTW, how would you compare the Contax 180/2.8 (with Contax/Yashica bayonet) to the CZJ?

[Gerald]

Michael,

Your Tamron SP 80-200 F2.8 LD is a great lens. Much more versatile than any prime 200mm F2.8.

The CZJ is a very good lens, mechanically and optically.
Once I had to regrease my copy, and I got the impression that it is an eternal if properly maintained.
Its biggest shortcoming is the weight, almost 1200g, i.e. 50% more than a typical 200mm F2.8.

About the Contax 180mm F2.8, I have no experience with it, but as far as I know it is a good lens but not exceptional.
It is not heavy and focuses down to 1.4m, which is very good for a 180mm lens.
The site slrlensreview.com did a good review of the Contax 180mm F2.8. You may want to take a look at the samples.
Despite the Contax 180mm having a floating element to improve image quality for close focusing distances,
sincerely I was not too impressed by the photo below, where nothing appears really sharp even at F8!

Contax 180mm F2.8 at F8:

EDIT: The picture above is a downsized version for the sake of better presentation of the texts. To see the original image in its full glory, follow the link:
http://slrlensreview.com/web/images/stories/galleries/cz-sonnar-180mm-f28cy/dof/fdof2-cz-sonnar-180mm-f28cy-iso400-s100-f8-180mm.jpg

About the CZJ Sonnar 200mm F2.8
The CZJ Sonnar 200mm F2.8 uses an optical formula that is not too suitable for close-ups or macro photography.
The photo below was taken wide open and 2.2 meters, which is the minimum focusing distance of the CZJ Sonnar.
The focus was on the rose facing the lens.To evaluate the sharpness, look at the fine details: threads and fabrics of the rose.
The result is not spectacular, but IMHO it is a little better than the Contax 180mm.


CZJ Sonnar F2.8 at F2.8 and 2.2m on Sony A99V - full image:



CZJ Sonnar F2.8 at F2.8 and 2.2m - 100% crop:

[Koen Nhz]

@ Gerald: thank you for your elaborate answer regarding CA and east vs west lenses, your explanation seems very plausible!
And also for the diagram, I couldn't find one for this FD lens, I thought Canon camera Museum used to have them next to specifications, but apparently not anymore.

What you said about zooms versus primes: I still like the quality of some primes better (and the weight), but a tele-zoom is more convenient indeed, for wide to normal lenses I almost never miss the ability to zoom, but for tele, 200mm is often a bit too much (or not enough of course )

About your close-up shot with the Contax 180mm F2.8 at F8: are you sure this is not just movement blur, I noticed that on my Sony I need much faster shutter speeds than on my old 40D dslr (with about the same pixel density) and certainly with longer heavier lenses, for 200mm I try to keep it above 1/400 at least and even above 1/800 if possible, but still, yours seems to be on the edge at 1/100?

@ cooltouch: Your welcome and thank you, the sharpness surprised me a bit, in a good sense, and this lens handles very nicely, it feels much lighter than 700g, especially compared to the (only 50g heavier) 80-200 f/4 SSC wich doesn't balance so well on the A7 imo.

This is my 80-200: http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/fd190.html, it's the 2 ring zoom indeed, I knew it was a very expensive lens when it was new, it costed more in 1976 (100.000 yen) than the 80-200 f/4 L costed in 1985, In fact I think that even translates to more money today than the new 70-200 L lenses?!
But my sample had been waiting in the second hand window of this local shop for more than 3 months at the price of €19, 2 FD 70-210 sold for about €30-€35 in the same time..
The SSC focuses down to 1m btw, so it gives almost 1:3 macro at 200mm!



But I think there is a problem with mine perhaps, there are some (probably almost harmless) small dents in the front glass, but perhaps they came from falling right down on it, because if I look inside the lens from behind and focus on the edges of one of the front group lenses there seems to be a light reflecting ring almost al the way around it, like all of the edges were crumbled off (only like half a mm or so), or perhaps it's the start of separation, or something else, I don't know, but I don't care too much for the price I paid, but wonder how good it might be in perfect state. Below +- 135mm you can't see this edges, when you look through the lens from behind and it give very nice results to about that same focal length, so this might be the reason.
I tried to take a few pictures of it a few days ago, it's not very clear, might try it again with more light..

#1


#2



It seems harder than I thought to find a really good 200mm lens, I used to have a 70-200 f4 IS on my 40D (and still have it, somewhere in it's box in a closet) but never really liked it.
One of the best I ever used (and also still have) is an AF Sigma 70-300 APO macro II, very cheap, nasty plastic lens, but very very good image quality from 70-270 mm! But not fast of course (in any meaning, AF, f-stop)

I think the 200 SSC is going to get used a lot, but it's not the best close-up either, the CA becomes more pronounced and sharpness reduced a bit, and 1.8 m MFD could be a bit closer.. but I guess there is always the ability to crop from further, that might work better than extension tubes on this one..

Finally one more (full 24Mp) photo with the 2x-B extender, wide open I think, so 400mm f/5.6:


full 24Mp DSC00700_copyright by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

It's not the best picture, might have been better if her head was in the sun, but I was quite surprised by the resolution, look at the eyes or hairs on the ears, there is even some moiré at 100%, but of course also quite a lot of CA, but I think this should be removable in PP if you know how to..

[Gerald]

[Pontus]

I can't help but wonder how the Contax 100-300 would fare against the competition in this thread at 200mm.

[cooltouch]

Pontus, your wondering made me wonder about a couple of zooms I own. I realized I own two zooms that zoom out to 300mm that contain special glass: I have a Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 AF D ED and a Tokina 100-300mm f/4 SD lens. So I decided to do a quick little test. This isn't meant to be thorough at all, but at least gives a glimpse of their capabilities. And I'm sure your Contax will probably score just as highly if I had one to try here.

So, I found a nice yellow rose blooming beside our house, dragged out a stout tripod and took these two lenses, along with my Tamron 80-200/2.8 LD -- as a control -- and got busy.

I used my NEX 7, set to ISO 100 and I set each zoom to 200mm and f/8. The point of focus was those tiny yellow thingies in the center of the rose. It appears the Tokina's zoom collar slipped a bit because its image is noticeably larger. I didn't notice this until I was back at the computer, though, and I wasn't gonna go reshoot over this small difference.

In the following images, no PP was done other than resizing for comparison here. The first image was shot with the Tamron and is shown just to give you the entire frame. The second image is a composite of the three lenses, all set to f/8. As you can see, they are all tack sharp and there isn't really a dime's worth of difference between any of them.

[Pontus]

Interesting. But I can't say that I'm surprised about the Tokina. I had the AF version and it was wonderful, some PF though if I remember correctly. Another sleeper (also AF) is the Sigma 100-300 which is absolutely top notch.