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

200mm F2.8 what's the choice?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
If it doesn't have to be an f/2.8 and an f/3.5 is fast enough, you should try to get hold of a Russian Telear-N 3.5/200. Very, very good lens and not too expensive (it's hardly known).

+1 look forward your success with Vivitar Series 1


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Recent Series 1 sales on ebay have been $114 to $220 depending on mount and condition.

What camera will be used with this lens? If you have any difficulty, pm me. It can be challenging to focus precisely and camera sensor, focusing aids make a big difference.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok.. seems the $200 (shipping included) will be ok then.. no steal, but ok


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have owned the following:

Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8 IF
Nikon AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED
Tamron 180mm f/2.5 LDIF
Tamron 80-200mm f2.8 LD

The Tamron 180/2.5 takes top honors but is outside your budget. The Canon 200/2.8 is sharp and contrasty, but you have to be careful how you use it because it exhibits very strong CA in certain situations. I consider the Nikon 180/2.8 and the Tamron 80-200/2.8 to be equivalent optics in terms of sharpness and contrast -- both lenses are excellent. Better than the Canon 200/2.8, and almost as good as the Tamron 180/2.5. You should be able to find clean examples of either one for less than your $400 limit. Personally, I recommend the Tamron 80-200/2.8 over the Nikkor. It's about the same size and weight, but it is more versatile, thanks to it being an adaptall-2 lens and the fact that it's a zoom, it has a tripod mount, wheres the Nikkor does not, and it is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the Nikkor, which is to say, excellent.

Last edited by cooltouch on Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My votes would have been:
Nikon 180/2.8 ED (ED AF Version works well with MF btw.)
Leica Elmarit-R 180/2.8 (II-Version only)
Zeiss 180/2.8 for Contax

All are optically very good and prices okay (200-400€)


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
First shoot by Vivitar Series 1 200/3

full open @F3


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
100% CROP



PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, I take it that you settled on the Vivitar S1 200/3, eh? An excellent optic, as your photo shows. Somewhat soft in contrast, but given it's wide open, that's nothing to complain about, plus the mild bit of softness is nothing a touch of the Curve function in PP won't cure. Most important, though, the sharpness is excellent. I suspect that, if you wanted to, you could probably figure out what that guy inside his apartment is reading, over in the top of the image, just right of center. Or the guy in his rattan chair one floor below him -- might be able to pick out a headline in his newspaper, eh? Looks like you did well.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another vote for Nikon AIS 180/2.8 ED, probably Pentax 200/2.8 ED is a great lens too, although I never used it personally.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wrong guy, cooltouch. Not OP, but another poster with recent S1 purchase. Nevertheless, pretty decent results I think.

This lens is the first MF lens I bought when I started doing this digital/mf thing. I couldn't use my Rokkors at the time, so went about targeting the lenses that I had always wanted, or the ones I was learning about here. I have had a lot of experience with this and other S1 lenses and can offer some thoughts from that experience.

My very first image from the Series 1 200/3 was scary bad. I had taken it wide open, the subject had a bright spot against a dark area, and the blue CA was overwhelming. I learned rather quickly that focus was difficult on my Sony A200 prism, the lens needed very precise focus, and CA was evident in the usual situations even stopped down some. I noticed that the better I got at focusing, the less CA, I also noticed that a precisely focused image was razor sharp. I learned also that f/3 was only usable in even, dim lighting. Still, I was getting wonderful images after a little post processing and I didn't mind working for it. But then I got a NEX-5N and the world changed.

The NEX-5N sensor seemed to make an incredible difference with this, and other lenses. This told me how much a sensor influences results. It also made me wonder about all our lenses reviews - are they really lens reviews, or lens/sensor reviews? Anyway, suddenly I could use the S1 wide open, even in bright daylight (within limits of shutter (1/4000 sec)). I started getting very sharp images wide open and CA became negligible and only in extremes. What a difference a sensor makes.

I recommend using the lens within its focusing range rather than at infinity. I think it does fine at infinity, but I'm always suspicious of infinity with adapters. I don't believe you can be certain a lens reaches infinity unless it goes past, allowing you to come back to perfect. Only a very slight amount of focus movement can make a big difference, so if your infinity stops that little bit before perfect, it can fool you into thinking it's adjusted properly.

