View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6005 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Here is one more image from this outing.
Again some HDR from LR and NIK
#1
If there was any doubt about the resolving power of this lens, have a look at this very small crop from the previous image.
OH
#1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
WNG555 wrote:
_________________ "The eyes are useless when the mind is blind."
Sony ILCE-6000, SELP1650, SEL1855, SEL55210, SEL5018. Sigma 19/30/60mm f2.8 EX DN Art.
Rokinon 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye, 14mm f2.8 IF ED UMC. Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fish-Eye.
And a bunch of Manual-Focus Lenses
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Belcanto
Joined: 17 Oct 2013 Posts: 72 Location: Karlstad, Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Belcanto wrote:
I had this lens for awhile, and I liked most things about it. Sharpness, rendering, size, close focusing ability. What made me sell it was that I found it hard to focus correct due to short focus throw. The most compatible lens to the Fdn is fuji's 200/4.5. If possible even sharper. I ended up with a Tessar 200/4 wich I like alot.
Kjell _________________ "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
O. Wilde |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ektar
Joined: 09 Oct 2019 Posts: 24
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ektar wrote:
I know this is an old thread, but thanks to those who've posted images and who've discussed the difference between this and both earlier versions and the f2.8 version. Have probably cost me money, but an educated buyer, right? _________________ --
Older than my lenses... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4077 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Belcanto wrote: |
I ended up with a Tessar 200/4 wich I like alot.
Kjell |
Intriguing little lens ... how is it, CA wise, compared to the nFD 4/200mm? The Zeiss CY 4/200mm shares the same basic design with most 4/200mm lenses of its time (not with nFD 4/200, though) - but so does the CY Zeiss 4/80-200mm, which is quite a bit sharper than its siblings from Minolta, Leica, Pentax etc.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
davev8app
Joined: 09 Dec 2010 Posts: 134 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
davev8app wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
In a comparison test:- My Canon FDn 200mm f4 either is a slightly inferior copy or my Kiron 80-200 f4 is a very good copy...as I can't see any difference in results e.g. A4 prints, so as the Kiron is more useful my Canon is not used.
So it would be interesting if more members added their views on the FDn 200mm f4 |
Sounds familiar ....i did a big test of 70ish to 200mm ish zoom lenses ..some known to be very good to sum not and i had very interesting results ..on a 16MP NEX at 70 mm the lenses differed as expected, but at 200mm they all look the same !! i could not work it out ...surely it cannot be camera shake it was a bright summers day my shutter speed was 1000th+ but was handheld and as no EVF on the NEX the camera is not stuck to my head ..well i reshoot the 200mm test photos on a tripod thinking i am wasting my time but the results were night and day ..the poorer lenses looked just the same as the 1st test but the better lenses were way better _________________ nex-3c MD f3.5 35-70mm macro.. rokkor 50-135 F3.5 FDn 50mm 1.4.. black jupiter 11 135 F4..big list of 28mm 35mm 50mm 135mm to see what are keepers 5D,40D ,20D, MF Tamron SP 90 F2.5 Macro, Canon 17-35 F2.8L, Canon 80-200 F2.8L Magic drainpipe, Tokina ATX 28-70 F2.6-F2.8 Pro11, Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS The slow one Canon 100-300 F5.6L. Lens i wish i never sold>> Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180 mm f2.8< |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4077 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
davev8app wrote: |
Sounds familiar ....i did a big test of 70ish to 200mm ish zoom lenses ... at 200mm they all look the same !! i could not work it out ...surely it cannot be camera shake it was a bright summers day my shutter speed was 1000th+ but was handheld and as no EVF on the NEX the camera is not stuck to my head ... |
There are lots of such crap tests around ...
davev8app wrote: |
well i reshoot the 200mm test photos on a tripod thinking i am wasting my time but the results were night and day ..the poorer lenses looked just the same as the 1st test but the better lenses were way better |
_________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
A crap test is one that looks at the corners wide open at infinity. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
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
|