Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best manual fix 200mm to 300$
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:05 am    Post subject: Best manual fix 200mm to 300$ Reply with quote

Ask for advice. The best fix is 200mm(180мм) with a price of up to$300 (for Sony A7r). I had Tamron 04B, good but awful chromatic in the open. Examples are welcome. Maximum aperture from F2.8 more - F4.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While you will probably have to stretch your budget a bit past $300 to get one, my recommendation is the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 2.8/200.






Images taken with a Sony A7II.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Bronica Zenzanon-S 4.5/200 is an amazing lens, razor sharp at all apertures, it outclasses every 180 or 200mm for 35mm SLR I have tried.




PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you can find one the Pentax SMC K 200mm F2.5

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XSMC+Pentax+200mm+F2.5.TRS4&_nkw=SMC+Pentax+200mm+F2.5&_sacat=0


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nikkor ED 180/2.8

or

Minolta MD 200/4.0

Edited..


Last edited by calvin83 on Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the Nikkor and the Bronica is much better. The Nikkor is of course, much faster at f2.8, so unless you need the speed, the Nikkor isn't the best option.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
While you will probably have to stretch your budget a bit past $300 to get one, my recommendation is the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 2.8/200.



I've never really understood the pricing on some Minolta lenses! The MC/MD 200mm F4 is the same design (even more detailed with less CA, apparently) and very affordable and compact. In the case of the MC, it's really well constructed too. Unfortunately I think even spending a lot of money, unless the lens is APO/ED/LD designated then fringing can be expected (for lenses designed for 135 format). It's all about avoiding situations and lighting that presents CA - or simply removing it in post. For $300 I presume OP can get a pretty damn perfect 200/4 or 3.5 but will have to pay a lot more for a perfect 2.8 or faster. CA tends not to improve as a lens is stopped down.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Minolta MD 200/2.8 is few times more expensive than the F4 version when new. The second hard price tody is few times more expensive too. I would say the price is fair.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
The Minolta MD 200/2.8 is few times more expensive than the F4 version when new. The second hard price tody is few times more expensive too. I would say the price is fair.


It was almost 3x the price of the F4 and not a lot more than the 300/4.5. The F4 is easily found for under $50 now and the 300 for under $100. I'm sure not many 200/2.8's were made or sold, and certainly because it was only made in a single optical scheme without improvements so naturally the price is much higher, but there is not necessarily the value. Colour fringing is definitely a problem with many of the Minolta telephoto lenses - notably excepted are some of the earlier, more complex 135mm's with thick achromats. I suppose the later designs were too simple - in order to reduce cost/size/weight and maximise contrast and resolution - to sufficiently correct all CA with only one LD element. Others were definitely more specialised (and expensive) in this area - the MD lenses were very affordable at the time compared to most brands.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most vintage MF 180mm / 200mm lenses have some problems with CAs.
In addition, there are "ordinary" corner resolution problems. And, of course, the faster lenses tend to have more problems.

I have compared and used quite a few MF and AF lenses in that range.

Very good lenses with little CA and very good corners @ f4:
* Canon nFD 4/200mm IF (with two LD lenses; Abbe number 70; cheap, about CHF 50.--)
* Minolta MC and first (!) MD 4/200mm (cheap, about CHF 50.--; probably also LD glass, but i have no proof for my assumption)

Very good f2.8 lenses with little CAs:
* Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO (too expensive at about CHF 500.--)
* Nikkor AF 2.8/180mm ED (i got mine for about CHF 250.--)

The AiS Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED (not to be confused with the non-ED!!) should be excellent as well; it will be around CHF/USD 200.--. I have, however, never used this lens personally.

All other lenses i know (eg Canon FD 2.8/200, FD 4/200, nFD 2.8/200 IF, nFD 4/200 IF Macro, Minolta MC 4.5/200 and 3.5/200, MD 2.8/200, MD-II 4/200, Nikkor 2.8/180, Nikkor Ai 4/200, Hexanon AR 3.5/200 and AR 4/200, Pentax-M 2.5/200) have quite pronounced CAs and - often - also smeared corners when wide open.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can find a Canon EF 200/2.8 for $300.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konica 200mm f/3.5 is very sharp and reasonably cheap but is heavy and bulky.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raxar wrote:
konica 200mm f/3.5 is very sharp and reasonably cheap but is heavy and bulky.


CAs, however, are pretty visible! The Konica has an "Olympia-Sonnar-like" rendition, and blueish-yellow CAs, while the majority of "convetional" 200mm lenses (with a positive triplet group in front plus a pair of negative/positive lenses in the back) usually has red-green or magenta-cyan CAs.