Once you get some practice with this lens, and now with the focusing aids offered by many cameras, it will give some really great results. I see that the OP has a Sony A7, so I expect the sensor to perform as well or probably better than the NEX, and the focusing aids will be excellent. I look forward to seeing the FF results.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Wrong guy, cooltouch. Not OP, but another poster with recent S1 purchase. Nevertheless, pretty decent results I think.


??? HKG Started this thread.

woodrim wrote:

[ . . . ] I have had a lot of experience with this and other S1 lenses and can offer some thoughts from that experience.

My very first image from the Series 1 200/3 was scary bad. I had taken it wide open, the subject had a bright spot against a dark area, and the blue CA was overwhelming. I learned rather quickly that focus was difficult on my Sony A200 prism, the lens needed very precise focus, and CA was evident in the usual situations even stopped down some. I noticed that the better I got at focusing, the less CA, I also noticed that a precisely focused image was razor sharp. I learned also that f/3 was only usable in even, dim lighting. Still, I was getting wonderful images after a little post processing and I didn't mind working for it. But then I got a NEX-5N and the world changed.

The NEX-5N sensor seemed to make an incredible difference with this, and other lenses. This told me how much a sensor influences results. It also made me wonder about all our lenses reviews - are they really lens reviews, or lens/sensor reviews? Anyway, suddenly I could use the S1 wide open, even in bright daylight (within limits of shutter (1/4000 sec)). I started getting very sharp images wide open and CA became negligible and only in extremes. What a difference a sensor makes.

I recommend using the lens within its focusing range rather than at infinity. I think it does fine at infinity, but I'm always suspicious of infinity with adapters. I don't believe you can be certain a lens reaches infinity unless it goes past, allowing you to come back to perfect. Only a very slight amount of focus movement can make a big difference, so if your infinity stops that little bit before perfect, it can fool you into thinking it's adjusted properly.

Once you get some practice with this lens, and now with the focusing aids offered by many cameras, it will give some really great results. I see that the OP has a Sony A7, so I expect the sensor to perform as well or probably better than the NEX, and the focusing aids will be excellent. I look forward to seeing the FF results.


Hey Woodrim, I've gone through your post and "bolded" some of your comments for emphasis.

Although you didn't really come out and say so, it sounds to me like your early culprit wasn't the S1 lens but the A200's prism and quite probably its sensor as well. I'm reminded of my cheap Canon -- it doesn't even rate a prism. It has a porro-mirror arrangement, which is inevitably dimmer than a prism. Canon makes up for the dimness by installing an overly bright focusing screen -- one that limits manual focusing capabilities to f/3.5 and dimmer lenses. It is impossible to manual focus accurately with a Canon like mine when using fast lenses that are stopped wide open -- of apertures f/2.8 or larger.

As for your sensor, this only reminds me that in the digital world, cameras are no longer light-tight boxes that hold film to which you mount lenses on the front. The sensor and its image gathering routines play a significant role now in image capture. So, yeah, it doesn't surprise me that, when you switched to a NEX you saw a big improvement in the capabilities of your older lenses.

You bring up an excellent point with regard to our reviews of lenses. When I review a lens, I am painfully aware of the limitations of my camera's sensor, it having only 10.1 mp. I've reviewed enough lenses, however, to suspect that my camera's sensor is quite neutral in areas such as adding CA to an image or reducing contrast. I get some CA with cheaper lenses, but with the better quality ones that are not supposed to exhibit much in the way of CA, I get precious little. So I feel fortunate in that regard. It also seems to be contrast neutral, as well. About the biggest problem I have is one that many if not most Canon users have who shoot with non-chipped MF lenses, and that is a meter that tends to overexpose due to lack of electronic feedback from the lens. Often I have to dial in as much as two stops of -EV to correct for this. But back to the point, when I test a lens it is usually to see how well it does at my camera's maximum resolution. And fortunately 10.1mp is often enough to demonstrate a lens's sharpness capabilities. I agree that there is more to a lens that should be examined than sharpness, but typically any other sort of characteristics it may exhibit, such as CA, for example, will show up as I'm testing for max sharpness anyway.

