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

Four 70-150mm lenses compared with Zeiss CY 80-200mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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. Crying or Very sad


Me too!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 .


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2023 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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?


PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2023 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2023 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2023 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2023 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2023 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2023 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2023 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3