80-200 Class Zoom Comparison. Feel Free to Add Yours.

[cooltouch]

Okay, I went out yesterday and shot comparison photos with eight lenses that fall within the 80-200 or 70-210 class of zooms. I've ended up with 70 photos, so now the challenge is -- how do I show the results without totally overloading this thread with images. I haven't figured out an answer to that yet.

The lenses I tested were:

Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9
Canon nFD 80-200mm f/4
Canon nFD 70-210mm f/4
Nikon AI 80-200mm f/4.5
Tamron 19AH SP 70-210mm f/3.5
Tamron 30A SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD
Tamron 103A 80-210mm f/3.8-4
Tokina 70-210mm f/4-5.6 SD

With each lens, I took photos at its widest setting (either 70mm or 80mm), 135mm, and its longest setting (either 200mm or 210mm). I took photos at each lens's widest open aperture, at f/8 indicated, and at f/16 indicated. So this meant 9 photos per lens. The reason why I have 70 instead of 72 is I managed to miss a couple of shots. Oh well.

The camera was my NEX 7. I used adapters for Canon, Nikon, and Pentax K to use the eight lenses. I did not make any post-conversion (from RAW to jpg) adjustments to any of the images, other than size reduction to 1500 x 1000 for viewing here. As you can see in the image below, it was a dull, overcast day. So shadows are soft, but then so is contrast and saturation, too. You'll just have to take that into account.

The subject of the test is a rather interesting looking piece of architecture located a couple of miles from my house. It's, as near as I can determine, a Vietnamese Catholic cathedral. An interesting example of East meets West. My point of focus was one of the structure's dragon gargoyles. Actually, for the first couple or three lenses I tested, at their widest setting, it was the cross on top of the cathedral. These two -- or maybe three -- lenses were the two Tamron SP lenses and the Tamron 80-210. So an inspection of the cross rather than the gargoyle might be appropriate when checking out their 70mm and 80mm shots.

Here's a photo of the cathedral. This one was taken with my NEX 7 and its 18-55 kit lens.


It's barely visible in the above shot, but what makes this structure an example of East meets West are the stained glass windows. You can barely see some of the stained glass in the front and side windows in the above pic. Later, when it gets dark, they turn on interior lights, which show the stained glass off very nicely.

I don't know how else to do this comparison other than just showing what I got. So I think what I'll do is make several posts, each one containing nine photos, which will be the complete array for each lens. Stephan from Switzerland (stevemark) has expressed an interest in participating in these tests. He has some very nice zooms in this general range, so I hope he can provide us with some good photos. This is also an open invitation to anyone else who would like to participate, who has one or a few or many zooms in this focal range. The more the merrier.

I will be showing my lens results in alphabetical order, so the Albinar is up first. Oh, and I didn't know about the dirt on my sensor until I got home. Oh well. I didn't feel like cloning it out.

[miran]

Will be interesting to see. You could make a few collages with crops to fit everything nicely into one thread. And perhaps dump the full pics to flickr or somewhere.

Btw, there must be something seriously wrong with your kit lens. I had one and it wasn't nearly as horrible as this.

[cooltouch]

First up is the Albinar. It's a Korean-made zoom with a constant, moderately fast maximum aperture of f/3.9. It also has a typical 1:4 macro mode, which does a good job at close-up photography. This lens was my very first zoom. I bought it back when I was a total noob at photography, and I didn't really appreciate the sort of difference a quality lens can make in one's photos. Fortunately for me, this Albinar actually turned out to be a quite respectable lens. If you're interested in acquiring one, I've seen copies on eBay selling for as little as $6. That, my friends, is a very good deal for this lens.

I feel I should point out that Albinar has marketed at least two different 80-200s. This one is the first one. They came out with a later one that was more compact, but had a variable aperture -- f/4-5.6, I think. Stay away from that one. The one with the max aperture of f/3.9 is the one you want. They are very plentiful on eBay.

Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9, NEX 7 @ ISO 100:

@ 80mm f/3.9


135mm f/3.9


200mm f/3.9


80mm f/8


135mm f/8


200mm f/8


80mm f/16


135mm f/16


200mm f/16

[jamaeolus]

I had the 18-55 and this is a good example of how poor it performed. I sold it after the first photo session.

[Oldhand]

Well done that man - a labour of love indeed.
Thank you.
To shorten up the results a little you could probably just post the wide open and f8 results. I wouldn't expect the lenses to improve in definition at f16 over f8
We can most likely expect a slight loss of definition at f16 from diffraction, and f8 will be around the lenses sweet spots.
Just a suggestion and might save some space
Thanks again Michael
Tom

[cooltouch]

Tom, that's pretty much the received wisdom when it comes to lenses in general. But in a few cases here it isn't. That Albinar is one example of a lens that doesn't seem to suffer from diffraction losses at smaller apertures.

jamaeolus, I was rather disappointed in my 18-55's performance as well, so I went and looked at the EXIF data. 1/1000 sec at f/4, ISO 100. You know, about the only thing I use that lens for is snapshots and other inconsequentials. I haven't ever given it any sort of thorough workout. But still, it has performed better than this in other situations. And the only thing I can point to is the f/stop. It was zoomed to 29mm, and the f/stop was recorded as f/4. Given that it's a variable aperture zoom and the zoom's setting, this means it was shooting wide open at that setting. So I guess it's pretty obvious that the Sony 18-55 is less than a stellar performer when shooting wide open.

But the topic of this thread is NOT about my Sony zoom. I included that photo for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. And I will write no more about it. I hope I'm being fairly clear.

[Lloydy]

That doesn't look bad at all. Those images would polish up nicely. But Albinar is a brand I'd probably walk away from....and I'm cheap, I buy any old crap from charity shops. Perhaps I need to lower my standards a bit?

Keep em coming, this is looking interesting.

[cooltouch]

Next up is the Canon nFD 80-200mm f/4. Canon produced this lens for a number of years. It started life as a breechlock SSC lens then made the transition to nFD where it continued for some years longer. As I've mentioned before, Canon appears to have regarded this lens as more of a professional model, since they continued to produce it after they came out with their 70-210mm f/4. Not only that, but the 80-200 sold for more than twice what the 70-210 sold for. These days, however, it is easy to find the Canon 80-200 on sites like eBay for very good prices. Just a couple weeks ago, I bought my copy from an eBay seller for $25, including shipping. That, my friends, was a good deal.

But how well does it perform, and how well does it stack up against the 70-210? Well let's find out.

The details: NEX 7 @ ISO 100, Canon nFD 80-200mm f/4.

80mm f/4:


135mm f/4:


200mm f/4:


80mm f/8:


135mm f/8:


200mm f/8:


80mm f/16:


135mm f/16:


200mm f/16:

[cooltouch]

The Canon 70-210mm f/4 was marketed as an amateur optic, but it's actually a very good performer. If you compare its photos with those from the Canon 80-200mm f/4, I don't think you'll find much of a difference. I don't.

The Details: NEX 7 @ ISO 100, Canon 70-210mm f/4:

70mm f/4:


135mm f/4:

210mm f/4:


70mm f/8:


135mm f/8:


210mm f/8:


70mm f/16:


135mm f/16:


210mm f/16:

[luisalegria]

The Canon 70-210 seems quite good.
You are testing in difficult light - not a worst case, but I wouldn't like it.
Which is probably good for this sort of test.
A really good lens might be able to extract some contrast and tones from this.

As for "Perhaps I need to lower my standards a bit?"

If I lower mine any further ....

[cooltouch]

Yes, Luis, the weather has been consistently dreadful -- in terms of seeing that is -- for the past several days. I'll be tempted to do a reshoot whenever this awful overcast burns off. Dunno when that'll be though, so I just decided to go with what I had.

I'm thinking now about doing some 100% crop comparisons. And maybe even cleaning my camera's sensor! Can you spell "glutton for punishment" boys and girls? Good, I knew you could!