And finally, you mention adapters. Yes, the first thing I do when I get a new adapter is to check and make sure that it is focusing properly at infinity. Only a few of my lenses -- all of them telephoto primes save one -- my Tamron 200-500/5.6 -- focus beyond infinity. So it is quite easy to establish infinity focus with them. But the adapter is of very limited value if it can only be used on these long telephotos when shooting at infinity. So I check first my lenses that do not focus past infinity. I don't have very many adapters -- for EOS, just Nikon, Pentax K, and M42. Fortunately all three of these adapters achieve infinity focus. Ironically, the only adapter I have that falls short is a Nikon F to Canon FD adapter -- so I can mount Nikkors to my Canon FD film cameras. It falls just s smidge short. So that's rather disappointing. Fortunately I have only one lens in my Nikon collection for which I have no equivalent in my Canon FD collection -- my 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor. I have a nFD 100/4 macro and two 85mm FD lenses, one f/1.8 and one f/1.2 Aspherical, but no fast 100s. Fortunately, I have a Tamron 90mm f/2.5, so neglecting the slight difference in focal length I do have access to a lens that is every bit as good, if not better than the Nikkor 105. Oh, I almost forgot -- my Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 will give me 100mm at f/2.8, which is practically the same as the Nikkor 105. Plus, given that this Tamron zoom is basically identical to the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED in terms of sharpness and contrast, it will still compete very favorably against the 105 prime Nikkor.

So anyway, all I'm getting at regarding adapters is that I guess you could say the better quality adapters coming out of China (in my case, the chrome plated brass ones) don't have problems achieving infinity focus.

Oh, you mention you've had a lot of experience with the 200mm f/3 and other S1 lenses. I'm curious, which ones you've had experience with? Me, I've had extensive experience with the S1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 varifocal zoom (I've shot many hundreds of slides with that lens, which is still my favorite wide-angle to short tele zoom), somewhat less experience with the S1 24-48mm f/3.8 zoom, and a bit less with the S1 70-210mm f/3.5 (first version). As a camera dealer, I have owned the S1 70-210/3.5 (second version), which has always interested me, but I sold it before getting to try it out, the S1 90-180mm flat field macro -- it also sold before I had a chance to try it out, a situation I still regret some 20 years after the fact -- and the S1 35-85mm f/2.8. The latter has always intrigued me because of its relatively fast constant aperture, but not enough where I'm willing to spend the amount that they typically sell for these days. And both the 135mm f/2.3 and 200mm f/3 have intrigued me as well. The photos I've seen from them are always very impressive.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Michael: Of course you are correct about OP HKG, my mistake. Thank you.

I cannot help you with any but the prime Series 1 lenses. Back in the '70s after buying my first zoom lens - I think a Soligor 75-260 if I remember correctly, I soon realized that I mostly shot it at full zoom. This told me two things; I like up close photography, and I'd be better off with a prime for better quality and lighter weight, smaller size. I've never revisited that decision, although for AF, as little as I use it, I do have two Minolta zooms.

Among the Series 1 lenses, I have only the 90/2.5 Macro; 135/2.3; and the 200/3. I am equally pleased with all three. I'm sure I can find better lenses among the more modern choices, but also at much higher price. For me, any gain in optical quality will be negligible and not worth the money difference. I am not in a search for the best glass ever, I'm very happy with excellent lenses that are bargains relative to my spending abilities.

The 90/25 macro is a legendary lens that commands relatively high prices today. I was fortunate to find a fine example with 1:1 adapter for $100. I found an ugly 135/2.3 with excellent optics for cheap at ~$60. And the 200/3 in excellent condition at $72. Prices are generally much higher today.

Instead of posting images here, I have just gone back to my post in "Best of Lenses" gallery and update there with my NEX shots. That seems the better forum for displaying photos from a particular lens. http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-200mm-series-1-f-3-0-m42-t40434.html


PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No love for the Canon FDn 200 2.8?