I doubt whether it is better than the Tamron mentioned by the OP.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CA is not a problem with the Hexanon 3.5/200 in most situations:



PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Most vintage MF 180mm / 200mm lenses have some problems with CAs.
In addition, there are "ordinary" corner resolution problems. And, of course, the faster lenses tend to have more problems.

I have compared and used quite a few MF and AF lenses in that range.

Very good lenses with little CA and very good corners @ f4:
* Canon nFD 4/200mm IF (with two LD lenses; Abbe number 70; cheap, about CHF 50.--)
* Minolta MC and first (!) MD 4/200mm (cheap, about CHF 50.--; probably also LD glass, but i have no proof for my assumption)

Very good f2.8 lenses with little CAs:
* Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO (too expensive at about CHF 500.--)
* Nikkor AF 2.8/180mm ED (i got mine for about CHF 250.--)

The AiS Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED (not to be confused with the non-ED!!) should be excellent as well; it will be around CHF/USD 200.--. I have, however, never used this lens personally.

All other lenses i know (eg Canon FD 2.8/200, FD 4/200, nFD 2.8/200 IF, nFD 4/200 IF Macro, Minolta MC 4.5/200 and 3.5/200, MD 2.8/200, MD-II 4/200, Nikkor 2.8/180, Nikkor Ai 4/200, Hexanon AR 3.5/200 and AR 4/200, Pentax-M 2.5/200) have quite pronounced CAs and - often - also smeared corners when wide open.

Stephan


Stephan has mentioned the Canon nFD 4/200mm IF
This is a wonderful, light and cheap lens with excellent results.
I highly recommend it as well
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about the humble Vivitar Series 1 200/3.0, if MF is OK with you. You should find one in a mount which can be adapted to your Sony.
Does OK with close-ups too.




PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My recommendation is clearly the Leitz Telyt 200mm/F4 which I introduced here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-telyt-200mm-f4-visoflex-m39-version-t76697.html
Should be easily available within your budget and is adaptable to almost every camera.
More details in the link I've provided and a comparison with some other 200mm lenses is here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/200mm-lens-comparison-leitz-minolta-topcon-pentax-t76831.html


PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did not expect such activity. ) All thanks. All proposals will be considered.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both the MD I 200 mm f4 (not the small one) and the MD II 200 mm 2.8.

The f 2.8 advantages are:
- min focal distance 1.8 meter versus 2.5 meter
- Depth of field at 2.8, low vignetting at f 4.0
- 1 stop means faster
- 400 mm f 5.6 with 300 s
- 8 blades versus 6 better bokey

The f 4 advantages are:
- Lighter (520 g versus 700 g) and less voluminous (55 versus 72mm)
- Very cheap versus reasonable price (135 mm f 2.0 costs 3 times more than 200 2.8 and weighs 725 g albeit shorter)
- Less CA (not that different in most conditions)

Both quite sharp... if focused properly

I use the 4 for travelling (back from ski) and the 2.8 for portraits and/or locally


Last edited by Antoine on Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might consider a zoom lens, also. My experience is with a Canon nFD f/4 80-200mm L that produces really nice sharp, contrasty images with a good sense of depth. It's in your price range and you get some other focal lengths thrown in.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

folderholder wrote:
You might consider a zoom lens, also. My experience is with a Canon nFD f/4 80-200mm L that produces really nice sharp, contrasty images with a good sense of depth. It's in your price range and you get some other focal lengths thrown in.


The nFD 4/80-200mm L is in fact a very good zoom. At f=200mm, this lens has less CAs than all the mentioned MF lenses, including e. g. the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED. Distortion is visible in the 200mm range, and detail resolution is not perfect, especially in the corners and in the f4 ... f5.6 range.

For landscape images, this zoom is really a great lens.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arrived Canon nFD 200mm F4 ($30) and immediately tried. wide open (A7R)



PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sergun wrote:
Arrived Canon nFD 200mm F4 ($30) and immediately tried. wide open (A7R)



Told you it was good.
Well done - these are excellent results.
In my opinion this has to be the best value 200mm lens available anywhere at the moment
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

In my opinion this has to be the best value 200mm lens available anywhere at the moment


Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta MD 200/4 (last version) is really small and light, too. CA control better than the MD 200/2.8 and it is cheap.
But if you need closer minimum focus, then the nFD 200/4 can't be beaten.

APO-Lanthar 180/4 still reigns supreme in every way (sharpness, compactness, MFD) but it is crazy pricey.

I really don't know why they aren't considering remaking it, it would be much higher in demand compared to the 65mm f2 Macro.