View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
kiddo wrote: |
Hi Steve, have you had chace to test all these lenses ? I'm still waiting to get a proper landscape zoom ,.and not really wanting to try way to many of them ,thank you. |
Yes, I have done the tests - however I really got pissed off (sorry for the language) by the constant bashing of certain people here. It's quite a lot of work ...
1) to search, find and acquire the lenses (and get the money to do so)
2) to shoot the test images (usually several times, since often the light is changing during a test session)
3) and to present the results in a meaningful way
For time being, I have stopped publishing further test results here on mflenses.
I occasionally may publish small comparisons of two or three lenses, but otherwise I will publish elsewhere.
S |
Sad to read that. I was always happy with your contributions. |
Me too! _________________ "I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1126
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
I hope youll change your mind , as this is the best international forum on manual lenses , that I know , all the info someone could find inside is very valuable , and you have a portion of that contribution , i agree that not necessarily all have to be happy regarding your tests , but who said families always need to agree on everything?
We all agree there's no perfect lens ,lenses are more expensive than 10-15 years ago (manual lenses), availability of some of these lenses are very low (in my case MD70-150 etc, not to mention so many others ), so definitely more info we've got on lenses ,much better to learn . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Don't mind me although I think your corner tests are largely useless for what I am looking for in lenses. But I guess this is about a certain British national with decidedly un-British sensibilities. Must be a regional thing. _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
flavio81
Joined: 20 Mar 2022 Posts: 35 Location: Lima, Peru
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
flavio81 wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
kiddo wrote: |
Hi Steve, have you had chace to test all these lenses ? I'm still waiting to get a proper landscape zoom ,.and not really wanting to try way to many of them ,thank you. |
Yes, I have done the tests - however I really got pissed off (sorry for the language) by the constant bashing of certain people here. It's quite a lot of work ...
1) to search, find and acquire the lenses (and get the money to do so)
2) to shoot the test images (usually several times, since often the light is changing during a test session)
3) and to present the results in a meaningful way
For time being, I have stopped publishing further test results here on mflenses.
I occasionally may publish small comparisons of two or three lenses, but otherwise I will publish elsewhere.
S |
I've registered here essentially to be able to interact with you ,so that would be a sad loss.
Your tests are immensely valuable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2023 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Which one, the 4.5/80-200?
I had one, sadly with a broken aperture. My copy was a mediocre lens, sharp with decent contrast but lots of red fringing. |
There are two versions of Tokina RMC 3.8/75-150mm. This one with sunken front element is better and worth considering: https://fotopro24.de/Konica_AR/8088-RMC_3_8_70-150_fuer_Konica_AR.html |
The Hoya is one of the sunken front element? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kathala
Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 129
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2023 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
kathala wrote:
Thanks for this interesting comparison Steve, and thanks for everyone's comments and perspectives!
My "expertise" is in FDs, so I'd like to add, for those interested
the 7o-21o/4 nFD over the 75-15o:
is still quite a bit cheaper (never paid more than a tenner for one)
is visibly sharper
has very small to non-existent sample variation (tested three samples; the 75-15o suggests much higher variation when comparing my own experiences (rubbish) as opposed to what I read about it by others who like it)
has an optimal aperture of f/8 at all FLs, where the 75-15o is f/11
the 7o-21o/4 nFD over the 8o-2oo/4 non-L:
was tested by a contemporary photo magazine, which found the 7o to be sharper and lighter, and called the 8o what it is: an anachronism, taken over from old FD.
-> apart from collector interest, avoid.
the 7o-21o/4 nFD over the 8o-2oo/4 L:
the L is a completely different, new design over the non-L. it is largely without CA, but not universally superior to the also-new 7o-21o.
I compared the two, and decided to stay with the 7o,
a) because of price
b) because of longer FL range
and finally the 8o-2oo/4 L over the Zeiss 7o-2oo/4
no personal experience, but saw a profound test years ago that found only academic differences, with the slightest edge for the canon.
you might also find some information and comments helpful in the FD/nFD lens list at
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1126
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2023 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
I'm interested in the canon L vs Zeiss 80-200 mm test, do you have the link? Most of the users of L Canon consider it on top |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2023 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
kathala wrote: |
Thanks for this interesting comparison Steve, and thanks for everyone's comments and perspectives!
My "expertise" is in FDs, so I'd like to add, for those interested
the 7o-21o/4 nFD over the 75-15o:
is still quite a bit cheaper (never paid more than a tenner for one)
is visibly sharper
has very small to non-existent sample variation (tested three samples; the 75-15o suggests much higher variation when comparing my own experiences (rubbish) as opposed to what I read about it by others who like it)
has an optimal aperture of f/8 at all FLs, where the 75-15o is f/11
the 7o-21o/4 nFD over the 8o-2oo/4 L:
the L is a completely different, new design over the non-L. it is largely without CA, but not universally superior to the also-new 7o-21o.
I compared the two, and decided to stay with the 7o,
a) because of price
b) because of longer FL range
|
My comments:
A good 70 150 is not inferior to the 70 210. Maybe a tad superior. You are right, sample variation is terrible with the 70 150. You need to have some luck.The 70 150 is already optimum at full aperture. The 70 210 needs f5,6 until 150 and f8,0 up to 210.
I prefer the 70 210 over the 80 200 L in the lower range of the zoom. The L is better at the longest end. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1471 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2023 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I'm pretty sure that Oly 70-150 is faulty,. |
Sadly, that lens really has not so very good reputation. I owned it once, but parted with it very quickly. _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2023 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
I'm interested in the canon L vs Zeiss 80-200 mm test, do you have the link? Most of the users of L Canon consider it on top |
I have been comparing the Canon nFD 4/80-200 L with the two Zeiss CY telezooms 3.5/70-210 and 4/80-200 on multiple occasions.
The Zeiss CY 4/80-200 is (for a vintage telezoom) extraordinarily sharp at f4, even at f=200mm. However, its lateral CAs are comparable to other good vintage tele zooms such as the Nikkor 4/80-200, the Minolta MD 4/70-210, the Canon 4/80-200 and 4/70-210, or the Leica 4/70-210 (detail resolution in the corners is better, though).
The Canon nFD 4/80-200 L does not have a better resolution than other common OEM telezooms from its time, but its color corection is much better. No lateral CAs at all in th 100mm range, and much less lateral CAs than comparable lenses at f=200. Stopped down to f8 or f11, the resolution issue is solved, and the Canon clearly gives better results than the Zeiss. Wide open, and lateral CAs corrected with softwar, the Zeiss 4/80-200 clearly is better. It's your choice ...
Of course a modern f2.8 telezoom outperform all these lenses. Even my 20 y old Minolta AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM at f2.8 (!) outperfoms the above vintage zooms at f4 o f5.6.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Of course a modern f2.8 telezoom outperform all these lenses. Even my 20 y old Minolta AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM at f2.8 (!) outperfoms the above vintage zooms at f4 o f5.6.
S |
Same is true for my even older Minolta AF 2.8/80-200 H.S. APO G _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kathala
Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 129
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kathala wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
I'm interested in the canon L vs Zeiss 80-200 mm test, do you have the link? Most of the users of L Canon consider it on top |
they have a point, but it's academic
it was on dpreview, where most images posted (now?) seem to be gone. all I could find was this, which is not the test I remember, and of limited relevance being only the corners of one focal length. it's true that the CY has more even across-field sharpness, whereas in the centre, the FD is better, but the difference is academic.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4116734
the creator seems to have been AdaptedLenses.com, which however appears to also be down.
here, someone shot some chicken
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4089669
scroll down for some leaves
... _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|