Wide open it performs beyond decent and I'd bet a beer, better wide open then anything on the OP list which was a specific design trait or quality long sought by Canon then and evolving into the usm af series lenses that followed, I've not found CA to be an issue on mine and I use it for landscapes very much because I believe landscapes are it's strongest suit, where many people use wides or normals in famous landscape scenes I love the way the FDn compresses scenes with it's well controlled spherical aberrations creating a more even/balanced front and rear out of focus effect that is consistent - a very subjective thing because it is taste based... (posted to add a positive for those researching this older topic on 200 2.8's)

(in bokeh some people prefer poorly controlled spherical aberration because it creates a broader array of out of focus area effects)

It's an ultimate bargain today, well used samples with great glass can be had for under $50 sometimes ($30 for mine from Creve Coeur Camera in St. Louis)

I started with a Spotmatic in the 70's graduated to Canon AF in the later 80's and was convinced Nikon was the way to go in the 90's and 00's into Digital, now in the teens I'm selling Nikkor and keeping old Takumars and Canons...partly because whatever people make popular today is exactly what I don't want, joining a herd as just another sheep among sheep


PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paid 300$ for my Minolta 200mm f 2.8 (can be found cheaper if patient). quite happy with it. Focuses down to 1.8 m, light enough, a bit of CA in contrasty photos. Have not tried any other brand so can only compare with f4.0 which is much much cheaper, a bit lighter (MI or II version), focuses down to 2.4 m and similar quality. f 2.8 allows great portrait with isolating subject and bokey is super and 8 blades.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 200mm 2.8 also. Some recent samples..
Near WO






Its better than my SMC tak 200mm f4, soligor 180mm 3.5 by a stretch. Like some have said some CA but not the worst and its hand holdable on the A7ii.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wildlight images wrote:
No love for the Canon FDn 200 2.8?

Wide open it performs beyond decent and I'd bet a beer, better wide open then anything on the OP list which was a specific design trait or quality long sought by Canon then and evolving into the usm af series lenses that followed, I've not found CA to be an issue on mine and I use it for landscapes very much because I believe landscapes are it's strongest suit, where many people use wides or normals in famous landscape scenes I love the way the FDn compresses scenes with it's well controlled spherical aberrations creating a more even/balanced front and rear out of focus effect that is consistent - a very subjective thing because it is taste based... (posted to add a positive for those researching this older topic on 200 2.8's)

(in bokeh some people prefer poorly controlled spherical aberration because it creates a broader array of out of focus area effects)

It's an ultimate bargain today, well used samples with great glass can be had for under $50 sometimes ($30 for mine from Creve Coeur Camera in St. Louis)

I started with a Spotmatic in the 70's graduated to Canon AF in the later 80's and was convinced Nikon was the way to go in the 90's and 00's into Digital, now in the teens I'm selling Nikkor and keeping old Takumars and Canons...partly because whatever people make popular today is exactly what I don't want, joining a herd as just another sheep among sheep


It's worth noting you resurrected a pretty old thread. Here's a link to another recently resurrected thread, this one specific to the Canon 200/2.8:

http://forum.mflenses.com/vintage-canon-fd-200-2-8-on-nex-5-t58297,highlight,%2Bcanon+%2B200+%2B2+%2B8.html

And here's a more recent thread on the topic:

http://forum.mflenses.com/the-remarkable-canon-new-fd-200mm-f-2-8-t74403,highlight,%2Bcanon+%2B200mm.html


PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Macca,
Very nice pictures! Like 1 small


PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wildlight images wrote:
No love for the Canon FDn 200 2.8?

Wide open it performs beyond decent and I'd bet a beer, better wide open then anything on the OP list which was a specific design trait or quality long sought by Canon then

You might be wrong Wink. The Minolta MD 2.8/200mm performs nearly identical (resolution, CA) as the CAnon FD 2.8/200mm and the first version of the Canon nFD 2.8/200mm. The later IF version of the nFD 2.8/200mm seems to have a bit more problems with CAs. Oh yes, i did compare them "1:1" on the FF Sony A7II.

wildlight images wrote:

and evolving into the usm af series lenses that followed,
While Canon did have an excellent reputation for their nFD supertele lenses, the nFD 2.8/200mm was not extraordinary at all. The Nikkor ED 2.8/180 was better, for sure. And the Leica-R 3.4/180mm APO was better as well.