[cooltouch]

Okay, up next is the venerable old Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5 -- now, this lens came in two different versions. From what I've read, the second version has a rectangular rear baffle, which mine has. So this is v2.0, which is supposed to be a bit better than the original. My copy also has a problem that is very common for this lens -- zoom collar slippage. This lens's zoom collar slips so easily that I was concerned it wouldn't stay put for the photos I was taking, since I had to point it up at a slight angle. But it stayed put, thankfully.

The details: NEX 7 @ ISO 100, Nikon AI 80-200mm f/4.5.

80mm f/4.5:


135mm f/4.5:


200mm f/4.5:


80mm f/8:


135mm f/8:


200mm f/8:


80mm f/16:


135mm f/16:


200mm f/16:

[jamaeolus]

Thanks Michael for the detailed comparo.... I love these things. I have done a few and they are very time consuming so I'm just letting you know your efforts are APPRECIATED.

[cooltouch]

jamaeolus, if you have any lenses that fall within this classification that you'd like to add to this comparison, feel free to do so.

Next up is the Tamron 19AH SP 70-210mm f/3.5. This is a highly respected lens, claimed by the author at adaptall-2.com to outperform the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 optics. Unfortunately I don't own any of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210s, so I can't determine myself if his assessment is accurate. But here it is compared to the ones I do own, at least.

Details: NEX 7 @ ISO 100, Tamron 19AH 70-210mm f/3.5:

70mm f/3.5:


135mm f/3.5:


210mm f/3.5:


70mm f/8:


135mm f/8:


210mm f/8:


70mm f/16:


135mm f/16:


210mm f/16:

[cooltouch]

The next lens is one of my all-time favorites -- the Tamron 30A SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. This is a big and heavy lens. Good thing it comes with a tripod mount. I've mentioned this on the forums before, but I'm gonna go ahead and mention it again because it is noteworthy. If you visit adaptall-2.com and call up this lens, check out the Modern Photography resolution and contrast numbers. Then go over to the listing for the 63B SP 180mm f/2.5 LDIF, and take a look at the resolution and contrast numbers there. Now, there is a comparison there between the 63B and the Nikon AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED lens. Please note the numbers for the Nikon lens. Now, go back and look at the numbers for the 80-200/2.8 @ 200mm. They are almost identical, aren't they? They look as if they could have come from two different copies of the same lens. Now, I used to own a Nikon 180/2.8 ED and I know first hand just how great that lens was. So when I saw that the Tamron 80-200/2.8's numbers at 200mm were virtually identical to those of the Nikon 180/2.8 ED, my search switched from a reasonably priced Nikon 180/2.8 ED to this Tamron zoom. I found one at KEH in "BGN" condition for about $100 cheaper than what the Nikon was selling for. Reason for the BGN rating? The zoom collar slips slightly. So what. So I bought it and I've been very happy with its performance.

But anyway, the question before us now is, how well does this Tamron stack up against all the other zooms? Well, let's take a look.

Details: NEX 7 @ ISO 100, Tamron 30A SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD:

80mm f/2.8:


135mm f/2.8:


200mm f/2.8:


80mm f/8:


135mm f/8:


200mm f/8:


80mm f/16:


135mm f/16:


200mm f/16:

[Lloydy]

I've got a few to have a go with, but please don't hold your breath waiting for my review of this disparate bunch of lenses.

M42
Soligor CD 70-210mm f3.5
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5

Minolta AF
Minolta AF Macro Zoom 70-210mm f4
Tokina SD 70-210mm f4 / 5.6

Interchangeable Mounts
Tamron 46A 70-210mm f3.8 / 4
Tamron 46A 70-210mm f3.8 / 4
Tamron SP 19AH 70-210mm F3.5
Tamron BBAR Z-220 70-220mm f3.8
Tamron BBAR Z210 Macro 85-210mm f4.5
Vivitar. Close Focus Auto Zoom. TX Mount 90-230mm f4.5

Contax Yashica
Sun 80-240mm f4 ( Dead - fungused )
Yashica ML 80-200mm f4

Minolta MD
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f2.8 / 4
Tokina AT-X SD 80-200mm f2.8 ( Dead - hazed )

Canon FD
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f2.8 / 4
Auto Steinheil 100-200mm f5.6

Olympus OM
Miranda MC Macro 70-210mm f4.5 / 5.6
Kenlock Mc.tor 80-205mm f3.9

Pentax PK
SMA Pentax F 70-210mm f4 / 5.6
Vivitar Macro Zoom 70-210mm f4.5
Miranda MC Macro 75-200mm f4.5 / 5.3
Vivitar 80-200mm f4

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

Stephan, whatever you'd like to supply that will give an indication as to your zooms' performance, sounds good to me.

I've been thinking about a way to better illustrate the differences. Problem with the photos I'm providing is they don't show enough close-up detail. So, I've been kicking around the idea of 100% crops. Dunno if I should do it with these photos or perhaps a different set altogether, though. I'm leaning toward the latter. I have a favorite subject for testing my lenses' recording of small detail, but 200mm is at the ragged edge I think. The subject works best with lenses that are 300mm and longer. I may have to take a few test shots to see how well it will work. Stay tuned. Oh, I also have more zooms to put up for view. I think I have two left.

[stevemark]

Just got a Leica R adapter, so i could add the Leica R 4/70-210mm.
If the weather is OK, tomorrow ...

[cooltouch]

Sounds great! You have some really nice glass, so I'm quite curious to see how yours perform.

You know, that cathedral is actually v2.0 of my comparison photos. The first set was of a giant oak tree in my backyard. Nothing but bark. I decided the subject matter was too boring. However, tree bark does show a great amount of detail, so now I'm wondering if maybe I shouldn't ought to show a few oak tree bark photos as well.

I can tell you this much from what I recall about scanning through those images. All the lenses performed well. You'd really have to pixel peep to find much of a difference. Which I think is somewhat surprising in itself.

BTW, glad to read you're feeling better!

[coase]

Stephan's lens collection seems excellent, and I would really like to see a comparison that includes a modern zoom. What little I've seen suggests that only the very best modern zooms are substantially better than the nFD 4L or the Contax 80-200. Many other differences are quite minor.

[stevemark]

Some vintage MF tele zooms at f=200mm - here are a few results from todays work. I re-ran the series three times, with different subjects, and obviously in very "boring" / low contrast light. Not very inspiring to look at, but the results are clear.

* Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L: at f11 best image quality of all five lenses
* Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar 4/80-200mm: at f4 best image quality of all five lenses
* Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L and Leica R Vario-Elmar 4/70-210mm: quite similar, the Leica being a bit sharper wide open and the Canon having slightly less CAs
* Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm (2nd computation): a bit soft corners, but very good contrast in the image center (not shown here).
Both the 2nd Ai 4.5/80-200mm and the later AiS 4/80-200mm Nikkor have a very similar construction, and both were calculated by Y. Hamanishi.
At least the AiS 4/80-200mm is known to be best at mid-close distances, not at infinity.

The Zeiss, about 8-12 years younger than the other computations, certainly has its advantages - f4 is fully usable, and CAs are relatively low. This lens performs very similar to the Minolta MC 4/200mm, and certainly better than most vintage non-ED 200mm primes.

The Canon 4/80-200mm L gives very "pure" colors - no color fringing at all, not even at f4. And stopped dowm to f11 the image quality becomes really good, even in todays terms. At f11, my Sony 2.8/70-200mm G has more CAs than the vintage Canon 80-200 L ...

CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE FULL SIZE, or go to my website:
http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/522-tele-zooms-at-f-200mm

[cooltouch]

Very good, Stephan. It looks to me like that old 2-ring formulation of Canon's (the 80-200mm f/4) comports itself very well against the other -- more premium -- optics. That Zeiss is remarkable though. Its corner sharpness at f/4 is almost as good as it is at f/11.

You're performing a valuable service here. I don't have a FF digital -- just the APS-C NEX 7 and an APS-C Canon with much lower resolution, so I couldn't evaluate corner sharpness even if I wanted to.

[coase]

[Antoine]

Stephan
Pity you did not include Minolta md 70-210 f/4 as one went for 9.99£ last night on ebay...
(is it same design as Leica R4?