wildlight images wrote:
I've not found CA to be an issue on mine
CAs are an issue on both versions of the nFD 2.8/200mm. They are pretty strong, unless you shoot in monochromatic light (eg green forrests or pastures). Compare the nFD 2.8/200mm with an AF Nikkor 2.8/180 ED, and you'll see the difference: The Nikkor has nearly no lateral CAs (but quite a bit of purple fringing = longitudinal CAs). Take a Minolta AF 2.8/200 APO or a Leica 2.8/180mm APO, and you'll discover lenses that have neither longitudinal nor lateral CAs. The nFD is a nice lens, but the mentioned APO lenses are much better.

wildlight images wrote:
and I use it for landscapes very much because I believe landscapes are it's strongest suit, where many people use wides or normals in famous landscape scenes I love the way the FDn compresses scenes with it's well controlled spherical aberrations creating a more even/balanced front and rear out of focus effect that is consistent - a very subjective thing because it is taste based... (posted to add a positive for those researching this older topic on 200 2.8's)

I really like the 200mm lenses for landscape as well, along with my 2.8/20mm and maybe an 1.4/50mm.

wildlight images wrote:

It's an ultimate bargain today, well used samples with great glass can be had for under $50 sometimes ($30 for mine from Creve Coeur Camera in St. Louis)

Wow, that's really cheap Wink ... here they are usually in the CHF (USD/EUR) 150.-- range, nice samples of course since "well used samples" are difficult to find over here ...

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had Soligor 2.8/200 and it couldn't stand up with the Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200 (mf-Version)
I had Canon FD 2.8/200 and Pentax A* 2.8/200 and they were close but the Pentax being a bit better.
The Tokina was not really far from them.
Different with 2xTC (Kiron/Kenko MC7):
The Tokina did loose much more of it's Quality - the Canon loosing much more, really not good to be used with TC. Best to be used with the TC was the Pentax.

I also compared the Tamron 2.5/90 macro + 2xTC with them and the 90+TC was wide open worse (at 2.5 and being a macro lens) but stopped down a bit (f 4.0) at least on par with the Tokina.
Stopped down to 8/11/16 it is 'practically' on par with the primes. Differences are subtle.

The AF-Version (pro II) of the Tokina is much better and can be used with manual focussing quite good.
In my comparison it was obviously sharper than the Canon L 4/70-200!

As for the 3.5/4.0-lenses at 200mm:
There are many of them .... I tried many of them but not one of them was as good as the Pentax A* 2.8/200.
If you want to go out with a lighter 200mm than it's o.k. but not Quality-wise.

I had a Vivitar 3.5/200 for those situations.... very good build Quality and quite good optically when stopped down 1/2 stop.
If you want the 200mm lenses to use them with TC


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ref 2* converter, I find the Minolta 200 mm f 2.8 works pretty well with the 300-S minolta converter (gives a compact 400 mm f 5.6)...but I am not an "expert" in judging/evaluating lens's quality. Steve may step in if he tried it.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:36 pm    Post subject: Re: 200mm F2.8 what's the choice? Reply with quote
HKG wrote:
1) Soligor 200mm F2.8
2) Minolta 200/2.8 TELE ROKKOR
3) Canon NFD 200mm F2.8
4) CARL ZEISS JENA SONNAR 200/2.8 M42
5) Others


What is your recommendation?


Nikon 180mm ED f/2.8 for colour control, Contax 180mm f/2.8 for contrast and tone, sharpness.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can't beat the Jena Sonnar 2.8/200mm. I couldn't resist to put it on A7 right away:


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I choose Adaptall 180 2.5 Smile


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Can't beat the Jena Sonnar 2.8/200mm. I couldn't resist to put it on A7 right away:


Got one, but stopped using after I moved from DSLR to mirrorless. It's a good lens, but a beast. Maybe if I removed the sun shade which adds about 40% to the length, but it will still be very heavy, especially in relation to the camera.

Anyone here in the states want a good one?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Indeed it isn't easy to hold it for a while. 1200g they say: http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1664.html
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2